Source: http://scientists4wiredtech.com/sebastopol/sb-muni-code/
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 21:51:54+00:00

Document:
8.58.030 Moratorium on the installation of smart meters and related equipment.
8.58.040 Immediate threat to health, safety and welfare.
A. The City of Sebastopol (the “City”), through its police powers granted by Article XI of the California Constitution, retains broad discretion to legislate for public purposes and for the general welfare, including but not limited to matters of public health, safety and consumer protection and as a local government, the City of Sebastopol finds they have a legal duty to defend and protect the health and welfare of this community.
D. Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) is installing smart meters in Central and Northern California and is installing these meters in Sebastopol, despite the City’s request for a moratorium and health and safety studies. PG&E has already installed antennas to support the smart meter system at several sites within the public rights-of-way in the City without obtaining permits from the City as required by the City Code. Further, PG&E did not comply with Section XIV of General Order 131-D of the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), which requires a utility to consult with the local jurisdiction on land use matters prior to locating its facilities.
E. Concerns about the impact, safety and accuracy of smart meters, as well as the vulnerability to hacking and intrusion, which will make our electrical grid more susceptible to terrorist attack and disruption, have been raised throughout California and nationwide, leading local and State governmental organizations to call for delays, opt-in programs, or outright bans on the deployment of smart meters. The City of Sebastopol also has concerns regarding PG&E’s change in how meters will now be read, effectively reducing the frequency of documented simple inspections (including “smell test” around gas meter for leaks, observation of meter and adjacent breaker/fuse box for obvious heating, checks for observed local illegal bypass of meters) that reduces the safety of potentially dangerous utility supply to homes. The City requests that all utility metering be physically on-site inspected, by an adequately licensed person, every month. A written, certifiable record should document these inspections.
F. The CPUC currently has pending before it an application evaluating a smart meter opt-out program, which includes a community-wide opt-out possibility. PG&E’s opt-out proposal will not protect the privacy, health and economic interests that are raised by numerous Sebastopol residents, because the plan (as set forth in CPUC Application A 11-03-014) requires substantial upfront and ongoing monthly fees, which are unreasonable and do not reflect any savings garnered by maintaining current analog meters and avoiding the acquisition and installation costs incurred by replacement with smart meters. In addition, PG&E’s fee proposal also effectively discriminates against those ratepayers who elect to opt out for health or safety reasons, which is in violation of the prohibition on prejudicial rates in California Public Utilities Code Section 453(b).
G. Indeed, major problems and deficiencies with smart meters in California have been brought to the attention of the Sebastopol City Council, including PG&E’s confirmation that smart meters have provided incorrect readings costing ratepayers untold thousands of dollars in overcharges and PG&E’s records outlined “risks” and “issues” including an ongoing inability to recover real-time data because of faulty hardware originating with PG&E vendors. Concerns have also been raised that the new smart-meter devices do not appear to have the same operating history information, extensive service history, or public-reviewed proven safety record as the older style analog meters.
H. The ebb and flow of gas and electricity into homes discloses detailed information about private details of daily life. Energy usage data, measured moment by moment, allows the reconstruction of a household’s activities: when people wake up, when they come home, when they go on vacation, and even when they take a hot bath. Smart meters represent a new form of technology that relays detailed hitherto confidential information reflecting the times and amounts of the use of electrical power without adequately protecting that data from being accessed by unauthorized persons or entities and, as such, pose an unreasonable intrusion of utility customers’ privacy rights and security interests.
I. Significant health questions have been raised concerning the increased electromagnetic frequency radiation (EMF) emitted by the wireless technology in smart meters, which will be in every house, apartment and business, thereby adding additional manmade EMF to our environment around the clock to the already existing EMF from utility poles, individual meters and telephone poles.
J. FCC safety standards do not exist for chronic long-term exposure to EMF or from multiple sources, and reported adverse health effects from electromagnetic pollution include sleep disorders, irritability, short-term memory loss, headaches, anxiety, nausea, DNA breakages, abnormal cell growth, cancer, premature aging, etc. Because of untested technology, international scientists, environmental agencies, advocacy groups and doctors are calling for the use of caution in wireless technologies.
