Campanelli Answer 1: 35:50 to 41:00 — Five Grounds of defeating WTF applications (all (based on substantial written evidence — 75% success rate):
Aesthetics harms
Property value harms
Violates local zoning ordinances designed to protect against adverse impacts of WTFS: applicants must prove a significant gap in personal wireless services and that the proposed tower is the least intrusive means
Lack of sufficient fall zone (structural failure, ice-fall or debris-fall)
Possible silver bullet for soft targets: check original deeds for restrictive covenant that prevents using property for commercial purpose (applies to schools and churches, where land has been donated)
McCollough Answer 1: 41:58 to 44:30 — re: Sept 2018 FCC-Order 18-133, many parts that do no appear in the rules, is an interpretive rule and is not binding on local zoning authority or the Federal district court; the telecom laws have been contoured differently in each Federal Circuit to assess "prohibition" language
Campanelli Answer 2: 46:20 to 48:15 — very difficult to remove cell towers that are already built (5% success rate), but if there is a defect in the authorization applicant does not properly notice or builds something different than what is shown in plans, those are grounds to revoke the permit
Campanelli Answer 2: 54:11 to 55:48 — If a Wireless Co sues a local authority, they don’t win money damages and don’t win attorneys fees; Title 47 § 332(c)(7)(A) says that local authorities hands are not tied; FCC never enforces compliance with FCC RF-EMR exposure guidelines
Campanelli Answer 3: 1:02:18 to 1:03:30 — as-applied challenge to fundamental right to self- defense (right in CA constitution) from illegal intrusion of RF-EMR into homes; cases could be raised for battery or nuisance; cases are very fact-specific and not suited for class action, but expensive for individuals as one has to square off against the Crown Castles, and Verizons of the world.
Campanelli Answer 4: 1:43:10 to 1:44:55 — FCC Order 18-133 has no affect on local authority with respect to 1996-TCA; it is an interpretive ruling that has no impact on a local government’s ability to regulate the placement of WTFs
Campanelli Answer 5: 1:51:40 to 1:52:10 — for injunctive relief you have to show irreparable injury and that is difficult, however EMS with a doctor’s diagnosis could carry the day
