Petaluma Creamery

Join Petaluma for Wireless Safety to Help Preserve the Quiet Enjoyment of Streets in West Petaluma.

Email/Call Brittany Bendix, bbendix@cityofpetaluma.org | 707-778-4314 
Deputy Contract Planning Manager for the City of Petaluma (employee of the m-group)

Email/Call Heather Hines, hhines@cityofpetaluma.org | 707-778-4316 

Oct 23, 2020: so-called “complete” delivery of Public Records.


Link to Spec Sheet for Commscope NHH-45B-R2B Antenna x 16 Qty.
Port/
Channel
Frequency
(MHz)
Ant. Gain
(dBi)
Power Ratio Max Input Power
× Power Ratio
Watts ERP x Qty ERP
(Watts)
1 696-806 16.8 47.9 300 × 47.9 = 14,370 × 16 = 229,920
2 806-896 17.5 56.2 300 × 56.2 = 16,860 × 16 = 269,760
3 1695-1880 19.3 85.1 300 × 85.1 = 25,530 × 16 = 408,480
4 1850-1990 19.9 97.7 300 × 97.7 = 29,310 × 16 = 468,960
5 1920-2200 20.3 107.2 300 × 107.2 = 32,16 × 16 = 514,560
6 2300-2360 20.8 120.2 250 × 120.2 = 30,050 × 16 = 480,800
  TOTAL: Max ERP Output
       Antenna Capability
      148,280 × 16 = 2,372,480
Watts ERP
  With 3dB override . . .       296,560 x 16 = 4,744,960
Watts ERP

This table assumes one channel per port.

2,372,480 is nearly 40,000 times higher than 60 Watts ERP. The size and maximum power output of the proposed 16-Antenna WTF is O-V-E-R-K-I-L-L, no matter how you slice it.
   

For Perspective. . .

Compare this WTF’s Antenna Capability of 2,372,480 Watts ERP to the expected 60 Watts ERP (10 Watts per channel x 6 channels = 60 Watts ERP), according to the Wireless Infrastructure Guidelines published by Federal Communications Commission (FCC): FCC Human Exposure to RF-EMR: Guidelines for Cellular Antenna Sites:

FCC: “In urban areas, cell sites commonly emit an ERP of 10 watts/channel or less

This WTF, therefore violates the 1996 Telecommunications Act

47 U.S. Code § 324 – Use of minimum power

In all circumstances, except in case of radio communications or signals relating to vessels in distress, all radio stations, including those owned and operated by the United States, shall use the minimum amount of power necessary to carry out the communication desired.

(June 19, 1934, ch. 652, title III, § 324, 48 Stat. 1091.)


Unsafe at Any G!

Read the Project Documents


Pivotal Letters From Bendix to Applicant — July 24, 2020 & Nov 10, 2020

July 24, 2020  

Ms. Maria Kim
Complete Wireless
2009 V Street
Sacramento, CA 95818

RE: Verizon Telecommunications Project: 611 Western Avenue — File No. PLUP-19-0004

Ms. Kim,

This letter provides information pertaining to your Conditional Use and Site Plan and Architectural Review applications to construct a Major Telecommunications Facility at 611 Western Avenue. Based on the latest information placed in the record concerning the site’s eligibility for national listing and inclusion on the California Register of Historical Places, as well as the still unresolved safety issues related to the operations of the Petaluma Creamery, the current application is not eligible to be approved as a Major Telecommunications Facility at its current location for the reasons outlined below.

As previously discussed, the City has raised concerns related to the location of the proposed telecommunications facility on an existing building at 611 Western Avenue that contains the ammonia refrigeration tanks for the Petaluma Creamery, the principal use of the property. These concerns relate to findings and recommendations in the ‘5-Year Hazard Review of the Ammonia Refrigeration System’ and ‘Seismic Assessment’ prepared by Resource Compliance, which have not yet been addressed by the property owner. Given the safety concerns identified in these reports, the Planning Division determined that it could not recommend support of the proposal and was prepared to recommend denial of the project at the publicly noticed Planning Commission hearing on June 23, 2020. At the request of the applicant, the item was continued to the August 11, 2020, Planning Commission hearing to enable Verizon the opportunity to review the safety concerns with the property owner.

Since that time, Planning staff has received additional information indicating that the State Historic Preservation Office has included the property at 611 Western Avenue on the California Register of Historical Resources. As a result of this listing, the project site is considered a landmark property per Petaluma Implementing Zoning Ordinance Section 15.040. Although the State has not yet posted this determination on the electronic register available to the public, staff has confirmed with the Northwest Information Center that the letter provided by the State Historic Preservation Officer as a result of the Section 106 review process automatically places the site on the California Register, for purposes of Section 15.040.

As a result of the site’s landmark status under the Implementing Zoning Ordinance only telecommunication facilities that qualify as “exempt,” “mini,” or “minor” facilities are eligible to be installed pursuant to Municipal Code Section 14.44.020(S). As proposed, the project does not meet the definition criteria for “exempt” or “mini” facilities. Although the proposal could proceed as a minor facility, per Muni Code Sections 14.44.090(B) and (R) a minor facility may not have a combined effective radiated power radiated by all antennas present on the parcel in excess one thousand five hundred watts, and may not be located within 75-feet from a residential dwelling unit. The Verizon Telecommunication application proposes a facility with a maximum effective radiate power of 46,800 watts and the installation location, at the southern corner of the property is located directly adjacent to a residential unit at 432 Baker Street. Therefore, in order for the current application to be eligible for approval, in addition to addressing the concerns related to the safety of the ammonia refrigeration system noted above, the project must also be revised to comply with Muni Code Section 14.44.090(B) and (R).

As you are aware there is currently a Tolling Agreement in effect until September 1, 2020, with an active request from the applicant to extend the tolling period to October 6, 2020. Per previous communications with Verizon counsel, City Staff believes additional time remains on the shot clock for consideration of the pending application. Based on staff’s review of the current application record it will be necessary for the applicant to revise the project as described above, if not, it will be necessary for staff to schedule the project for denial prior to expiration of the tolling agreement.

Please do not hesitate to contact me at bbendix@cityofpetaluma.org or at (707) 778-4314 with any follow-up questions and discussion items that result from this letter.

Sincerely,

Brittany Bendix
Deputy Planning Manager
cc: Heather Hines
Eric Danly
Justin Shiu


CITY OF PETALUMA
POST OFFICE BOX 61
PETALUMA, CA 94953-0061

November 10, 2020

Maria Kim
2009 V Street
Sacramento, CA 95818

RE: Verizon Telecommunications Facility

611 Western Avenue (APN 008-032-009)
File No. PLUP-19-0004

Ms. Kim,

This letter provides information pertaining to your Conditional Use and Site Plan and Architectural Review applications to construct a telecommunications facility at 611 Western Avenue. Please be advised that we have engaged an outside firm to assist with staff’s consideration of the application and are requesting additional information to facilitate this process.

The requested information is as follows:

  1. Please provide supplemental information on the existing/proposed coverage maps supporting this application. A screenshot of the submitted coverage map is provided on the next page for reference.

    • a. Which Verizon wireless band is this coverage map calculated for?
    • b. Provide signal coverage maps for all Verizon wireless bands (existing & proposed) to be deployed at the proposed site.
    • c. Identify the analytical modeling algorithm employed to prepare the coverage maps, such as Okumura Hata, Cost-231-Hata, ITU-R P.529 ECC33, LongleyRice Irregular Terrain (ITM), or Verizon proprietary software.
    • d. Provide existing and projected Best Server Map plots for sites surrounding the Creamery site.
  2. Please provide supplemental information supporting [establishing] the need for the proposed site to address capacity [coverage] issues that consider:

    • a. All existing Verizon sites serving the service area proposed for the Creamery site
    • b. Each Verizon wireless band [and channel, selected from the list in Exhibit A, below], i.e. 700 MHz, 1900 MHz (PCS) & 2100 MHz (AWS) by antenna sector
    • c. Key Performance Indicator (KPI) network performance data covering 3 or more months of peak/average measurement statistics for:

      • i. Physical Resource Blocks (PRB) download utilization
      • ii. Voice connection failures
      • iii. Number of concurrent users
  3. Please revise the RF report to indicate the locations of adjacent cell sites and indicate if shared responsibilities exist in compliance with all applicable requirements, specifically FCC OET Bulletin 65.

  4. Provide a California Fire Code analysis addressing section 1206 Electrical Energy Storage Systems, and revise plans accordingly to show specific compliance with Fire Code requirements.

  5. Provide a California Building Code analysis addressing sections 508 Mixed Use and Occupancy, 509 Incidental Uses, and 1510.6.3 Type V Construction, and revise plans accordingly showing specific compliance with building code requirements.

  6. The plans show a 1’-0” high screen but the Project Statement indicates a 10’-0” high screen, please address this inconsistency. Please provide the additional information and plans necessary to show building code compliance.

Additionally, please provide any other data, narrative, graphs, charts, documents or other information that you believe will be helpful to the City’s evaluation of whether a gap in coverage or capacity exists and, if so, such gap’s significance.

The current tolling agreement expires on January 29, 2021. The City anticipates that Verizon may need additional time to respond to these questions, and the City will likely require additional time to review and evaluate those responses and incorporate the new information into a staff report that must be published seven days before the hearing and circulated for internal staff review 14 days before publication. City staff recognizes that further time may be required as the holiday season approaches and is open to an extension of the current tolling agreement to allow sufficient time for both parties to complete their respective tasks. To that end, City staff proposes a 30-day extension from the expiration date of the current tolling agreement. Although City staff does not wish to unnecessarily delay action on the application, we would be open to a longer extension if reasonably required.

If Verizon does not wish to extend the current tolling agreement, please be advised that staff will need to finalize a draft staff report by November 24, 2020, to meet our publication deadline of December 1, 2020, for a hearing on December 8, 2020. Any information that Verizon may provide before the hearing will be included in the record. However, without an extension to the current tolling agreement, City staff cannot guarantee that it will have sufficient time to review, evaluate and incorporate any new information into the staff report with staff’s recommendation for approval or denial.

If you have any questions regarding this letter, please do not hesitate to contact me at bbendix@cityofpetaluma.org.

Sincerely,  

Brittany Bendix
Deputy Planning Manager

Appendix A: Verizon Licensed Frequencies/Bands in Petaluma, CA

From https://www.unsafeatanyg.com/petaluma/creamery/#signal

Source: https://specmap.sequence-omega.net/

Label Num Blk Area Channel Bandwidth Center Trans./Rec.
700 MHz 9 C REA 746-757 11 751.5 tbd
700 MHz 9 C REA 776-787 11 781.5 tbd
Cellular 489 B CMA 835-845 10 840 tbd
Cellular 489 B CMA 846.5-849 2.5 847.75 tbd
Cellular 489 B CMA 880-894 14 887 tbd
Cellular 489 B CMA 891.5-894 2.5 892.75 tbd
PCS 25 A MTA 1850-1865 15 1857.5 tbd
PCS 25 A MTA 1930-1945 15 1937.5 tbd
PCS 29 B MTA 1870-1885 15 1877.5 tbd
PCS 29 B MTA 1950-1965 15 1957.5 tbd
PCS 165 C BTA 1895-1910 15 1902.5 tbd
PCS 165 C BTA 1975-1990 15 1982.5 tbd
AWS 141 B BEA 1720-1730 10 1725 tbd
AWS 141 B BEA 2120-2130 10 2125 tbd
AWS 57 C BEA 1730-1735 5 1732.5 tbd
AWS 57 C BEA 2130-2135 5 2132.5 tbd
AWS 7 D REA 1735-1740 5 1737.5 tbd
AWS 7 D REA 2135-2140 5 2137.5 tbd
AWS 6 E REA 1740-1745 5 1742.5 tbd
AWS 6 E REA 2140-2145 5 2142.5 tbd
AWS 7 F REA 1745-1755 10 1750 tbd
AWS 7 F REA 2145-2155 10 2150 tbd
AWS-3 45 J BEA 1755-1760 5 1757.5 tbd
AWS-3 45 J BEA 2155-2160 5 2157.5 tbd
mmWave 101 L1 BTA 27500-27925 425 27712.5 tbd
mmWave 103 L2 BTA 27925-28350 425 28137.5 tbd
mmWave 411 M1 PEA 37600-37700 100 37650 tbd
mmWave 411 M2 PEA 37700-37800 100 37750 tbd
mmWave 411 M3 PEA 37800-37900 100 37850 tbd
mmWave 411 M4 PEA 37900-38000 100 37950 tbd
mmWave 411 M5 PEA 38000-38100 100 38050 tbd
mmWave 411 M6 PEA 38100-38200 100 38150 tbd
mmWave 411 M7 PEA 38200-38300 100 38250 tbd
mmWave 409 M8 PEA 38300-38400 100 38350 tbd
mmWave 375 M9 PEA 38400-38500 100 38450 tbd
mmWave 371 M10 PEA 38500-38600 100 38550 tbd
mmWave 371 M10 PEA 38500-38600 100 38550 tbd


Project: PLMA-20-0003/PLUP-19-000 is Completely Unnecessary

The following correspondence is presented in reverse-chronological order — read from the bottom up, if you want to get the complete story, as it is unfolding.


On Nov 20, 2020, Brittany Bendix, m-Group responded to Petaluma Resident:

Resident:

Brittany,

I hope that you are well. Thank you for the update on the drive test and letting us know that the tolling agreement has now been pushed to March 2nd. In the email you stated that the reason for the pushing of the tolling agreement was to finish the drive test and to get more information from the applicant. With that said can you please answer the following questions now that you have ordered the drive test and you have asked for more information.