K. The primary justification given for the smart meter program is the assertion that it will encourage customers to move some of their electricity usage from daytime to evening hours; however, PG&E has conducted no actual pilot projects to determine whether this assumption is in fact correct. Nontransmitting time-of-day meters are already available for customers who desire them, and enhanced customer education is a viable nontechnological alternative to encourage electricity use time-shifting. Further, some engineers and energy conservation experts believe that the smart meter program, in totality, could well actually increase total electricity consumption and therefore the carbon footprint.
L. Because the potential risks to the health, safety and welfare of Sebastopol residents are so great, the Sebastopol City Council wishes to adopt a moratorium on the installation of smart meters and related equipment within the Sebastopol City limits until the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) completes its Phase 2 hearings on community opt-out and the City of Sebastopol City Council makes their decision and actions based upon the outcome of the CPUC hearings. This moratorium will allow the CPUC petition process to be completed and for additional information to be collected and analyzed regarding potential problems with smart meters.
M. There is a current and immediate threat to public health, safety and welfare because, without the urgency ordinance codified in this chapter, smart meters or supporting equipment will be installed or constructed or modified in the City without PG&E’s complying with the CPUC process for consultation with the local jurisdiction, the City’s Code requirements, and subjecting residents of Sebastopol to the privacy, security, health, accuracy and consumer fraud risks of the unproven smart meter technology.
N. The City Council hereby finds that it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the adoption and implementation of the ordinance codified in this chapter may have a significant effect on the environment. This chapter does not authorize construction or installation of any facilities and, in fact, imposes greater restrictions on such construction and installation in order to protect the public health, safety and general welfare. This chapter is therefore exempt from the environmental review requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations.
A. Moratorium on the Installation of Smart Meters and Related Equipment within the City of Sebastopol or in, along, across, upon, under and over the Public Streets and Places within the City of Sebastopol.
1. No smart meter may be installed in or on any home, apartment, condominium, business, or any City property in the City of Sebastopol, and no equipment related to smart meters may be installed in, on, under, or above any public street or public right-of-way in the City until such time as the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) completes its Phase 2 hearings on community opt-out, at which time the Sebastopol City Council shall consider whether to extend or terminate this prohibition in light of the then-current data on smart meter privacy, safety, accuracy and health effects.
Except where specifically provided, any person violating any of the provisions of the Municipal Code shall be deemed guilty of an infraction and any person violating the same section or portion of an ordinance on a second or subsequent occasion shall thereafter be deemed guilty of an infraction, and any person violating the same section or portion of an ordinance on a third or subsequent occasion shall thereafter be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction of either an infraction or a misdemeanor shall be punishable as provided by law. Fines shall be set by bail schedule.
In addition, violations shall be deemed public nuisances, with enforcement by injunction or any other remedy authorized by law.
3. The Sebastopol City Manager is hereby authorized to direct all City departments to facilitate compliance with the purpose and intent of this chapter using the enforcement powers described in subsection (A)(2) of this section.
4. The City of Sebastopol requires that all further deployment is stayed until the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) completes its Phase 2 hearings on community opt-out and the City of Sebastopol City Council makes their decision and actions based upon the outcome of the CPUC hearings.
(C) it is necessary to preserve the public health and safety of all residents or landowners adjacent to such users as are affected by this urgency ordinance as well as to protect all citizens of the City of Sebastopol by preserving and improving the aesthetic and economic condition of the City.
The City Council declares this chapter is necessary as an urgency measure and is necessary to address existing threats to the public health, peace, property, safety and general welfare of this community and urgency for its adoption are set forth in the findings stated above.
During the continuation of the effectiveness of this chapter, the provisions of this chapter shall govern. If there is any conflict between the provisions of this chapter and any provision of the Sebastopol City Code, or any City ordinance, resolution or policy, the provisions of this chapter shall control.
The ordinance codified in this chapter, being adopted as an urgency measure for the immediate protection of the public safety, health, and general welfare and containing a declaration of the facts constituting the urgency, upon passage by a minimum four-fifths vote of the City Council, shall take effect immediately upon its adoption and shall continue in effect until modified or rescinded.
Copies of the ordinance codified in this chapter shall, within 15 days after its passage and adoption, be posted in three public places in the City of Sebastopol: (A) City Hall bulletin board; (B) Sonoma West Times and News; (C) Sebastopol library bulletin board.
