Update: Montgomery County Council overwhelmingly approved a zoning bill allowing the installation of 5G antennas in some residential neighborhoods.

The 7-2 vote on Tuesday disappointed some county residents, who have been fighting against the bill for more than two years. Ultimately, most councilmembers, including Craig Rice and Nancy Navarro, cited concerns about the need for equal access to 5G technology following the pandemic.

“The reality is the majority of people are looking for ways to try and keep their family connected,” Rice told his colleagues. “They would bring their children and put them in the parking lots of their jobs just so that they could log on to Zoom and make sure they had access to their classwork and their classmates.”

Rice added that many of the residents opposed to the 5G bill are hiding “behind the auspices of racial equity and social justice.”

Navarro agreed. “How can we sit here and somehow say that better access is somehow rooted in inequity and works against our push for racial equity and social justice?” Navarro said while explaining her ‘yes’ vote.

Councilmembers Will Jawando and Sidney Katz were the two dissenting votes. Both said the county should wait until a federal judge rules on a challenge to the Federal Communications Commission’s 25-year-old safety guidelines on exposure to radio-frequency radiation, expected in August.

“I don’t know [5G] is safe, but I do know that if it’s not, that industry wouldn’t care,” Jawando told councilmembers. “Taking a step to allow the court to decide…is a prudent step.”

If the federal judge does require the FCC to reassess safety guidelines, it could put the FCC’s 2018 order accelerating the deployment of 5G and the county’s zoning amendment on hold, according to Livhu Ndou, a land use attorney for the council.

The zoning bill’s opponents, including Theodora Scarato, the executive director of Environmental Health Trust and a member of the county’s Coalition to Protect Neighborhoods, said advocates were disappointed, but would keep pushing against 5G installation.

“We need to raise awareness on what has happened [today], and then we need to get it reversed,” Scarato said at a press conference following the council vote. “Maybe bring it to a referendum for the entire public.”

Original: Montgomery County Council will hold a final vote Tuesday on a bill allowing the installation of 5G antennas in some residential neighborhoods. The vote comes amid pushback from some residents and elected officials.

Implementing 5G technology has faced opposition in the county for years. Opponents are asking the Council to delay the vote, requesting more community input. They cite unknowns around the safety of 5G, as well as concerns that amendments added last week haven’t been reviewed for racial equity and climate impacts.

The zoning bill delineates where and how telecommunications companies like AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile, and Sprint can set up 5G wireless technology, which can be up to a hundred times faster than previous generations. 5G technology uses shorter, high frequency radio waves, which allows smaller equipment, but the shorter range also means antennas need to be placed closer together. The bill requires 5G antennas to be at least 30 feet from residential homes and establishes an appeal process if neighbors object to a new antenna placement. Amendments include requiring replacement 5G antennas installed on streetlight poles to be at least 20 feet off the ground.

Councilmember Hans Riemer introduced the measure and told councilmembers last week that implementation of 5G will “bridge the digital divide” in the county. Riemer is running for County Executive Marc Elrich’s seat in next year’s elections.

Elrich, Councilmember Sidney Katz, and Councilmember Evan Glass had proposed establishing a community workgroup to give residents input on the bill, but that proposal was rejected in a council vote last week.

“We’ve been calling for…a community workgroup,” Theodora Scarato, executive director of Environmental Health Trust and a member of the county’s Coalition to Protect Neighborhoods, a group of county advocates. “It just seems like they’re ramming this through.”

Rick Meyer, President of the Montgomery Coalition for the Control of Cell Towers, says the council isn’t listening to constituents’ concerns.

“It was very very sad, very disappointing to see the council so cavalierly pandering to the interests of the wireless lobby and pushing aside the concerns of the residents of Montgomery County,” Meyer said at a coalition press conference on Tuesday afternoon.

In a letter written to the council, Meyer and other residents requested that the vote be delayed until a federal judge rules on a challenge to the FCC’s 25-year-old safety guidelines on exposure to radio-frequency radiation.

Residents are also raising concerns about the bill passing without a thorough review of racial equity and environmental impacts. Other coalition members, like Nicole Williams, said at the press conference that the bill doesn’t address the “digital divide” because there are no provisions ensuring affordable monthly service for lower income residents. The letter also states that several local environmental groups, including the Maryland Sierra Club, have raised concerns that 5G implementation risks increasing energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions.

“We should have a workgroup,” Katz told DCist/WAMU. “I believe it would give the public the opportunity to weigh in with their thoughts.”

Katz intends to vote against the bill on Tuesday. Elrich says he doesn’t support the bill as drafted. The council has the final say on zoning bills.

“I don’t think you can make decisions like this without greater community engagement,” Elrich told DCist/WAMU during a Wednesday press conference.

But Riemer says the county is in violation of FCC rules stating that localities cannot block implementation of 5G technology. A federal court of appeals last year upheld the FCC’s order limiting the ability of localities to regulate telecom providers, accelerating the deployment of 5G technology.

“They want to sit around and workgroup things that are clearly and painfully illegal,” Riemer said.

But Elrich, who said he has a smartphone and uses 5G, rejected Riemer’s reasoning, saying it’s “a ridiculous excuse.”

“A workgroup isn’t going to write the bill,” Elrich added. “None of us are going to put anything illegal in a bill…frankly it would be foolish…we can both mutually agree that neither of will introduce legislation that’s illegal and then we can have a workgroup.”

Riemer however says the county is currently in violation of FCC rules, which could trigger lawsuits by telecom companies.

“Right now we have a complete prohibition effectively on antennas in most of the county…we are in violation of the FCC’s mandate, ” Riemer said. “The companies could easily take us to court and the courts would say you have to comply with the federal mandate.”

The restrictions in the bill also mean that telecommunications companies need to seek the county’s approval to install cell towers. Riemer said the bill has stricter rules for 5G than any neighboring jurisdiction.

“Our bill has more restrictions than our counterparts [in the District, Prince George’s County, and Virginia],” Riemer told DCist/WAMU. “There are some compromises here to try to meet community criticism.”

Coalition advocates rejected Reimer’s statement and cited possible health risks, including a 2018 study from the National Toxicology Program which says that high doses of radio frequency radiation (RDR) were linked to cancerous heart tumors in male rats. The World Health Organization notes that extensive research hasn’t yet found a causal link between wireless technology and adverse health effects, but also says there are few studies of newer 5G technology.

But, in 2013 the WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer classified RDR as “possibly carcinogenic” and stated that “there is evidence that falls short of being conclusive that exposure may cause cancer in humans.”

This story was updated with additional research from the WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer.

This story has been updated to reflect that the county executive does not have veto authority on zoning matters.