There are many questions as some of these questions I have been asking for answers or clarification for over a month. It would be great to have a clear understanding/clarification on all of these topics as we move forward. Thank you.

Drive Test:

  1. What is the methodology of the drive test?

  2. What equipment will be used in this drive test?

  3. Will you be putting the raw data in the public record? Or just a report? Both?

  4. Does Verizon know the day that you will be conducting the drive test?

  5. Will CTC be conducting the drive test or will they be outsourcing it out to another company?

Bendix: The drive test methodology and data will be available once the drive test is completed, this is consistent with the process for the sharing of other technical reports. However, I can tell you that we’ve requested that CTC perform a drive test consistent with the one they conducted for the City of Monterey . . .

Resident:

Call Logs:

  1. Have these been requested again in this new round of information?

  2. If not can you explain why and will you be requiring these logs from the applicant?

Bendix: The applicant has indicated that they cannot provide call log data. Absence of this requested information will be addressed in the Staff Report for consideration by decision makers.

Resident:

Alternate Site Analysis:

  1. Have you asked the applicant to improve this document?

  2. Have you looked at any of these sites as alternates?

Bendix: We are actively looking at site alternatives.

. . .

Resident:

Current Safety Status:

  1. What is the current status of the CUPA/ hazard review/ seismic review?

  2. What is the current status of the BAAQMD issues?

  3. Fire permits & what did they just get cited for?

Bendix: Review of Creamery CUPA compliance issues is ongoing. I’m not aware that any BAAQMD issues have been resolved . . .

Resident:

10 foot screen:

  1. Will there be a 10 ft screen that goes around the top of the building to cover the antenna? In the original photos they showed this screen but in the last plans submitted they did not show the screen.

Bendix: The proposal still includes screening, they will need to update the plans to show the correct screening.

Resident:

EIQ – Environmental Impact Questionnaire:

  1. What is the purpose of this document?

  2. Do the answers on this sheet trigger another review?

  3. There are 7 incorrect statements or answers not addressed. Have you asked them to answer this again?

Bendix: The EIQ is a form required at application used to screen potential CEQA issues at the initial stage of review. The form does not dictate CEQA processing, which is determined once staff has reviewed the application more thoroughly.

Resident:

Fines/ Money Owed:

  1. How much does the PC owe the city in fines or unpaid utility bills?

  2. Will these fines need to be paid in order to get a permit? (Peggy Flynn did state in an email from June that they would have to pay fines first).

Bendix: I’m not aware of the total amount owed or the payment process that will be required. Please contact Jordan Green cc’d here with our City Attorney’s office for more information on these questions.

Resident:

Ordinances:

  1. What is the current status of the ordinance work?

  2. Is Tripp May part of the CTC team?

  3. Will there be any inclusion by the public to be a part of crafting these new ordinances?

  4. Will the city be trying to push through a new ordinance to the city council that they would just vote on at the same time this project is being voted on?

Bendix: Staff’s current focus is on the Verizon application and outstanding Creamery issues. We are not presently looking at introducing any new ordinances.

Resident:

Timeline:

  1. Can you please outline a new timeline for the HCPC, PC, and city council meetings for this new tolling agreement date of March 2nd

Bendix: I don’t have a current outline for the new tolling agreement. We are waiting on the results of the drive test and the response from Verizon relative to information requested last week.

Resident:

Public Record File:

  1. Will this be updated each week? Or only when a PRA request is made?

Bendix: I will add new information from the applicant or from the drive test as it becomes available, generally within a week of receipt.


From: [Petaluma Resident]
Date: Thursday, November 19, 2020 2:16 PM
To: Heather Hines hhines@cityofpetaluma.org, Kendall Rose krose@cityofpetaluma.org
CC: Peggy Flynn PFlynn@cityofpetaluma.org

Subject: City of Petaluma Complaint

Dear Ms. Hines,

[To City Clerk, please put this email in the public file for Petaluma Creamery Verizon Wireless Telecommunications Facility (WTF) application.]

This is a formal complaint against the planning department staff, the Metropolitan Group, for not providing sufficient documents responsive to the neighbors’ request for the inspection of records about the Petaluma Creamery Wireless Facility project file.

We have asked for timely drive test information for months and the City did not provide to neighbors timely updates about this drive test, despite multiple requests for such updates. Then we find out that, following a secretive, share-no-information-with-the-public stretch from 9/23/2020 through 10/23/2020 and again from 10/24/2020 through 11/16/2020, that Brittany Bendix finally emailed the following on Mon 11/16/2020 at 5:01 pm,PT, less than two hours before the 11/16/2020 City Council meetinghttps://youtu.be/m-z9a9gJcyM

>>>Brittany Bendix wrote on 11/16/2020 at 5:01 pm, PT

“Good Evening Neighbors,

Thank you for your continued interest in the telecommunications facility proposal at 611 Western Avenue.

  • The City has contracted with CTC to conduct a drive test of the site within the next two weeks.
  • Additionally, the City has requested more information from Verizon related to the proposed installation.
  • In response to that information request, Verizon has requested a tolling extension to March 1st which is currently under consideration.

Please reach out to me if you have any further questions.”   

Brittany

Brittany Bendix, Deputy Planning Manager
M-Group Consulting Planner
11 English Street, Petaluma, CA 94952
Phone: (707) 778-4314

Yet, as of 11/19/2020, the m-Group has not disclosed the drive test methodology, the terms of contract or whether the contract stipulates that the engineering analysis will address how to to protect residents’ public safety, privacy, property values and their rights to the quiet enjoyment of streets (and homes).

m-Group’s Brittany Bendix has misinformed Mayor Barrett, City Council members and other that any facility upgrade would require another planning permit which is not true. Federal law states that once the WTF is constructed, the City has no say over whether the applicant wishes to increase the size and/or number of antennas and ancillary equipment cabinets, per Federal law: §6409(a) of the 2012 Spectrum Act:

47 U.S. Code § 1455 (a) Facility modifications

   (1) In general. Notwithstanding section 704 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (Public Law 104–104) or any other provision of law, a State or local government may not deny, and shall approve, any eligible facilities request for a modification of an existing wireless tower or base station that does not substantially change the physical dimensions of such tower or base station.

   (2) Eligible facilities request. For purposes of this subsection, the term “eligible facilities request” means any request for modification of an existing wireless tower or base station that involves—

      (A) collocation of new transmission equipment;

      (B) removal of transmission equipment; or

      (C) replacement of transmission equipment.

   (3) Applicability of environmental laws. Nothing in paragraph (1) shall be construed to relieve the Commission from the requirements of the National Historic Preservation Act [1] or the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 .

The Federal Communications Commission recently updated its guidance on implementing this Federal law in FCC Order 20-153 on October 27, 2020:

Oct 27, 2020: Streamlining State & Local Approval of Wireless Telecommunications Facility (WTF) Modifications

“The Commission considered a Report and Order that would further accelerate the deployment of 4G/5G by providing that modifications to existing towers involving limited ground excavation or deployment would be subject to streamlined state and local review pursuant to section 6409(a) of the Spectrum Act of 2012.
(WT Docket No. 19-250; RM-11849)

So when Brittany Bendix reports that it is the “applicants understanding, ” that a planning permit would be required for future upgrades for Eligible facilities request, such a report is misinformation. The Wireless industry can do as it wishes to add antennas that are up to 20 feet higher and add other equipment, at will. Neighbors cite this as perpetuating untruths in application review process.

There have been many other problems, as well:

  • There is other fraudulent information in the application file that the m-Group has not identified nor corrected.

  • The m-Group staff has not returned many, many calls and emails, contrary to their contractual obligations.

  • Despite receiving the application in August, 2019, the m-Group did not hire a professional RF-EMR consultants to assist on the technical issues on this project until October 2020.

  • The m-Group is, apparently, advising Petlauma Planning Commissioners and HCPC members to not converse or meet with neighbors by saying such ex parte communications are not permitted. This is simply not true.

  • The m-Group has given far too much access and accommodation to the applicants (Complete Wireless, whatever entity is dba Verizon Wireless and the bad neighbor, the Petaluma Creamery) while giving the other stakeholders in the project, the residents of Petaluma, mimimal communication and only one 30-minute Zoom meeting on July 30, 2020.

  • The m-Group is processing this application for a minor/major/minor wireless facility (it keeps changing its category) in a location that is not consistent with the City of Petaluma General Plan, with powerful antennas that are far too close to residences.

  • The m-Group and the City of Petaluma has not forced the Petaluma Creamery to fix the many chronic hazards it presents to the community from poor maintenance and business practices, subjecting the community to far too frequent fires and toxic chemical dumping on regular basis. Despite many violations being reported to city, the City has enforced nothing. This is not putting public safety first.

  • The m-Group has stifled the public’s efforts to get timely access to accurate information that could be used to protect themselves and their families/properties.

  • The m-Group has failed in their duty to provide public safety or protect the residents of Petaluma by being biased towards developers’ interests and their own monetary gains — which is a clear conflict of interest and a violation of the m-Group’s contractual duties.

Separately, a hiring decision by City Attorney Danly is also very relevant to this project. Telecom Law firm that has a clear reputation of working to indoctrinate cities into accepting the telecom industry’s agenda, which benefits profits of both firms that are managed by Robert “Tripp” May and Jonathon Kramer: Telecom Law Firm PC and Permit Team LLC. The City of Petaluma should hire neutral advisors, not conflicted advisers. (see the letter here)

Petaluma residents/taxpayers are very dissatisfied with the service from the m-Group, especially because the residents are paying the m-Group’s salaries. On this project, we are receiving disservice.


November 6, 2020

To:
Teresa Barrett, Mayor
City of Petaluma
11 English Street
Petaluma, CA 94952

Peggy Flynn, City Manager
Eric Danly, City Attorney
Mike Healy, Council Member
D’Lynda Fischer, Vice Mayor
Gabe Kearney, Council Member
Dave King, , Council Member
Kevin McDonnell, Council Member
Kathy Miller, Council Member
Heidi Bauer, Planning Commissioner
Sandi Potter, Planning Commissioner
Richard Marzo, Planning Commissioner
Blake Hooper, Planning Commissioner
Scott Alonso, Planning Commissioner
Christopher Caputo, HCPC Chair
Kit Schlich, HCPC Vice Chair
Terry Kosewic, HCPC Member
John Perlis, HCPC Member
Bill Rinehart, HCPC Member
Kendall Rose, City Clerk
Petaluma for Wireless Safety Members

[City Clerk Kendall Rose, will you please add this email/letter to the Petaluma Public record for PLMA-20-0003/PLUP-19-000 a WTF antenna farm that has the capability of outputting 2,372,480 Watts of Effective Radiated Power from 611 Western Ave. Petaluma, CA (see https://unsafeatanyg.com/petaluma/creamery)? Will you please also ensure that this email/letter gets printed and placed into the paper file for this project? We are requesting that this email/letter and all communications and other substantial written evidence that we place in the Public Record be added to the agenda packet that will be distributed to the Petaluma Historic & Cultural Preservation Committee and to the Planning Commission. Thank you for doing so.]

Dear Mayor Barrett, City Manager Flynn, City Attorney Danly, City Council Members, Planning Commissioners and Historic Preservation Committee Members:

In an effort to facilitate understanding of the Community’s request the for Denial of Application of the 16-Antenna Petaluma Creamery Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (WTF), I offer, below, a brief summary of the key issue with this project and the evidence that can be used to Deny Application. I hope this helps.

Coverage vs. Capacity

Wireless carriers have a right to place, construct and modify WTFs for “telecommunications service,” which means the ability to make outdoor, wireless phone calls.

There are three basic categories of wireless services:

  • Voice/text (often called “Coverage” along with “Capacity” meaning “a”, below)
  • Internet/App/Data (often called “Capacity” meaning “b”, below)
  • Audio/Video streaming/Gaming (often called “Capacity” meaning “b”, below)

“Capacity” is actually a fuzzy, overloaded marketing term that means different things . . .

Capacity (noun) : has at least two distinct definitions

  • a. the maximum amount or number that can be contained or accommodated
  • b. the facility or power to produce, perform, or deploy

In Telecom parlance, “Capacity” simultaneously means

  • a. the number of on-ramps that connect cell phones to a single WTF (about 3,000 simultaneous callers per WTF)

AND

  • b. the exponentially higher levels of power transmitted for wireless broadband information service (which is a hugely energy-inefficient way to move Big Data, compared to moving data via Fiber optics)

The Wireless Industry confuses many people into thinking that the need for capacity meaning “a”, a legitimate idea for reasonable voice service, also gives them a right to install wireless infrastructure for capacity meaning “b”. That is simply not true.

The Wireless Industry’s business goals here are to overserve Petalumans with excessive electromagnetic power through-the-air in order to maximize their profits— which violates Title 47 U.S.C § 324, other Federal acts (ADA, FHAA and NEPA) and many US Circuit Courts of Appeals rulings from 1996 to the present. It is highly unlikely that Congress intended Americans to sicken and die, just in order to maximize the profits of multi-billion-dollar Telecom companies.

The preemption of local authority over the placement, construction and modification of WTFs in the 1996 Telecommunications Act (1996-Act) is subject to all other existing Federal laws (ADA, FHAA and NEPA and others) and must be consistent with the stated purposes of both the 1934 Communications Act and 1996-TCA as well as Title 47 U.S. Code § 324:

A. Title 47 U.S. Code § 151

. . . “to make available, so far as possible, to all the people of the United States without discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex, a rapid, efficient, Nation-wide, and world-wide wire and radio communication service with adequate facilities at reasonable charges,

  • for the purpose of the national defense,
  • for the purpose of promoting safety of life and property
    . . . through the use of wire and radio communications”

B. Title 47 U.S. Code § 332

  • (a) Factors which Commission must consider

    • (1) promote the safety of life and property;

C. Title 47 U.S. Code § 324 — Minimum Use of Power

“In all circumstances, except in case of radio communications or signals relating to vessels in distress, all radio stations, including those owned and operated by the United States, shall use the minimum amount of power necessary to carry out the communication desired.”