“Telecommunications facility” means a facility that transmits and/or receives electromagnetic signals. It includes antennas, microwave dishes, horns, and other types of equipment for the transmission or receipt of such signals, telecommunications towers or similar structures supporting said equipment, equipment buildings, parking areas, and other accessory development. It does not include facilities staffed with other than occasional maintenance and installation personnel, minor antennas meeting the requirements of SMC 17.100.020 through 17.100.060, vehicle or other outdoor storage yards, offices, or broadcast studios other than those designed for emergency use.
“Telecommunications facility – major” means telecommunications facilities 35 to 100 feet in height and that adhere to SMC 17.100.010 to 17.100.230.
“Telecommunications facility – minor” means telecommunications facilities no greater than 35 feet in height and that adhere to** SMC 17.100.010 through 17.100.240**. If a facility does not meet these criteria then it is considered a “major” telecommunications facility.
“Telecommunications facility – co-located” means a telecommunications facility comprised of a single telecommunications tower or building supporting one or more antennas, dishes, or similar devices owned or used by more than one public or private entity.
“Telecommunications facility – commercial” means a telecommunications facility that is operated primarily for a business purpose or purposes.
“Telecommunications facility – multiple user” means a telecommunications facility comprised of multiple telecommunications towers or buildings supporting one or more antennas owned or used by more than one public or private entity.
“Telecommunications facility – noncommercial” means a telecommunications facility that is operated solely for a nonbusiness purpose.
“Telecommunications tower” means a mast, pole, monopole, guyed tower, lattice tower, freestanding tower, or other structure designed and primarily used to support antennas. A ground- or building-mounted mast less than 13 feet tall and six inches in diameter supporting a single antenna shall not be considered a telecommunications tower.
§ 17.100.010 Purpose – Applicability.
§ 17.100.030 Minor antennas – Basic requirements.
§ 17.100.040 Minor antennas – Satellite dishes.
§ 17.100.050 Minor antennas – Panel antennas.
§ 17.100.060 Other minor antennas.
§ 17.100.070 Telecommunications facilities – Minimum application requirements.
§ 17.100.080 Telecommunications facilities – Standard agreements required.
§ 17.100.090 Telecommunications facilities – Life of permits.
§ 17.100.100 Telecommunications facilities – Structural requirements.
§ 17.100.110 Telecommunications facilities – Basic tower and building design.
§ 17.100.120 Telecommunications facilities – Critical disaster response facilities.
§ 17.100.130 Telecommunications facilities – Location.
§ 17.100.140 Telecommunications facilities – Height determination.
§ 17.100.150 Telecommunications facilities – Co-located and multiple-user facilities.
§ 17.100.160 Telecommunications facilities – Lighting.
§ 17.100.170 Telecommunications facilities – Roads and parking.
§ 17.100.180 Telecommunications facilities – Vegetation protection and facility screening.
§ 17.100.190 Telecommunications facilities – Fire prevention.
§ 17.100.200 Telecommunications facilities – Environmental resource protection.
§ 17.100.210 Telecommunications – Noise and traffic.
§ 17.100.220 Telecommunications facilities – Visual compatibility.
§ 17.100.230 Telecommunications facilities – NIER exposure.
§ 17.100.240 Telecommunications facilities – Minor facilities.
§ 17.100.250 Telecommunications facilities – Exceptions.
§ 17.100.260 Telecommunications facilities – Public notice.
The purpose and intent of this chapter is to provide a uniform and comprehensive set of standards for the development of telecommunications facilities and installation of minor antennas. The regulations contained herein are designed to protect and promote public health, safety, and community welfare while at the same time not unduly restricting the development of needed telecommunications facilities and important amateur radio installations. They have been also developed to further the policies of the Sebastopol General Plan.
For any roof- or mast-mounted satellite dish larger than 3.28 feet in diameter, a building permit has been obtained and compliance with the standards listed in Sections 613.0 and 615.0 of the BOCA Basic Building Code has been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Building Official.
The applicant has not filed an appeal pursuant to Chapter 17.320 SMC within 10 working days of the notice required under subsection (A)(1)(b) of this section. If an appeal is filed, the City shall be authorized to enter the property and perform the necessary work if the appeal is dismissed or final action on it taken in favor of the Planning Director.
The facility has not been upgraded to minimize its impact to the greatest extent permitted by the technology that exists at the time of renewal and is consistent with the provisions of universal service at affordable rates.
The grounds for appeal of issuance of a renewal shall be limited to a showing that one or more of the situations listed above do in fact exist or that the notice required under SMC 17.100.260 was not provided.
Measures shall be taken to ensure that the facility is operational in the event of a disaster or power loss.
B. Demonstration of compliance with the requirements of subsections (A)(1), (2), (4) and (5) (fire only) of this section shall be evidenced by a certification signed by the Fire Chief on the building plans submitted.
A. An analysis shall be prepared by or on behalf of the applicant, subject to the approval of the decision-making body, which identifies all reasonable, technically feasible, alternative locations and/or facilities which would provide the proposed telecommunications service. The intention of the alternatives analysis is to present alternative strategies which would minimize the number, size, and adverse environmental impacts of facilities necessary to provide the needed services to the subject area. The analysis shall address the potential for co-location at an existing or a new site and the potential to locate facilities as close as possible to the intended service area. It shall also explain the rationale for selection of the proposed site in view of the relative merits of any of the feasible alternatives. Approval of the project is subject to the decision-making body making a finding that the proposed site results in fewer or less severe environmental impacts than any feasible alternative site. The City may require independent verification of this analysis at the applicant’s expense. Facilities which are not proposed to be co-located with another telecommunications facility shall provide a written explanation why the subject facility is not a candidate for co-location.
B. All co-located and multiple-user telecommunications facilities shall be designed to promote facility and site sharing. To this end telecommunications towers and necessary appurtenances, including but not limited to parking areas, access roads, utilities and equipment buildings shall be shared by site users when in the determination of the Planning Director or Planning Commission, as appropriate, this will minimize overall visual impact to the community.
A. Telecommunications facility shall not be sited or operated in such a manner that it poses, either by itself or in combination with other such facilities, a potential threat to public health. To that end no telecommunications facility or combination of facilities shall produce at any time power densities in any inhabited area as this term is defined in Chapter 17.08 SMC that exceed the FCC adopted NIER standard for human exposure, as amended from time to time.
B. Initial compliance with this requirement shall be demonstrated for any facility within 400 feet of residential uses or sensitive receptors such as schools, churches, hospitals, etc., and all broadcast radio and television facilities, regardless of adjacent land uses, through submission, at the time of application for the necessary permit or entitlement, of NIER (nonionizing electromagnetic radiation) calculations specifying NIER levels in the inhabited area where the levels produced are projected to be highest. If these calculated NIER levels exceed 80 percent of the NIER standard established by this section, the applicant shall hire a qualified electrical engineer licensed by the State of California to measure NIER levels at said location after the facility is in operation. A report of these measurements and his/her findings with respect to compliance with the established NIER standard shall be submitted to the Planning Director. Said facility shall not commence normal operations until it complies with, or has been modified to comply with, this standard. Proof of said compliance shall be a certification provided by the engineer who prepared the original report. In order to assure the objectivity of the analysis, the City may require, at the applicant’s expense, independent verification of the results of the analysis.
C. Every telecommunications facility within 400 feet of an inhabited area and all broadcast radio and television facilities shall demonstrate continued compliance with the NIER standard established by this section. Every five years a report listing each transmitter and antenna present at the facility and the effective radiated power radiated shall be submitted to the Planning Director. If either the equipment or effective radiated power has changed, calculations specifying NIER levels in the inhabited areas where said levels are projected to be highest shall be prepared. NIER calculations shall also be prepared every time the adopted NIER standard changes. If calculated levels in either of these cases exceed 80 percent of the standard established by this section, the operator of the facility shall hire a qualified electrical engineer licensed by the State of California to measure the actual NIER levels produced. A report of these calculations, required measurements, if any, and the author’s/engineer’s findings with respect to compliance with the current NIER standard shall be submitted to the Planning Director within five years of facility approval and every five years thereafter. In the case of a change in the standard, the required report shall be submitted within 90 days of the date said change becomes effective.
N. All utility lines to the facility from public or private streets shall be undergrounded.
A. Exceptions to the requirements specified in SMC 17.100.010 through 17.100.210 may be granted through issuance of a use permit by the Planning Commission. Such a permit may only be approved if the Planning Commission finds, after receipt of sufficient evidence, that failure to adhere to the standard under consideration in the specific instance will not increase the visibility of the facility or decrease public safety.
B. An exception to the requirements of SMC 17.100.160 and 17.100.180 may only be granted upon written concurrence by the Fire Chief.

References: § 17

§ 17

§ 17

§ 17

§ 17

§ 17

§ 17

§ 17

§ 17

§ 17

§ 17

§ 17

§ 17

§ 17

§ 17

§ 17

§ 17

§ 17

§ 17

§ 17

§ 17

§ 17

§ 17

§ 17

§ 17