  • Telecommunications is the practice of transmitting Title II-regulated phone calls (telecommunications service) by wireline or by spraying electromagnetic power through the air.

  • Broadband is the practice of transmitting Title I-unregulated data (information service) by wireline or by spraying electromagnetic power through the air.

The 1996-TCA defines, and the 2019 DC Circuit Case Case No. 18-1051, Mozilla v FCC affirms that telecommunications service is Title II-regulated phone calls by wire or radio, while information service is everything else: Title I-unregulated data services, such as texting, video-conferencing, Internet, gaming, audio/video steaming et al.

In 2020, only telecommunications service is a regulated Title II service and, therefore, is the only service that qualifies for federal preemption of local authority.

Petaluma Residents Already Have Adequate Service

. . . both Wireless Telecommunications Service and Wireline Broadband Service
  • Petaluma residents presently have adequate Wireless service for voice calls by multiple Wireless Carriers from WTFs on the hills surrounding Petaluma — sites with significant horizontal offsets from homes and most schools (1,500 to 5,000 feet Horizontal buffer from antennas to residences/lucky schools).

  • Petaluma residents also presently have adequate Wireline service direct to homes and schools by coaxial cables (Comcast), fiber optic cables (Sonic) and DSL over fiber/copper wires (AT&T).

Once a home is served by a Wireline provider, the resident then has a choice to distribute telecommunications and/or information service through their home copper wires, Ethernet wires or by using a home wireless router which is capped by the FCC to output no more than 0.1 Watt of Effective Radiated Power (ERP). All of the Internet/App/Data and Audio/Video streaming/Gamein in one’s home can be handled by one’s internal networking choice (wired or wireless), with the backhaul (of Big Data) handled by coaxial, fiber optic or copper wires.

The Sweetspot = Consumer Choice

The sweetspot is Big Data backhaul (Internet/App/Messaging/Data and Audio/Video streaming/Gaming) by Wireline service and small data (wireless phone calls/texts) by Wireless.

Consumers can then choose whether or not to expose themselves and their family to pulsed, data-modulated, Radio-frequency Electromagnetic Microwave Radiation (RF-EMR). It’s simply a convenience/hazard tradeoff.

In addition, if consumers opt for a wireless router installed in their own homes (and many do not), then one common choice is to turn off wireless routers whenever a wireless connection is not needed, for example overnight when everyone is sleeping or during the day, if one is working at an out-of-the home location.

Contrast that to a 24/7 forced exposure to RF-EMR from WTF antennas installed closer than 2,50o feet from homes. This is an unnecessary and hazardous “taking” of public safety, privacy and property values that represents the land of n0-choice — which is an unfair and undemocratic idea at its core.

In this latter case, nothing short of moving (or capping the WTF’s Effective Radiated Power output to -85 dBM — and no higher) would solve the problem, since consumers have no ability to power off Wireless Telecommunications Facilities antennas — whether they are using the wireless service or not.

Living next to a WTF very much like living next to an oil refinery. The homes may be lower priced, but the injuries, illnesses and deaths from the pollution are not worth it, so anyone with sufficient means, will move away.

We already know what the negative health consequences from 24/7 forced exposures to RF-EMR from antennas installed at 60 feet from homes are: three- and six-year old girls became ill with microwave radiation illness or Electromagnetic Sensitivity) in a matter of weeks after a so-called “small” Wireless Telecommunications Facility (sWTF) was powered on in front of their home in Sacramento. This has been proven by professional, calibrated RF-EMR measurements and medical diagnoses. This is in the Petaluma public record as substantial written evidence. Evidence of actual effects cannot be mischaracterized as mere”concerns” by anyone. It is the medical doctor’s opinion that counts. See the details here:


What Really Matters: Excessive Effective Radiated Power (ERP)
That Results in RF Microwave Radiation Intensities in 2nd-Story+ Bedrooms
Cell Tower Vertical Distance Off Ground Horizontal Distance Away Power in bedroom (2nd-story+)
small cell 35 feet 60 feet 50,000 avg. RF-EMR units
Macro cell 200 feet 2,500 feet 0.002 avg. RF-EMR units

Conclusion: 50,000 µW/m² from a so-called “small” cell is 25 million times
more powerful than 0.002 µW/m² (-85 dBm) from a Macro cell

Note: -85 dBm is a signal strength which provides 5 Bars of telecommunications service
on a cell phone (source: link to The Truth About 4G/5G in Sacramento )


Wireless Disservce: Profits > People

In short, the Petaluma Creamery WTF is about profit at the expense of people. This project is about lease revenue and Verizon’s high-profit business strategy to build out more (unnecessary) “Capacity” information service infrastructure within our City.

This huge 16-antenna WTF (with 16 antennas that have a capability of outputting 2,372,480 Watts of ERP) is overkill — particularly when you consider that there is substantial written evidence already in the City of Petaluma public record that proves that there is no significant gap in Verizon telecommunications service:

The Petaluma Creamery WTF will not only blast millions of times more power than required for outdoor Voice calls — once installed, by Federal law, Verizon may increase the WTF’s dimensions, power and capacity — without any public notice or discretionary approval process.

The City of Petaluma could amend its wireless ordinance to require workable VHP recipes for each WTF. That means regulating all three important variables as as set: Vertical offset, Horizontal offset and maximum Power output. The goal is to cap the allowable Effective Radiated Power from antennas installed closer than 2,500 feet from homes to an ERP which would provide -85 dBm (5 bars telephone service) and no higher.

There is no need to blast up to 2.3 Million Watts of ERP from 80 feet off the street , in the center of a residential neighborhood through the walls of our homes and schools — homes and schools that can be sufficiently served by our existing Wireline and Wireless infrastructure.

Federal and State Telecom Laws and Regulation

Federal law only preempts local authority over the placement, construction and modification of WTFs in order to provide carrier-specific wireless telecommunications service (outdoor voice calls). There is simply no preemption of local authority for any other wireless service or for “capacity”-hungry information services.

In CA, Federal US Supreme Court, DC Circuit Court and Ninth Circuit Court rulings (as well as CA Supreme Court Rulings) are material for Municipalities’ approvals/denials of the placement, construction and modification of WTFs; other US Courts of Appeals rulings are simply immaterial.

Here are the key rulings relevant to California’s municipalities:

  • Link to 2005 US Supreme Court Ruling in Palos Verdes vs. Abrams
  • Link to 2005 US Courts of Appeals — Ninth Circuit Ruling in MetroPCS v San Francisco
  • Link to 2008 US Courts of Appeals — Sprint v San Diego
  • Link to 2019 CA Supreme Court Ruling — T-Mobile v. San Francisco
  • Link to 2019 US Courts of Appeals — DC Circuit Ruling in Case No. 18-112, Keetoowah et al. v FCC
  • Link to 2019 US Courts of Appeals — DC Circuit Ruling in Case No. 18-1051, Mozilla et al. v FCC
  • Link to 2020 US Courts of Appeals — DC Circuit Ruling in Case No. 19-1085 , IRREGULATORS v. FCC
  • Link to 2020 US Courts of Appeals — Ninth Circuit Ruling in Case No. 18-72689, City of Portland et al. v FCC

Threading the Needle

Petaluma has the right to deny the Application for the Verizon Creamery WTF project, based on the substantial written evidence already in the City of Petaluma public record of

  1. No proof of a significant gap in Verizon telecommunications service
  2. No proof that there is not a less intrusive alternative location.

Denying this application is bit problematic because Verizon seems to be showing a desire to challenge the City of Petraluma’s 1,500 Watt ERP limit for minor wireless facilities on historic properties. The best move, therefore, is to not cite the following City Code as a finding when denying the WTF — otherwise, the City will most likely get sued by Verizon.

14.44.090 Minor facilities — Basic requirements.

Minor facilities as defined in Section 14.44.020 of this chapter may be installed, erected, maintained and/or operated in any commercial or industrial zoning district where such antennas are permitted under this title, upon the issuance of a minor conditional use permit, so long as all the following conditions are met:

A. The minor antenna use involved is accessory to the primary use of the property which is not a telecommunications facility.

B. The combined effective radiated power radiated by all the antenna present on the parcel is less than one thousand five hundred watts.

Beware of “In the Box” Wireless Consultants and Attorneys

Because the application involves modern technology and a matrix of federal, state and local laws and regulations, this project is ripe for confusion and biased Industry Consultant obfuscation and misguidance. The City, therefore, must disregard any fraudulent and misleading information currently in the application and the City must spot the false, fraudulent and missing information in order to make the right findings. Learn how to do this here.
https://www.unsafeatanyg.com/petaluma/training/
https://youtu.be/UtT6gVH584s?t=2452
https://youtu.be/G_lNu9R56Xk?t=5698

Fortunately, there is excellent 2020 advice from Telecom attorney Andrew Campanelli, and a 2019 example from which to learn — courtesy of Mayor Ian Oglesby From Seaside, CA.

The City of Petaluma must also beware of industry-friendly assertions, for which consultant, Telecom Law Firm (TLF) is renown.

List of Findings The City Can Make to Deny the Petaluma Creamery WTF

  1. Cite substantial written evidence in the public record — evidence that is “blessed” with a Professional Engineer’s stamp — that shows there is No significant Gap in Verizon’s Telecommunications service (i.e. dBm signal strength readings higher than -125 dBM in Verizon-specific voice frequencies/bands). This is why we need the results of a drive test in the target area/search ring for this WTF — asap.

  2. Cite Verizon’s bad faith in declining to provide Verizon call logs to prove if there are significant numbers of dropped calls in the target area/search ring for this WTF over the last 12 months. Verizon could easily provide calls logs to show the number of calls that have been made, completed or dropped. They have refused to do so.

  3. Cite a lack of substantial written evidence in the public record to prove a need for this antenna for telecommunications service (the ability to make an outdoor wireless call). Applicants’ RF propagation maps are not substantial written evidence or even probitive evidence because the raw data used to make these maps has not been based on actual measurements and has not been placed in the public record, so it is not verifiable by any other party.

  4. Cite that the applicant has not met the burden of proof to establish that the Creamery WTF is needed to close an alleged significant gap in Verizon Telecommunications service and even if a gap were to be proven, that the Petaluma Creamery location is the least intrusive location/means to close the alleged gap.

Please understand that what I have presented you is no mere matter of passion, concern or any other non-substantive matter, but solely matters of fact and law that must be considered and acted upon in a lawful manner. They cannot be dismissed as non-substantive.

Thank you,

[Petaluma Resident]


November 5, 2020

To:
Ms. Heather Hines
Contract Planning Manager
m-group
City of Petaluma
11 English Street
Petaluma, CA 94952
707-778-4316

cc:
Teresa Barrett, Mayor
Peggy Flynn, City Manager
Eric Danly, City Attorney
Jordan Green, Assistant City Attorney
Heidi Bauer, Planning Commission Chair (tbd)
Christopher Caputo, HCPC Chair
Kendall Rose, City Clerk
Brittany Bendix, m-Group
Mark Pollock, Attorney
Harry Lehmann, Attorney
Andrew Campanelli, Attorney
Trevor Marshall, PhD
Petaluma for Wireless Safety members

Re: Wireless Telecommunications Facilities College

Dear Ms. Hines,

[City Clerk Kendall Rose, will you please add this email/letter to the Petaluma Public record for PLMA-20-0003/PLUP-19-000 a WTF antenna farm that has the capability of outputting 2,372,480 Watts of Effective Radiated Power from 611 Western Ave. Petaluma, CA (see https://unsafeatanyg.com/petaluma/creamery)? Will you please also ensure that this email/letter gets printed and placed into the paper file for this project? We are requesting that this email/letter and all communications and other substantial written evidence that we place in the Public Record be added to the agenda packet that will be distributed to the Petaluma Historic & Cultural Preservation Committee and to the Planning Commission. Thank you for doing so.]

Thank you for attending the Go-To Meeting session last night for “Wireless Telecommunications Facilities College”. If you would be so kind as to return phone calls on a timely basis, from this day forward, I am certain things could improve. You attending last night’s video conference was a step in the right direction. We very much appreciated you listening.

I am happy to do whatever it takes to bring City staff down the learning curve on this, admittedly, overly-complex game of chess that is Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (WTFs) application processing task that our City is being forced to go through.

The City is going to battle with a chessmaster (whatever entity you believe is dba Verizon Wireless), but the City is a pawn in this game and just hired two “in the box” chess coaches who indoctrinate cities into the unnecessary, harmful and dangerous Densified 4G/5G roll out. Please understand that both CTC Technology and Telecom Law firm profit handsomely from enabling the full 4G/5G rollout and therefore are often not objective.

A. CTC Technology can be neutral, if you constrain them to make statements only about compliance with the FCC RF-EMR Maximum public exposure guideline and Wireless signal strength levels (as measured in dBm).

I have an expert that you can call to see if Lee Afflerbach’s methodology and equipment will provide data that is both accurate and sufficient to stand up in court (PhD and IEEE Senior fellow Prof. Trevor Marshall 805-492-3693) Marshall attended by phone, along with Attorney Harry Lehmann and me attending personally, the Feb 1, 2018 meeting with Petaluma staff when we convinced them to update the Petaluma Wireless Ordinance to protect the residential zones from so-called “small” Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (sWTFs).

Importantly, in the public meetings, the City of Petaluma cannot allow Afflerbach to wax poetic about his work elsewhere and his views of “what he sees out there”. Lee is very charming and uses that charm for indoctrination. It doesn’t matter that other Cities out there have been fooled into making bad decisions for their Cities and residents. All that matters is the substantial written evidence that Afflerbach’s Professional Engineer stamp will “bless” . . . and that, quite simply, is the raw data of dBm signal strength readings in the 28-square mile area surrounding the Petaluma Creamery (a search ring with a three-mile radius) for every Verizon specific downlink frequency/band that they have licensed for Petaluma (746 MHz to 2160 MHz, as listed here → https://www.unsafeatanyg.com/petaluma/creamery/#signal)

There are many hours of video evidence of Afflerbach’s efforts at indoctrination in Sonoma, Monterey, Napa and other places:

1. From https://scientists4wiredtech.com/testimony/ and https://scientists4wiredtech.com/sonoma

Professional Engineeer Lee Afflerbach in Sonoma, CA Public Record, 9/12/19

2. From Monterey –> https://mystreetmychoice.com/monterey.html (links I gave to Brittany back in mid-June, 2020)

3. City of Napa Videos

The bottom line is that “Capacity” is not in the 1996 Telecommunications Act (1996-Act). There is no preemption for capacity, only for telecommunications service (i.e. coverage for wireless telephone calls — this is why —>https://scientists4wiredtech.com/mozilla-v-fcc/ listen to the argument by attorney Steven C. Wu, which carried the day in the DC Circuit ruling ). See Appendix A for key quotes from that ruling.

Look, the wireless industry has some “capacity” ruling in some lower court out there, but nothing that has been decided by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals or the US Supreme Court, so, therefore, that ruling does not apply to the City of Petaluma. This is why → https://mystreetmychoice.com/press.html#courts

This is all you need to know about capacityhttps://www.unsafeatanyg.com/petaluma/creamery/#capacity

Beware of the Overloaded Term “Capacity”, As Used by the Wireless Industry

An overloaded term is one that has more than one meaning.

Capacity (noun) : has at least two distinct definitions

  1. the maximum amount or number that can be contained or accommodated
  2. the facility or power to produce, perform, or deploy

Telecommunications is the practice of transmitting Title II-regulated phone calls by wire or by spraying it wirelessly, using electromagnetic power through the air.

Broadband is the practice of transmitting Title I-unregulated data by wire or by spraying it wirelessly, using electromagnetic power through the air . . . (see more at the link)

B. Telecom Law Firm has significant conflicts of Interest, and is therefore, unable to give objective advice to Cities. I would not go to contract with them. Instead, please talk to attorneys that are actually fighting for Cities’ and residents’ interests, including attorney Mark Pollock(707-257-3089 x 1), who will be calling Eric Danly today, and attorney Harry Lehmann (415-897-2121).

The City of Malibu is moving on fromTelecom Law Firm due to the obvious conflicts-of-interest and less-than-stellar advice purveyed by the Telecom Law firm, as evidenced here:

C. The City of Petaluma Needs Better “Chess Coaches”
The actual entity that you “believe” is the applicant is very relevant and foundational to this application — the City can and should force the actual applicant(s) to list right on the application their board of directors and the assets of their firms to determine if the entity has assets sufficient to self-insure against claims for injury, illness and death from pulsed, data-modulated, Radio-frequency Electromagnetic Microwave Radiation (RF-EMR). You see, the Verizon operates via franchises to keep the law suits from piercing the corporate veil of Big Verizon — which is the only entity with assets sufficient enough to cover the self-insurance for such claims. Most entities in the labyrinth of agents, franchises and franchisees are intentionally small and designed to go bankrupt whenever a claim is made.

This is why . . . please listen to attorney Mark Pollock:

Then, please listen to attorney Andrew Campanelli at https://unsafeatanyg.com/petaluma/training and https://scientists4wiredtech.com/campanelli/

Finally . . . please listen to Attorney Harry Lehmann at https://scientists4wiredtech.com/thousandoaks/

The wireless industry has designed the chessboard, writes and rewrites the rules at will, lies to everyone when they say “this is federal law” and then hides the very probative evidence you need to process these applications properly using ridiculous excuses like “this is proprietary information”.

Just think back to the 2008 financial crisis caused by the massive investments in the overly-complex mortgage-backed derivative securities. How could so many “seemingly-smart” investors get so fooled? This was well-explained in Michael Lewis’ book/film “The Big Short“.

This fraud happened (and many suffered) because all of the “expert” bond-ratings agencies — Standard & Poor’s Global Ratings, Moody’s, and Fitch Ratings — firms that were simply paid by the Investment Banks to gave AAA-ratings to these toxic derivatives. The AAA ratings were given to securities they actually did not understand!

Who are the equivalent of the Standard & Poor’s Global Ratings, Moody’s, and Fitch Ratings in 2020 on the Petaluma Creamery WTF application? That would be Hammett & Edison, CTC Technology and Telecom Law Firm. This is plain for all to see. Verizon is acting as the Investment Banker here . . . follow the money . . . who is paying the costs for Hammett & Edison, CTC Technology and Telecom Law Firm? Verizon.

Come on, folks. Let’s not fall victim to this scheme. Big Wireless wants to keep City staffs, Planning Commissioners and City Council members in the dark, so they can achieve maximum advantage in order to increase their revenues and profits. There are very good, recent court cases that are slapping the industry for practicing such deception and fraud.

Look no further than this 2020 Ruling in Cambridge, MA → https://scientists4wiredtech.com/2020/09/densified-4g-5g-swtf-proliferation-takes-a-hit-in-cambridge-ma/

The entire process is based on fraud. The current Petaluma Creamery WTF has oodles of errors and omissions in the application — on purpose — because Verizon is attempting to game the system and break many federal laws (1996-TCA, ADA, FHAA, NEPA) in order to achieve this unnecessary densified 4G/5G roll out. Please, don’t let them do it, just because you make money from this deal.

Please, instead, encourage the City to stand its ground and simply say NO by making the strongest findings, just as Marin County did a few weeks ago → https://scientists4wiredtech.com/2020/10/marin-county-supervisors-reject-cell-tower-on-san-rafael-church-grounds/

Please call me if you have any questions at 707-981-5522. We would love to conduct 18-minutes of “Wireless Telecommunications Facilities College” at the following upcoming Petaluma Public meetings — this is training our elected and appointed officials need right now, so they don’t make the obvious rookie mistakes . . . View from https://unsafeatanyg.com/petaluma/training, a great example from Seaside, CA of how to SAY NO without GETTING SUED → https://youtu.be/G_lNu9R56Xk?t=5698

We are offering the following at no cost to the City of Petaluma.

  • 18 minutes of “Wireless Telecommunications Facilities College” at the City Council meting on Nov 16, 2020

  • 18 minutes of “Wireless Telecommunications Facilities College” at the HCPC and Planning Commission meetings on Nov 17, 2020

We could use your help, Heather, to set this up. 😎

Not as good (because most will be too busy to attend), we could offer additional one hour Go To Meeting sessions “Wireless Telecommunications Facilities College” for anyone on the following dates:

  • Wed Nov 11, 2020 from 6:00 pm to 7:00 pm

  • Wed Nov 18, 2020 from 6:00 pm to 7:00 pm

  • Thu Nov 19, 2020 from 6:00 pm to 7:00 pm

Thanks again for listening in last night, Heather. We stand ready to help.

If you could reach out and normalize the relationship by returning phone calls in a timely manner and having actual conversations with the public, just like we did last night, then we could get everyone down the learning curve without unnecessary stress. The stress comes from the m-Goup and Danly holding the cards far too close to the vest and then informing the public only after you make decisions.

There is no question that it is in the City of Petaluma’s best interests to design and order that Drive Test/Wireless Antenna Need test as soon as possible to ensure that City Manager Peggy Flynn upholds her commitment on Sept 24, 2020 to the public when she wrote:

On 9/24/2020 Petaluma City Manager Peggy Flynn wrote in an email:

“A drive test is being required (a sincere thank you Mr. Springhorn for your continued recommendations!). We will continue to provide updates as we have them to you, and most importantly, to the community.

Thank you.


Regards,

[Petaluma Resident]


Appendix A: Excerpts from DC Circuit Court of Appeals
Ruling on Case No. 18-1051: Mozilla et al. v FCC

“We vacate the portion of the 2018 Order that expressly preempts “any state or local requirements that are inconsistent with [its] deregulatory approach.” 2018 Order ¶ 194; see id. ¶¶ 194–204 (“Preemption Directive”). The Commission ignored binding precedent by failing to ground its sweeping Preemption Directive — which goes far beyond conflict preemption — in a lawful source of statutory authority. That failure is fatal. The Order was meant to have independent and far-reaching preemptive effect from the moment it issued. Id.; see also 2018 Order ¶¶ 195–197. And the Commission meant for that preemptive effect to wipe out a broader array of state and local laws than traditional conflict preemption principles would allow. Oral Arg. Tr. 171 (Q: “It’s broader than ordinary conflict preemption?” A: “That’s correct.”). The Governmental Petitioners challenge the Preemption Directive on the ground that it exceeds the Commission’s statutory authority. **They are right.

. . . That Title II provision has no work to do here because the 2018 Order took broadband out of Title II**. So the Commission is not “forbear[ing] from applying any provision” of the Act to a Title-II technology. 47 U.S.C. § 160(e). On top of that, Section 160(e) — as a part of Title I — does not itself delegate any preemption authority to the Commission. People of State of Cal., 905 F.2d at 1240 n.35.”

. . . By expressly requiring that [tele]communications services under Title II be regulated as common carriers, the Federal Communications Act grants the Commission broad authority over services classified under Title II, unlike those classified under Title I. See 47 U.S.C. § 153(51); Brand X, 545 U.S. at 976; Verizon, 740 F.3d at 630; Comcast, 600 F.3d at 645. Which is also why the Act carves out more space for federal objectives to displace those of the States in the Title II context. See 47 U.S.C. § 253(a), (d) (expressly authorizing the Commission to preempt state or local regulations that “may prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the ability of any entity to provide any interstate or intrastate telecommunications service[]”).

. . . That statutory authority is the fatal gap in the Commission’s argument here. Not only is the Commission lacking in its own statutory authority to preempt, but its effort to kick the States out of intrastate broadband regulation also overlooks the Communications Act’s vision of dual federal-state authority and cooperation in this area specifically.

. . . Congress does not generally hide elephants in mouseholes, and we think it utterly improbable that [Congress intended to authorize the EPA’s interpretation] by creating a list of several hundred toxic chemicals.”) (internal citation omitted). The mousehole, in short, cannot be the wellspring of preemption authority that the Commission needs. Doubly so here, where the Supreme Court has specifically held that the Commission’s desire to “best effectuate a federal policy” must take a back seat to Section 152(b)’s assignment of regulatory authority to the States. Louisiana PSC, 476 U.S. at 374.”


November 3, 2020

To:
Ms. Teresa Barrett, Mayor
Ms. Peggy Flynn, City Manager
Mr. Eric Danly, City Attorney
City of Petaluma
11 English Street
Petaluma, CA 94952
707-778-4345

Mr. Lee Afflerbach
Principal Engineer
CTC Technology & Energy
10613 Concord Street
Kensington. MD 2089
Phone 410-745-5958
Mobile 410-226-6505   

cc:
Mike Healy, Council Member
D’Lynda Fischer, Vice Mayor
Gabe Kearney, Council Member
Dave King, , Council Member
Kevin McDonnell, Council Member
Kathy Miller, Council Member
Heidi Bauer, Planning Commissioner
Sandi Potter, Planning Commissioner
Richard Marzo, Planning Commissioner
Blake Hooper, Planning Commissioner
Scott Alonso, Planning Commissioner
Christopher Caputo, HCPC Chair
Kit Schlich, HCPC Vice Chair
Terry Kosewic, HCPC Member
John Perlis, HCPC Member
Bill Rinehart, HCPC Member
Kendall Rose, City Clerk
Jordan Green, Assistant City Attorney
Heather Hines, m-Group
Brittany Bendix, m-Group
Petaluma for Wireless Safety Members

Re: CTC Technology Questions for Verizon PLMA-20-0003/PLUP-19-000 Project & FCC Human Exposure to RF-EMR: Guidelines for Cellular Antenna Sites

Dear Ms. Barrrett, Ms. Flynn, Mr. Danly, Mr. Afflerbach et al.,

[City Clerk Kendall Rose, will you please add this email/letter to the Petaluma Public record for PLMA-20-0003/PLUP-19-000 a WTF antenna farm that has the capability of outputting 2,372,480 Watts of Effective Radiated Power from 611 Western Ave. Petaluma, CA (see https://unsafeatanyg.com/petaluma/creamery)? Will you please also ensure that this email/letter gets printed and placed into the paper file for this project? We are requesting that this email/letter and all communications and other substantial written evidence that we place in the Public Record be added to the agenda packet that will be distributed to the Petaluma Historic & Cultural Preservation Committee and to the Planning Commission. Thank you for doing so.]

At https://ourtownourchoice.org/fcc-guidelines-for-cellular-antenna-sites/ and in Appendix A, below please find an adaptation of an FCC web page, last updated in 2019 that is very relevant to CTC Technology’s analysis of the Verizon PLMA-20-0003/PLUP-19-000 Project.

Ms. Flynn, you were informed in the public record on October 23, 2020 as follows: → https://www.unsafeatanyg.com/petaluma/creamery/#latest

With the Verizon PLMA-20-0003/PLUP-19-000 Project,

“the City of Petaluma is preparing to issue a conditional use permit that will execute a “taking of property” from Petaluma residents . . . this better be whistle clean, folks . . . and it is clearly not whistle clean at this moment. Discrimination in this process has been rampant for months and the Petaluma City Staff is practicing such discrimination. The record clearly shows it.

We must have the chance to do our own quality assurance on the contents of the public record, as guaranteed by the California Public Records Act. The public needs to fully understand the contents of the record upon which the HCPC and the Planning Commission will be making its deliberations. We cannot allow any fraudulent information to remain in the file and have to ensure that no false information or Wireless Industry propaganda makes its way into the staff packet that will be compiled for the HCPC’s and the Planning Commission’s deliberations.”

We heard the following from the m-Group’s Heather Hines at 25:10 at the Nov 2, 2020 Petaluma City Council Meeting video → which included no commitment to order a drive test/wireless antenna need test: (https://petaluma.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=31&clip_id=3104).

Therefore, we have some questions that need timely answers (see below). These questions are, once again, not rhetorical questions. Choosing not to answer the questions openly, honestly, transparently and not answering within the next 48 hours will add even more evidence to the City of Petaluma public record that shows that this Verizon PLMA-20-0003/PLUP-19-000 Project application review process is not whistle clean.

m-Group’s Heather Hines at 25:10:

“The city is working with an outside consultant with wireless expertise to help us with the technical review of the Verizon application. That consultant’s technical advisory will inform staff’s review, but it does not dictate the City’s review or recommendation. Also we have had several comments about the costs associated with that technical review and I just want to be clear that the costs associated with that outside technical review are billed to the project’s cost recovery account and then they are paid for by the applicant.

I also want to note that, simultaneously, City staff is looking at the Creamery facility, their operations and outstanding violations. This effort is across departments. so it is really a full city dialogue and it’s providing that wholistic review both of the Verizon project and corrective action for the creamery. so, we are actively engaged with this. You have your City staff working on it from all sides and talking about the outstanding issues, so I just wanted to make sure that you knew that latest update.”

Whistle clean should be at the top of City Manager Flynn’s mind, given the evidence of her June 5, 2020 email (see Appendix B, and https://unsafeatanyg.com/petaluma/records):

“As the Creamery is still not in compliance and probably won’t be for a while, we will not issue a building permit. Additionally, as there are outstanding financial penalties that need to be resolved prior to issuance of the permit, we will include that into the conditions of approval as well.

On another note, we met with the Creamery owner and reps this week to discuss the replacement of their aging cooling system which uses ammonia rather than freon. Per the Creamery, they want to replace but the cost is prohibitive (~$900k). We are working with them to find a way for them to upgrade their system asap — especially given the potential risk for an ammonia leak. This may mean negotiating their outstanding wastewater fines with the commitment to upgrade the system. The alternative is to shut them down which would probably close the business indefinitely.”

In this email, was the City Manager of Petaluma willing to subsidize the Petaluma Creamery with Petalumans’ money to enable the Verizon PLMA-20-0003/PLUP-19-000 Project application to be approved? Ms. Flynn, the public needs your assurance that you will not act in this way, which is against the interests of the residents of Petaluma.

The Creamery owner has every duty and obligation to follow the laws, pay his bills and not violate environmental regulations.The facts are that The City of Petaluma and other enforcing bodies have been letting him skate by for over a decade. This is in the public record, folks.

We can’t look past this lack of performance, forever. The June 5, 2020 email from Ms. Flynn shows a City Manager willing to misappropriate Petalumans’ money to assist this negligent business owner who is, apparently, her neighbor. Flynn openly communicated this to the City Council. Did any Council member or City staffer speak out against this?

Please . . . take this option off the table.

The following facts should have no bearing on the City’s decision. Do we all agree?

Please consider your choices, very carefully, folks. No dark room deals here, Ms. Flynn and City Council members. As you must fully understand, the public (and other parties with deep expertise) are watching intently as the public attempts to fully engage as equal stakeholders in this project in a fair, democratic process. It would serve everyone’s best interests to define reasonable roles and participation parameters for the parties in the upcoming process from Nov 3, 2020 through a likely end date of Jan 29, 2021 — in order to ensure that the process will be a fair and democratic one.

Here is what we propose; is this workable?

  1. The proponents (Complete Wireless, whatever entity might be dba Verizon Wireless and the Creamery owners) deserve full presenter status and 15 minutes or so to pitch the benefits of approval of the Verizon PLMA-20-0003/PLUP-19-000 project during the expected Dec 8, 2020 Zoom meeting with full A/V and slide support, similar to what have seen (https://cityofpetaluma.org/meetings) in the HCPC, Planning Commission and City Council meetings from Mar, 2020 through Nov, 2020

  2. The opponents (Petaluma for Wireless Safety , other organized neighbors and subject matter experts who wish to preserve the quiet enjoyment of Petalumans’ streets — and homes — their public safety, their privacy and their property values) also deserve full presenter status and an equal 15 minutes or so to pitch the benefits of denial of the Verizon PLMA-20-0003/PLUP-19-000 Project during the expected Dec 8, 2020 Zoom meeting with full A/V and slide support.

  3. The City Staff and its consultants should play the role of Switzerland here. They deserve full presenter status and an equal 15 minutes or so to communicate the staff recommendations and to answer any questions.

Anything short of this would not represent a fair and democratic process. Relegating opponents only to public comment is not a good choice. Public comment can occur after all three presentations have been completed. For those who presented in [2] above, they could agree not to seek public additional comment on the topic.

Mayor Barret, Heidi Bauer and Christopher Caputo, may we please have your agreement to this proposal for a fair and democratic process for Dec 8, 2020? We would like this question answered by no later than the close of business on Nov 5, 2020. Thank you.

Please End Rampant Discrimination Against the Public

Currently things are not fair, because there seems to be discriminatory and unfair engagement with the applicants, and not an equal opportunity or effort by the City Staff to engage with the public on this Verizon PLMA-20-0003/PLUP-19-000 project. The record clearly evidences this.

We have been trying to fix this problem for three months, but City Manager Flynn has refused to engage with the public to address this obvious, well-documented problem.The public demands better service and engagement from its local government. If the National emergency of COVID-19 pandemic is the reason given for not reasonably serving the public, then that should apply equally to the applicants — but the record shows blatant discrimination here. Will you please immediately fix this, Ms. Flynn?

We should not and will not tolerate the continuing discrimination that the Petaluma City staff and the m-Group has perpetrated against the public from July 2020 to the present.

We are asking, once again, to please meet with you, Ms. Flynn — either in person (socially distanced) or via Zoom (or similar) regarding the “bait and switch” tactics being used by the m-Group, and possibly by

  • Lee Afflerbach, Telecom Consultant from CTC Technology
  • City Attorney Eric Danly
  • Robert “Tripp” May from Telecom Law Firm, P. C.

We have some questions for Ms Flynn that we would like answered by no later than the close of business on Nov 5, 2020 (Thank you):

  1. Will the City of Petaluma live up to Ms. Flynn’s commitment to the public to order the Drive Test/Wireless Antenna Need Test for Verizon PLMA-20-0003/PLUP-19-000 Project?
  2. If the City of Petaluma lives up to Ms. Flynn’s commitment to the public to order the Drive Test, when will the City communicate to the public the methodology, the start date and the date when the raw signal strength data will be placed in the public record?

  3. If the City of Petaluma does not live up to Ms. Flynn’s commitment to the public to order the Drive Test, then what is the reason for that decision?

  4. Why were these outside resources identified, recruited and selected?

  5. Why were these outside resources not identified, recruited and selected at any time between June 2019 and October 2020?

  6. As the City already had a local Telecom consultant back in 2018 that assisted on Petaluma’s 2018 Small cell Wireless Ordinance, why not use that gentleman again?

  7. Why did the City of Petaluma reach across the country all the way to Maryland to fill this simple Telecom role?
  8. Did the Applicants (Complete Wireless and whatever entity might be dba Verizon Wireless here) have any say in the selection of this Telecom consultant, since the applicants are paying for Mr. Afflerbach’s services?
  9. Was the public, which has deep expertise in these matters, consulted on the identification and selection of these outside resources?
  10. If not, is this process sounding whistle clean to anyone? (hint: our national experts — and we know many — are telling us no)
  11. On what date/time can we meet with you?

City staffs that exhibit similar behavior to this, such as Thousand Oaks, CA — a city that was also advised by Telecom Law firm — invite predictable and costly outcomes, as you can see here → https://scientists4wiredtech.com/thousandoaks

We have the following additional questions that we also would like answered by the close of business on Nov 5. 2020:

A. First, we have the following evidence in the public record , regarding the critically-important Drive Test/Wireless Antenna Need Test:

“In my conversation with Lee Afflerbach on Friday Oct 30, 2020, Lee sounded a bit surprised when I told him that the public had received an email from Petaluma City Manager Peggy Flynn on Sept 24, 2020 confirming that “a drive test is being required“. I don’t know why he would be surprised because I emailed that information to him a week ago on Fri Oct 23, 2020, in the congratulatory email that I sent shortly after receiving a copy of the executed City of Petaluma/CTC Technology contract (See the email quoted below in Appendix C).”

Will the City of Petaluma order a drive test? Yes or no? We need to know by no later than Nov 5, 2020.

B. Second, Mr. Danly, will you please hire a sound, objective outside legal advisor, from the best attorneys available to you. Attorneys Mark Pollock (70-257-3089) from Napa and W. Scott McCollough (512-633-3498) combined efforts to assist the City of Malibu’s Ordinance tightening (see below) — I gave you their numbers months ago and asked you to call them. I understand that you never did.

These are much better options than scraping the bottom-of-the-barrel to select the “Wireless Industry indoctrinator-duo” of Robert “Tripp” May / Jonathon Kramer, from Telecom Law firm, P.C. — a firm which the City of Malibu is moving on from due to the obvious conflicts-of-interest and less-than-stellar advice purveyed by the Telecom Law firm, as evidenced here:

It seems that City Attorney Eric Danly, the m-Group or City Manager Peggy Flynn did not complete sufficient due dilegence when identifying Telecom Law firm as an advisor that could be trusted to value the interests of the residents of Petaluma. We have additional substantial evidence to share about this. Please make a sound decision here, Ms. Flynn and Mr. Danly.

C. Third, Mr Afflerbach, we are asking for your thorough and professional responses to the following questions (and asking City Staff to support the answering of these questions) re: Verizon PLMA-20-0003/PLUP-19-000 Project & FCC Human Exposure to RF-EMR: Guidelines for Cellular Antenna Sites

Note, that we have previous Experience With Lee Afflerbach of CTC Technology & Energy exhibiting somewhat dismissive behavior, not unlike the behavior from the m-Group toward the public from July, 2020 to the present:

I wrote the following on Sept 15, 2019 to the Sonoma County Planning Commissioners (see full public record of documents here → https://sonomacity.civicweb.net/filepro/documents/24238:

“Lee Afflerbach from CTC Technology & Energy falls into an unusual category. He is a wireless industry insider (former FCC employee) advising the City of Sonoma, but the cost of his services are paid for by the applicant (Verizon). When I talked to Lee Afflerbach by phone about a week ago, he was gracious enough to give me ten minutes and agreed to do so because, in his words, that even though I was from the “dark side”, I wasn’t that bad.

That comment, l believe tells you something about his own biases and perspectives. Afflerbach did not, however, complete the important RF-EMR exposure calculations that we asked the City of Sonoma to ask him to complete — calculations that would be very helpful to the Planning Commissioners.

The following is a quote from a 9/4/19 email requesting the not-yet-completed RF-EMR exposure analysis (see more details the City of Sonoma public record here: https://sonomacity.civicweb.net/filepro/documents/24238)

‘The City of Sonoma, the Planning Commissioners and Sonoma residents, workers and private property owners, collectively know as “Sonomans” would all benefit from Lee Afflerbach from CTC calculating the matrix of pulsed, data-modu|ated, Radio-frequency Electromagnetic Microwave Radiation (RF-EMR) exposure levels (at ground and second-story levels) from various power output levels (3,000 Watts ERP, 800 Watts ERP, 460 Watts ERP, 100 Watts ERP, 10 Watts ERP and 2 Watts ERP) with the antennas installed at various numbers of feet off the ground (24 feet, 50 feet, 100 feet and 150 feet from the ground). We would also all benefit from knowing the propagation distance when the wireless signal from each of these antenna configurations finally degrades to -125 dBM (assuming no trees, buildings or hills get in the way).’

What Mr. Afflerbach thinks of me is not important, but the information I have entered into the City of Sonoma public record and the people who publish and present these peer-reviewed, scientific studies are extremely important, including the following substantial written evidence already in the City of Sonoma public record:”

Here are the questions we would like Mr. Afflerbach to answer by no later than Nov 5, 2020 (Thank you).

  1. When will the Drive Test start?

  2. What will be the methodology of the drive test?

  3. What equipment will the CTC use to collect and log the data?

  4. Will CTC report its significant gap in Verizon telecommunications/coverage analysis in dBm? Is CTC doing some other analysis, which may not be necessary? If so, which other tests and why are those tests considered necessary? (See Appendix D: Beware of the Overloaded Term “Capacity”, As Used by the Wireless Industry)

  5. Will the CTC place the raw data of the Drive test into the public record?

  6. Is the City asking CTC for a written report?

  7. Will CTC communicate the format of the data before the test is ordered/conducted?

  8. Will CTC agree that it does not have any medical or biological expertise and therefore will refrain from making any claims about safety, biological impacts or negative health consequences from pulsed, data-modulated, Radio-frequency Electromagnetic Microwave Radiation (RF-EMR)?

  9. Will CTC agree to only make assessments about compliance with the FCC RF-EMR Maximum Public Exposure Guideline? — since we all must recognize that compliance with the FCC RF-EMR MPE guideline does not and cannot insure pubic safety

Next, considering the information in Appendix A: FCC Human Exposure to RF-EMR: Guidelines for Cellular Antenna Sites which states the following:

The FCC permits an effective radiated power (ERP) of up to:

  • A: 500 Watts/channel × Antenna Gain × # of channels/antenna = # of Total Watts ERP

The majority of cell sites in urban and suburban areas operate at:

  • B: 100 Watts/channel × Antenna Gain × # of channels/antenna = # of Total Watts ERP

  • An ERP of 100 watts corresponds to an actual radiated power of 5-10 watts.

In URBAN AREAs, cell sites commonly emit an ERP of 10 watts/channel or less.

  • C: 10 Watts/channel × Antenna Gain × # of channels/antenna = # of Total Watts ERP

We make the following accurate observations/statements and ask Lee Afflerbach to answer the subsequent questions by no later than Nov 5, 2020 (Thank you).

Observations

The target area (or search ring, if you prefer), which is the 28 square mile area in Southwest Petaluma is within a 3-mile radius of the Petaluma Creamery, includes the following:

  • Petaluma High,
  • Petaluma Jr. High
  • Valley Vista Elementary,
  • McNear Elementary,
  • Elim Lutheran Church (right next door)
  • other places of worship and
  • thousands of residences

. . . which means this search ring is definitely a densely populated and, therefore — without question — an URBAN AREA.

Since the FCC says that cell sites in URBAN AREAs commonly emit an ERP of 10 watts/channel or less, meaning 10 Watts/channel × Antenna Gain × # of channels/antenna = # of Total Watts ERP.

Questions

Q-A: Will Mr. Afflerbach please explain how the following FCC statement can be considered accurate? “An ERP of 100 watts corresponds to an actual radiated power of 5-10 watts.”?

Q-B: Will CTC please provide accurate calculations for the 16 antennas of the PLMA-20-0003/PLUP-19-000 project that will be installed at 80 feet off the ground, spraying to ground level (5 feet off the ground) and to a second-story level (20 feet off the ground) in the center of 36 ten-degree increments around the search ring, every 50 feet from 50 feet from the antenna to 15,840 feet from the antenna (about 317 values per slice of circle x 36 slices = 11,405 data points as Total Watts ERP and projected dBm, for each of the following cases:

  • Case A: 5 Watts/channel × Antenna Gain × # of channels/antenna = # of Total Watts ERP and in dBm
  • Case B: 10 Watts/channel × Antenna Gain × # of channels/antenna = # of Total Watts ERP and in dBm
  • Case C: 25 Watts/channel × Antenna Gain × # of channels/antenna = # of Total Watts ERP and in dBm
  • Case D: 50 Watts/channel × Antenna Gain × # of channels/antenna = # of Total Watts ERP and in dBm
  • Case E: 100 Watts/channel × Antenna Gain × # of channels/antenna = # of Total Watts ERP and in dBm
  • Case F: 250 Watts/channel × Antenna Gain × # of channels/antenna = # of Total Watts ERP and in dBm
  • Case G: 500 Watts/channel × Antenna Gain × # of channels/antenna = # of Total Watts ERP and in dBm

Q-C: Will CTC provide actual, current dBm measurements from driving along the streets of Petaluma in the same search ring for each non-mmWave downlink frequency/band listed in Appendix E (we will have more detail in a subsequent email to be sent on Nov 4, 2020)

Q-D: Will CTC identify which of the frequency/bands listed in Appendix E are dedicated to downlink, which are dedicated to uplink and which handle both downlink and uplink simultaneously?

Q-E: Will Mr. Afflerbach please read the following FCC Comment from June 17, 2020 from Prof. Trevor Marshall, PhD and write up what he agrees with and disagrees with what was said in the comment here → https://ourtownourchoice.org/fcc/ (Trevor Marshall, PhD is the scientific expert that assisted Petaluma staff in our 90-minute meeting on Feb 1, 2018).

We are looking forward to timely answers to all of the questions, in this email, re: the Verizon PLMA-20-0003/PLUP-19-000 Project by no later than close of business on Nov 5, 2020.

Thank you.


Regards,

[Petaluma Resident]


Appendix A: FCC Human Exposure to RF-EMR: Guidelines for Cellular Antenna Sites

from https://ourtownourchoice.org/fcc-guidelines-for-cellular-antenna-sites/

Adapted from https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/human-exposure-radio-frequency-fields-guidelines-cellular-and-pcs-sites; see [additions/comments] and subtractions, below.

[RF-EMR = pulsed, data-modulated, Radio-frequency Electromagnetic Microwave Radiation]

Primary antennas for transmitting wireless telephone service, including cellular and personal communications wireless service are usually located outdoors on towers and other elevated structures like rooftops, water tanks and sides of buildings. The combination of antenna towers and associated electronic equipment is referred to as a “cellular or PCS cell site” [Wireless Telecommunications Facility (WTF) or Wireless] “base station.”

Cell towers are typically 50–200 feet high (Vertical) [and typically 2,500–5,000 feet feet away (Horizontal) from residences; the third essential variable is Power]

[S4WT: VHP: Localities must regulate all three variables (Vertical • Horizontal • Power) to finally complete the cooperative federalism scheme set up by the 1996 Telecommunications Act (1996-TCA), which was confirmed by the US Supreme Court in 2005 in Palos Verdes v Abrams]

Antennas are usually arranged in groups of three, with

  • one antenna in each group used to send signals to mobile devices
  • two antennas used to receive signals from mobile devices.

[S4WT: this sounds like a description of yesteryear (even though this FCC web page was updated in 2019); many of today’s 4G/5G antennas are phased arrays with steerable beams with send and receive handled by the same antennas]

On a WTF, the total radio frequency microwave (RF/MW) radiation that can be transmitted from each transmitting antenna depends on

  1. the number of radio channels that have been authorized by the Federal Communications Commission and
  2. the [maximum] Effective Radiated Power (ERP) of each transmitter.

[S4WT: max ERP is calculated as: the sum of per channel Maximum Input Power × Antenna Gain; Max ERP is what matters because the 2012 Spectrum Act (§6049(a)) says:

47 U.S. Code § 1455 (a) Facility modifications

(1) In general. Notwithstanding section 704 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (Public Law 104–104) or any other provision of law, a State or local government may not deny, and shall approve, any eligible facilities request for a modification of an existing wireless tower or base station that does not substantially change the physical dimensions of such tower or base station.

(2) Eligible facilities request. For purposes of this subsection, the term “eligible facilities request” means any request for modification of an existing wireless tower or base station that involves—

(A) collocation of new transmission equipment;

(B) removal of transmission equipment; or
v>
(C) replacement of transmission equipment.

(3) Applicability of environmental laws. Nothing in paragraph (1) shall be construed to relieve the Commission from the requirements of the National Historic Preservation Act [1] or the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.”

[ . . . meaning that a Wireless Co. can make whatever upgrades it wishes, in the future, to increase WTF height, width and power output, without a discretionary process or notification to the public. This is why any City is best served by allowing the minimum number of Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (WTFs) within its jurisdiction.]

Although The FCC permits an effective radiated power (ERP) of up to:

  • A: 500 Watts/channel × Antenna Gain × # of channels/antenna = # of Total Watts ERP

The majority of cell sites in urban and suburban areas operate at:

  • B: 100 Watts/channel × Antenna Gain × # of channels/antenna = # of Total Watts ERP

  • An ERP of 100 watts corresponds to an actual radiated power of 5-10 watts.

In urban areas, cell sites commonly emit an ERP of 10 watts/channel or less.

  • C: 10 Watts/channel × Antenna Gain × # of channels/antenna = # of Total Watts ERP

For PCS cell sites, even lower ERPs are typical.

As with all forms of electromagnetic energy, the power density from a cellular or PCS transmitter rapidly decreases as distance from the antenna increases.

[S4WT: It is also true, therefore, as the antenna moves

  • from . . . a typical 2,500–5,000 feet from residences
  • to . . . 25–50 feet feet from residences

. . . the power density from a cellular or PCS transmitter rapidly increases as distance from the antenna decreases . . . so the one true statement the FCC is not telling you is that distance is your friend; the only way to tolerate antennas closer than 2,500–5,000 feet from residences is to cap the power input/power output drastically and police this power 24/7 with City-installed-and-controlled fuses.]

Consequently, normal ground-level exposure [from typical antennas that are 2,500–5,000 feet feet from residences] is much less than the exposure that might be encountered if one were very close to the antenna and in its main transmitted beam.

[S4WT: Also, consequently, ground-level exposure [from antennas that are 25–50 feet from residences] is much greater than the example given above because people are very close to the antennas and are, too often, in the main transmitted beam (think second- and third-story bedrooms, as evidenced here.].

Measurements made near typical cellular and PCS cell sites have shown that ground-level power densities are well below the exposure limits recommended by RF/microwave safety standards used by the FCC.

[S4WT: Well, since compliance with the unscientific and unsound FCC RF-EMR Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE) Guideline cannot insure public safety, the FCC RF-EMR MPE guideline is a commercial guideline only, not a safety guideline. We know this is true because . . .

  1. The FCC RF Guideline only considers the rate of exposure and not the total dose of exposure (this is unlike any other poison or toxic agent studied by the NIEHS’ National Toxicology program, as shown here.)

  2. The FCC RF Guideline is based on the average exposure readings which are 1/100th to 1/10,000th times lower than the peak exposure readings; the peak RF-EMR readings are the relevant bioactive components in pulsed, data-modulated, Radio-frequency Electromagnetic Microwave Radiation (RF-EMR).

  3. The FCC RF Guideline is based on average RF-EMR measurements over a six-minute averaging time for commercial exposures and a 30-minute averaging time for general public exposures, yet then the FCC says the public can withstand these RF-EMR levels 24/7, forever — which is nonsense.

  4. Actually, the FCC RF guideline does not consider the time of exposure at all, which is utter nonsense, once you consider exposure to other electromagetic radiation such as from the sun (tanning vs burning) and paying one’s electric bill (paying for Watts×Time-of-use, or kiloWatt-hours of electricity).

  5. The FCC RF Guideline was a scam from day one; a dirty trick to commercialize military technology in order to make make oodles of money, as explained here.]

Guidelines

In 1996, the FCC adopted updated guidelines for evaluating human exposure to RF fields from fixed transmitting antennas such as those used for cellular and PCS cell sites.

[S4WT: Yes, we have carefully studied the selection of the FCC RF-EMR MPE guideline

The FCC’s guidelines are identical to those recommended by the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, a non-profit corporation chartered by Congress to develop information and recommendations concerning radiation protection.

[S4WT: Yes, we talked to the Director of the NCRP for an hour and then downloaded and read this 396-page publication from 1986, summarizing science through 1982: “NCRP Report No. 86 — Biological Effects and Exposure Criteria for Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields [and Radiation]”

The FCC’s guidelines also resemble the 1992 guidelines recommended by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), a non-profit technical and professional engineering society, and endorsed by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), a nonprofit, privately-funded membership organization that coordinates development of voluntary national standards in the United States.

[S4WT: Aah, yes, the same engineering organization that puts a filter in place to guarantee that the IEEE only looks at about 1,500 scientific studies that only consider the heating of biological tisssue, which is only one of the hundreds of scientifically-established harms from pulsed, data-modulated, Radio-frequency Electromagnetic Microwave Radiation (RF-EMR). We have the evidence that proves that the IEEE is merely cherry-picking the scientific evidence. The State of New Hampshire’s Expert Commission published a comprehensive report with 15 recommendations on Nov 1, 2020https://scientists4wiredtech.com/nh/hb-522-majority-report/]

In the case of cellular and PCS cell site transmitters, the FCC’s RF exposure guidelines recommend a maximum permissible exposure level to the general public of approximately 580 microwatts per square centimeter [for 850-900MHz only] [S4WT: This translates to 5,800,000 microwatts per square meter (µW/m²) . . . compare that to the recommended BioInitiative RF-EMR exposure guideline of 3 to 6 µW/m².

[S4WT: More specifically, the FCC RF MPE Guideline is frequency-specific, like this:]

FCC Guidelines for Maximum Public Exposure to
Radio-frequency Electromagnetic Microwave Radiation (RF-EMR)
Reported as Average RF-EMR Frequency range

Frequency range (MHz) Electric field strength (V/m) Magnetic field strength (A/m) Average Power density (µW/m²) Averaging time (minutes)
0.30-1.34 614 1.63 (1,000,000,000)* 30
1.34-30.00 824/f 2.19/f (1,800,000,000/f²)* 30
1.3     1,000,000,000 30
1.5     800,000,000 30
3.0     200,000,000 30
10.0     18,000,000 30
15.0     8,000,000 30
25.0     2,880,000 30
30-300 27.5 0.073 2,000,000 30
300-1,500     (f/1500)*10 million 30
600     4,000,000 30
700     4,670,000 30
800     5,330,000 30
900     6,000,000 30
1,000     6,670,000 30
1,250     8,330,000 30
1,500-100,000     10,000,000 30

*Plane-wave equivalent power density; f = frequency in MHz;

-----

This limit is many times greater than RF levels typically found near the base of cellular or PCS cell site towers or in the vicinity of other, lower-powered cell site transmitters.

[S4WT: Not any more . . . see the evidence below . . .

[image]

Calculations corresponding to a “worst-case” situation (all transmitters operating simultaneously and continuously at the maximum licensed power) show that, in order to be exposed to RF levels near the FCC’s guidelines, an individual would essentially have to remain in the main transmitting beam and within a few feet of the antenna for several minutes or longer.

[S4WT: The preceding sentence is a misleading statement, based on the false assumption that FCC RF-EMR Guideline (10,000,000 μW/m² for 1500 MHz and above) is actually protective of the biology of humans and all other living organisms. It is not. It is not a safety guideline. This has been scientifically established by tens of thousands of non-Wireless-Industry funded peer-reviewed scientific studies. There is no debate among serious scientists.

The debate is only perpetuated by the Wireless Industry, their purchased/captured experts and Governments which are salivating over the surveillance/control that Densified 4G/5G wireless infrastructure can achieve.]

Thus, the possibility that a member of the general public could be exposed to RF levels in excess of the FCC guidelines is extremely remote. When cellular and PCS antennas are mounted on rooftops, RF emissions could exceed higher than desirable guideline levels on the rooftop itself . . .

[S4WT: Not true. The occupants of top floors of building with roof-mounted antennas have metered RF-EMR well above even the ridiculously-high 10,000,000 μW/m² for 1500 MHz and above.]

. . . even though rooftop antennas usually operate at lower power levels than free-standing power antennas.

[S4WT: They operate far too high for being that close to people. They only need to provide -85 dBm (0.002 μW/m² for 5-bars on a cell phone for telecommunications service — the only service for which the Wireless Industry can preempt local authority). They can do that with power hundreds of thousands of times lower than current levels.]

Such levels might become an issue for maintenance or other personnel working on the rooftop. Exposures exceeding the guidelines levels, however, are only likely to be encountered very close to, and directly in front of, the antennas. In such cases, precautions such as time limits can avoid exposure in excess of the guidelines. Individuals living or working within the building are not at risk.

[S4WT: Many Wireless Telecommunications Facilities installers — even those in their twenty’s — are getting sick and contracting cancer (evidence here). None of this FCC safety propaganda is based on real-world experience or evidence available to everyone 2020 — the jig is up. The public is informed.]

Download the FCC propaganda page as a pdf


Appendix B: Email From Peggy Flynn on June 5, 2020 at 2:25 pm (emphases added)

From: Flynn, Peggy PFlynn@cityofpetaluma.org
Sent: Friday, June 5, 2020 2:25 PM
To: City Council CityCouncil@cityofpetaluma.org
Cc: Danly, Eric EDanly@cityofpetaluma.org; Bendix, Brittany bbendix@cityofpetaluma.org; Thompson, Leonard LeonardThompson@cityofpetaluma.org; Power, Jessica JPower@cityofpetaluma.org; Petnic, Gina GPETNIC@cityofpetaluma.org; Hughes, Doug DHughes@cityofpetaluma.org

Subject: Verizon Wireless tower Petaluma Creamery

Dear Mayor and Councilmembers —

Apparently, Petaluma Creamery is looking to install a Verizon wireless tower on their facility.

The project is subject to the FCC’s shot clock standards for local review meaning that cities must act on proposed new installations, which is the case at this site, within 150 days. The only way to extend that timeframe is through a tolling agreement, which both parties must agree to. Because of COVID, we’re currently in a tolling agreement period with Verizon that goes through September 1.

This requires us to move forward with the PC in June and bring the item, if an appealed is filed, to the City Council in August.

Once entitled, the telecommunications facility is then subject to Building Permit review, where per the conditions of approval it must demonstrate compliance with Building and Fire standards, especially as they relate to CUPA, which is a standard requirement for these facilities. As the Creamery is still not in compliance and probably won’t be for a while, we will not issue a building permit. Additionally, as there are outstanding financial penalties that need to be resolved prior to issuance of the permit, we will include that into the conditions of approval as well.

On another note, we met with the Creamery owner and reps this week to discuss the replacement of their aging cooling system which uses ammonia rather than freon. Per the Creamery, they want to replace but the cost is prohibitive (~$900k). We are working with them to find a way for them to upgrade their system asap — especially given the potential risk for an ammonia leak. This may mean negotiating their outstanding wastewater fines with the commitment to upgrade the system. The alternative is to shut them down which would probably close the business indefinitely.

Staff will be reaching out to the resident who reached out to the Mayor (see email chain below) and will prepare a letter to the residents who will receive the public notice regarding the proposed tower. Once I have spoken with staff on next steps, I will update you.

Thank you,

Peggy


Appendix C: Emails from [Petaluma Resident] to Lee Afflerbach and Others on Oct 23, 2020

>>> [Petaluma Resident] wrote to Lee Afflerbach and others on 10/23/2020 at 1:50 PM:

Hi, Lee.

Congratulations. Apparently, your firm, CTC Technology has just been hired to assist Petaluma, my home town, in evaluating a proposed Wireless Telecommunications Facility (WTF) on the roof of the Petaluma Creamery.

There is a lot of information about the project here → https://www.unsafeatanyg.com/petaluma/creamery/#latest

This is where you will find some questions for which we have been seeking answers for a long time. Please see first the substantial written evidence of No Significant Gap in Verizon Telecommunications Coverage in Petaluma CA, Aug 3, 2020 → https://www.unsafeatanyg.com/petaluma/nogap/

Are you planning to execute a drive test (between 10/23/2020 11/20/202) similar to the one that you completed in Monterey, CA in 2017/2018?

From https://mystreetmychoice.com/monterey.html

Key Monterey Documents for Mar 15, 2018

Will you please let me know? Thank you.

These are the other questions we need answered . . .

On 9/24/2020 Petaluma City Manager Peggy Flynn wrote in an email:

“A drive test is being required (a sincere thank you Mr. Springhorn for your continued recommendations!). We will continue to provide updates as we have them to you, and most importantly, to the community.

It is a month after our request for immediate inspection of records and we have no answers to the following reasonable questions — of which City Staff has been well-aware, yet we still have no answers. You, Ms Flynn, wrote “A drive test is being required” on 9/24/2020 . . . a month later we still lack these specifics.

  1. Who is the Drive Test vendor — does the public have the ability to research the vendor’s background? We need that answer now.
  2. When will the Drive Test work start? We need that answer now.
  3. What is the methodology of the drive test? We need that answer now.
  4. What equipment will the vendor use to collect and log the data? We need that answer now.
  5. Is the vendor doing coverage analysis in dBm? . . . or is the vendor doing some other analysis, which may not be necessary? We need to know that now.
  6. Will the vendor place the raw data of the Drive test into the public record? There is no way the m-group should hide this data from anyone.
  7. Is the City asking for a written report? None is needed.
  8. We need to understand the format of the data before the test is ordered/conducted.


Regards,

[Petaluma Resident]

>>> [Petaluma Resident] wrote to Brittany Bendix and others on 10/23/2020 6:15 PM:

We are also looking for the contract for the Drive Test vendor . . . where is that?

We saw no commitment to do a drive test in the CTC Contact which we read and analyzed carefully → https://www.unsafeatanyg.com/petaluma/ctc/

Recall that on 9/24/2020 Petaluma City Manager Peggy Flynn wrote in an email:

“A drive test is being required (a sincere thank you Mr. Springhorn for your continued recommendations!). We will continue to provide updates as we have them to you, and most importantly, to the community.”

We will not accept City Manager Peggy Flynn walking back that commitment.

Will you, at least now answer the following reasonable questions?

  1. Who is the Drive Test vendor — does the public have the ability to research the vendor’s background? We need that answer now.
  2. When will the Drive Test work start? We need that answer now.
  3. What is the methodology of the drive test? We need that answer now.
  4. What equipment will the vendor use to collect and log the data? We need that answer now.
  5. Is the vendor doing coverage analysis in dBm? . . . or is the vendor doing some other analysis, which may not be necessary? We need to know that now.
  6. Will the vendor place the raw data of the Drive test into the public record? There is no way the m-group should hide this data from anyone.
  7. Is the City asking for a written report? None is needed.
  8. We need to understand the format of the data before the test is ordered/conducted.

When I saw the contract did not include a commitment to execute a drive test, I emailed Lee Afflerbach right away . . . we need clarity on the drive test methodology and timing and will be accept anything short of a neutral third-party Wireless Antenna Need Test/Signal Strength Drive test — similar in scope to to the one executed under the direction of CTC Technology in Monterey, CA:

From https://mystreetmychoice.com/monterey.html

Key Monterey Documents for Mar 15, 2018

Will you please let me know?


Appendix D: Beware of the Overloaded Term “Capacity”, As Used by the Wireless Industry

An overloaded term is one that has more than one meaning.

Capacity (noun) : has at least two distinct definitions
  1. the maximum amount or number that can be contained or accommodated

  2. the facility or power to produce, perform, or deploy

Telecommunications is the practice of transmitting Title II-regulated phone calls by wire or by spraying it wirelessly, using electromagnetic power through the air.

Broadband is the practice of transmitting Title I-unregulated data by wire or by spraying it wirelessly, using electromagnetic power through the air.

The US 1996 Telecommunications Act (an amendment to the 1934 Communications Act) formally defines and makes a distinction between telecommunications service and information service. In short, telecommunications service is Title II-regulated phone calls by wire or radio, while information service is everything else: Title I-unregulated data: texting, video-conferencing, Internet, gaming, audio/video steaming et al.

Only telecommunications service is a regulated Title II service and, therefore, the only service that benefits from federal preemption of local authority. See The October 1, 2019 Ruling in Case No. 18-1051, Mozilla v FCC.

47 U.S. Code § 153 – Definitions

(53) Telecommunications service: The term “telecommunications service” means the offering of telecommunications for a fee directly to the public, or to such classes of users as to be effectively available directly to the public, regardless of the facilities used.

(24) Information service: The term “information service” means the offering of a capability for generating, acquiring, storing, transforming, processing, retrieving, utilizing, or making available information via telecommunications, and includes electronic publishing, but does not include any use of any such capability for the management, control, or operation of a telecommunications system or the management of a telecommunications service.

In Telecom parlance, the Wireless Industry loves to opine about coverage vs. capacity, because doing so, often serves their business goals to over-serve the American public with excessive wireless signal to maximize their profits — in violation of Title 47 U.S.C § 324, and US Circuits Courts of Appeals rulings from 1996 to the present.

A. Title 47 U.S.C § 324

In all circumstances, except in case of radio communications or signals relating to vessels in distress, all radio stations, including those owned and operated by the United States, shall use the minimum amount of power necessary to carry out the communication desired.

-----

The concept of wireless coverage derives from US Circuits Courts of Appeals rulings from 1996 to the present which clearly define two important principles that constrain Federal overreach into local zoning authority over the placement, construction and modification of personal wireless facilities:

  • Significant Gap in Telecommunications Coverage
  • Least Intrusive Means in order to close a Significant Gap in Telecommunications Coverage

-----

B. 2005 Ninth Circuit Ruling : Metro-PCS vs. San Francisco (link)

D. Prohibition Claim

2. Service Gap

(a) Definition of “Significant Gap.” Having considered both the avowed policy goals of the 1996-TCA and the practical implications of the various constructional options, we elect to follow the district court’s lead and formally adopt the First Circuit’s rule that a significant gap in service (and thus an effective prohibition of service) exists whenever a provider is prevented from filling a significant gap in its own service coverage.  

(b) Least Intrusive Means: The Second and Third Circuit “least intrusive” standard . . . allows for a meaningful comparison of alternative sites before the siting application process is needlessly repeated.   It also gives providers an incentive to choose the least intrusive site in their first siting applications, and it promises to ultimately identify the best solution for the community, not merely the last one remaining after a series of application denials. For these reasons, we now adopt the “least intrusive means” standard and instruct the district court to apply this rule as necessary in its consideration of the prohibition issue.

-----

The term wireless capacity, which appears nowhere in the language of the 1996-TCA, has two distinct meanings in Wireless Telecom vernacular:

1. Capacity is sometimes used by the Wireless industry to describe the number of simultaneous users that can connect to a single Wireless Telecommunications Facility (WTF) base station (around 3,000 users), which is independent of the power output from that WTF, as long as the “minimum amount of power necessary to carry out the communication desired” (telecommunications) has been achieved (0.1 Watt of ERP covers ½-mile radius from a WTF). Read also about Lorentz Reciprocity here → https://ourtownourchoice.org/fcc/

2. Capacity is also used by the Wireless industry to describe the amount of electromagnetic power through the air that the Wireless industry purports is desired for information service. There is no preemption available for this type of capacity, despite the Wireless industry’s statements.

In the Signal Strength RF Microwave Radiation Exposure Guidelines (see here) the “Land of Capacity” is for information services in the context of [2] , above, and, therefore, is wholly unnecessary because wireline broadband information service is far superior to wireless broadband information service. Of critical importance, wireline broadband information service by copper, coaxial or fiber optic cables (directly to the premises) IS NOT a “functionally equivalent service” to wireless broadband information service, as seen in the following table and in the definition recognized by U.S. Supreme Court Case No. 03-1601, CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES et al. v. ABRAMS (2005)

Definition of functionally equivalent services:

“When utilizing the term ‘functionally equivalent services‘ the conferees are referring only to personal wireless services as defined in this section that directly compete against one another.”

Definition of personal wireless services:

“commercial mobile services, unlicensed wireless services, and common carrier wireless exchange access services;”


Appendix E: Verizon Licensed Frequencies/Bands for Petaluma, CA

From https://www.unsafeatanyg.com/petaluma/creamery/#signal
Source: https://specmap.sequence-omega.net/

Label Num Blk Area Channel Bandwidth Center Trans./Rec.
700 MHz 9 C REA 746-757 11 751.5 tbd
700 MHz 9 C REA 776-787 11 781.5 tbd
Cellular 489 B CMA 835-845 10 840 tbd
Cellular 489 B CMA 846.5-849 2.5 847.75 tbd
Cellular 489 B CMA 880-894 14 887 tbd
Cellular 489 B CMA 891.5-894 2.5 892.75 tbd
PCS 25 A MTA 1850-1865 15 1857.5 tbd
PCS 25 A MTA 1930-1945 15 1937.5 tbd
PCS 29 B MTA 1870-1885 15 1877.5 tbd
PCS 29 B MTA 1950-1965 15 1957.5 tbd
PCS 165 C BTA 1895-1910 15 1902.5 tbd
PCS 165 C BTA 1975-1990 15 1982.5 tbd
AWS 141 B BEA 1720-1730 10 1725 tbd
AWS 141 B BEA 2120-2130 10 2125 tbd
AWS 57 C BEA 1730-1735 5 1732.5 tbd
AWS 57 C BEA 2130-2135 5 2132.5 tbd
AWS 7 D REA 1735-1740 5 1737.5 tbd
AWS 7 D REA 2135-2140 5 2137.5 tbd
AWS 6 E REA 1740-1745 5 1742.5 tbd
AWS 6 E REA 2140-2145 5 2142.5 tbd
AWS 7 F REA 1745-1755 10 1750 tbd
AWS 7 F REA 2145-2155 10 2150 tbd
AWS-3 45 J BEA 1755-1760 5 1757.5 tbd
AWS-3 45 J BEA 2155-2160 5 2157.5 tbd
mmWave 101 L1 BTA 27500-27925 425 27712.5 tbd
mmWave 103 L2 BTA 27925-28350 425 28137.5 tbd
mmWave 411 M1 PEA 37600-37700 100 37650 tbd
mmWave 411 M2 PEA 37700-37800 100 37750 tbd
mmWave 411 M3 PEA 37800-37900 100 37850 tbd
mmWave 411 M4 PEA 37900-38000 100 37950 tbd
mmWave 411 M5 PEA 38000-38100 100 38050 tbd
mmWave 411 M6 PEA 38100-38200 100 38150 tbd
mmWave 411 M7 PEA 38200-38300 100 38250 tbd
mmWave 409 M8 PEA 38300-38400 100 38350 tbd
mmWave 375 M9 PEA 38400-38500 100 38450 tbd
mmWave 371 M10 PEA 38500-38600 100 38550 tbd



October 23, 2020 

To:
Mr. Peggy Flynn
City Manager
City of Petaluma
11 English Street
Petaluma, CA 94952
707-778-4345

Teresa Barrett, Mayor
Brian Cochran, Assistant City Manager

cc:
Kendall Rose, City Clerk
Eric Danly, City Attorney
Jordan Green, Assistant City Attorney
Heather Hines, m-Group
Brittany Bendix, m-Group
Patrick Streeter, Chair Planning Commission
Heidi Bauer, Vice Chair Planning Commission
Christopher Caputo, HCPC Chair
Kit Schlich, HCPC Vice Chair
Petaluma for Wireless Safety members

Re: Immediate Inspection of Records for Verizon PLMA-20-0003/PLUP-19-000 Project

Dear Ms. Flynn,

[City Clerk Kendall Rose, will you please add this email/letter to the Petaluma Public record for PLMA-20-0003/PLUP-19-000 a WTF antenna farm that has the capability of outputting 533,440 Watts of Effective Radiated Power from 611 Western Ave. Petaluma, CA? Will you please also ensure that this email/letter gets printed and placed into the paper file for this project? We are requesting that this email/letter and all communications and other substantial written evidence that we place in the Public Record be added to the agenda packet that will be distributed to the Petaluma Historic & Cultural Preservation Committee and to the Planning Commission. Thank you for doing so.]

First, what are your decisions? Are you going to follow the law today or not? (See Appendix A, below)

Immediate Inspection of Records Requested on Sept 23, 2020

  1. On Sept 23, 2020 We made a request for an immediate inspection of existing records .

  2. On Oct 14, 2020 Jordan Green told us by email that we could come to City Hall to inspect the records at a future date — an email to which Danly referred us on 10/21/2020

  3. On Oct 21, 2020 Danly attempted to change that plan — but we did not agree to this change and rejected that change as insufficient.

  4. We shared relevant language from California Government Code – GOV TITLE 1. GENERAL [100 – 7914] DIVISION 7. MISCELLANEOUS [6000 – 7599.2] CHAPTER 3.5. Inspection of Public Records [6250 – 6276.48] ARTICLE 1. General Provisions [6250 – 6270.5]: “Public records are open to inspection at all times during the office hours of the state or local agency and every person has a right to inspect any public record

Ms. Flynn, the City of Petaluma must follow the law. We need to inspect the file today or Monday as a quality assurance step. This is required at this time, in part, because the City of Petaluma Staff has been actively and willfully hiding from the public substantive information regarding the Wireless Antenna Need Test/Signal Strength Drive test — for months.

Recall that on 9/24/2020 Petaluma City Manager Peggy Flynn wrote in an email:

“A drive test is being required (a sincere thank you Mr. Springhorn for your continued recommendations!). We will continue to provide updates as we have them to you, and most importantly, to the community.”

Over the last month, we have requested reasonable updates about this drive test, but have received no substantive information. The following reasonable questions have not been answered.

It is a month after our request for immediate inspection of records and we have no answers to the following reasonable questions — of which City Staff has been well-aware, yet we still have no answers. You, Ms Flynn, wrote “A drive test is being required” on 9/24/2020 . . . a month later we still lack these specifics.

  1. Who is the Drive Test vendor — does the public have the ability to research the vendor’s background? We need that answer now.
  2. When will the Drive Test work start? We need that answer now.
  3. What is the methodology of the drive test? We need that answer now.
  4. What equipment will the vendor use to collect and log the data? We need that answer now.
  5. Is the vendor doing coverage analysis in dBm? . . . or is the vendor doing some other analysis, which may not be necessary? We need to know that now.
  6. Will the vendor place the raw data of the Drive test into the public record? There is no way the m-group should hide this data from anyone.
  7. Is the City asking for a written report? None is needed.
  8. We need to understand the format of the data before the test is ordered/conducted.

Please note that June 12, 2020 — our first on-site inspection of records for this project fell on a Friday, a day that Petaluma city staff typically does not work, but a day that m-Group staff does. Precedence has been set in these matters. There is no sufficient reason to obstruct our request for immediate on-site inspection of records, no matter what Danly tried to sell us. His reasons were insufficient. We choose to enforce our rights.

Ms. Flynn, will you please respond with a firm date/time for our on-site inspection of records?

Thank you.

Second, will the m-group tomorrow be posting the sign on the Petaluma Creamery for a Nov 10, 2020 joint meeting of the HCPC/Planning Commission, as Ms. Hines discussed /on Oct 13, 2020 at the HCPC meeting? Knowing the target date for the meeting is critical for our planning.

Hines on 10/13/2020:

“We are potentially looking at a joint meeting of the HCPC and the Planning Commission to review the Verizon Wireless Facility on the Creamery . . . looking at Historic SPAR and a use permit, which requires the discretion of both bodies, [on a date] which has not been scheduled yet, but we would be looking for November or December to do that.”

Bendix on 8/6/2020:

“Petaluma’s notification requirements for this type of proposal require

  • a sign posted on the property 17-days prior to the hearing,
  • a 10-day mailed notice to owners/occupants within 1,000 feet, and an
  • advertisement in the Argus 10-days prior to the hearing.

Functionally, this means that the notification process on staff’s end starts about 20 days before a hearing.”

. . . so it appears that the m-Group would know by now, but chooses to hide this information . . . why is that good for anyone?

Hiding this date from the public is further discrimination against the public. There is no need for the m-group to walk up to each and every deadline before choosing to inform the public — which has been their consistent pattern over the last four months. That is a silly power play that serves no one’s interest. The sooner you can tell us about whether Petaluma is targeting a Nov 10, 2020 meeting, the better.

We wonder . . . how can the m-Group even proceed with an incomplete application? This is hard to fathom. The application has been substantially incomplete the entire time, as we informed the m-Group and the City Council of these facts back on June 15, 2020 and repeatedly since then.

Our current inspection of records will determine if the applicant has followed through by providing all needed information. If they have not, and the m-Group has not forced them to do so by now, then the City of Petaluma should cancel this application due to chronic and incessant bad faith shown by the applicants. The applicants could then try again after the Petaluma Creamery owner cleans up his act and after the COVID-19 Pandemic National Emergency is declared over because the building of new Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (WTFs) is NOT AN ESSENTIAL Activity, per the County of Sonoma Health Dept lockdown orders. These are the facts. Why are these facts being ignored by the City of Petaluma?

As we understand it, the Petaluma Creamery owner . . .

  • Owes many thousands of dollars in back taxes to the City (and perhaps to the State and Federal govt., as well)

  • Has allowed many applications to fix his air pollution problems over the last ten years to expire — without fixing the problem

  • Experiences too many on-site fires — even one in 2020 — because he operates dangerous drying equipment and an ammonia-based refrigeration system — which could be a real public safety disaster if the city allows construction of Heavy Industrial Equipment on this Light Industrial/Agricultural Processing Site: 16 six-foot antennas capable of exploding when attempting to pump out over 500,000+ Watts of Effective Radiated Power which has been classified as a toxic pollutant by the Wireless Industry itself and by all of the reinsurers of the world who will not insure the liability from this toxic pollutant.

These key facts will be in the Planning Commission packet, right?

Let’s see . . . why is the City of Petaluma allowing the Creamery owner the time to clean up one source of air pollution (powdered milk) only to add another source of air pollution (excessive Electromagnetic Power through the air), which, by the way, is completely unnecessary because there is NO SIGNIFICANT GAP in Verizon telecommunications service in any of the area allegedly being “served” by this intrusive Antenna Farm. We have already placed substantial written evidence in the public record to prove this.

Does pushing this incomplete application forward make any sense? Are there no effective standards in the City of Petaluma to separate facts from fiction, truth from lies, fraudulent information from verified and verifably true information? Apparently, not at this time. This seems like willful ignorance by the Petaluma Staff. The public deserves much better service than this.

The City of Petaluma is preparing to issue a conditional use permit that will execute a “taking of property” from Petaluma residents . . . this better be whistle clean, folks . . . and it is clearly not whistle clean at this moment. Discrimination in this process has been rampant for months and the Petaluma City Staff is practicing such discrimination. The record clearly shows it.

We must have the chance to do our own quality assurance on the contents of the public record, as guaranteed by law. We need to fully understand the contents of the record upon which the HCPC and the Planning Commission will be making its deliberations. We cannot allow any fraudulent information to remain in the file and have to ensure that no false information or Wireless Industry propaganda makes its way into the staff packet that will be compiled for the HCPC’s and the Planning Commission’s deliberations.

In short, we will not allow anyone to mail this in. We are defending our homes and our lives here, which is our right to do so. This is a very serious matter and we are asking the Petaluma City Staff to treat it as so, pandemic or no pandemic. There are no excuses.

So, once again, Ms. Flynn, what are your decisions? Are you going to follow the law today or not? (See Appendix A, below)

Please let us know. Thank you.


Regards,

[Petaluma Resident]


Appendix A

>>> [Petaluma Resident], wrote on 10/22/2020 7:50 PM:

Mr. Danly.

I refer you again to my prior emails regarding how and when we will enforce our rights, and why we are taking that approach.

Thank you for the citations.

>>> Danly, Eric wrote on 10/22/2020 6:31 PM:

[Petaluma Resident],

I refer you again to my prior emails regarding how and when we will make available to you the records you have requested, and why we are taking that approach.

Attorney client communications are privileged pursuant to Evidence Code Section 954 and attorney work product is privileged pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 2018.030. As a result both types of records are exempt from disclosure under Government Code Section 6254(k).

Thank you.

Eric W. Danly
City Attorney, City of Petaluma


Appendix B

>>> Bendix, Brittany wrote on 8/6/2020 5:17 PM: (emphases added)

Hi [Petaluma Resident],

I’m jumping in to provide some clarification regarding the timeframe you’ve noted below and concerns about the latest Tolling Agreement, which I’ve attached here for your records.

The City’s position as of July 24 that the project is a Minor Facility requires that the proposal be publicly re-noticed, as well as appear before the HCPC. The October 6th date does not provide enough time to (1) re-notice the project, (2) take it to the HCPC, (3) take it to the Planning Commission, and (4) field an appeal at City Council. As I discussed on the phone with Scott yesterday, the extended tolling agreement enables that process to occur and provides staff additional time to request materials from the applicant.

Petaluma’s notification requirements for this type of proposal require a sign posted on the property 17-days prior to the hearing, a 10-day mailed notice to owners/occupants within 1,000 feet, and an advertisement in the Argus 10-days prior to the hearing. Functionally, this means that the notification process on staff’s end starts about 20 days before a hearing. Also, each hearing body (i.e. HCPC, PC, and City Council) requires its own distinct notification cycle.

On the subject of timeline and noticing requirements, one more thing to consider is the timeframe between a Planning Commission hearing and a City Council appeal hearing. A 14-day appeal period starts once the Planning Commission makes a decision on a project. Even if staff knows for sure that an appeal will be filed, we still need to wait for the 14-day appeal period to end before we can start noticing for the next available Council hearing. This means that there’s roughly 40 days, at the quickest pace, between a PC hearing and CC appeal hearing.

The applicant requested a continuance to a date certain of either the Planning Commission hearing in November or December, which the extended Tolling Agreement enables. This assumes an HCPC hearing in November, Planning Commission in December, and appeal hearing in January. The timeline also takes into consideration changes to the hearing schedule based on holidays during that time period. Finally, should the City find that it has a defensible position and would prefer to move forward at a more advanced pace, the Tolling agreement does not preclude that option.


Appendix C: Key HCPC/Planning Commission Meeting Dates

10-Nov 24-Nov 8-Dec 22-Dec Day Date Activity
20       Wed 10/21/2020  
19       Thu 10/22/2020  
18       Fri 10/23/2020  
17       Sat 10/24/2020 Last Day to post sign on Creamery for Nov 10 meeting
16       Sun 10/25/2020  
15       Mon 10/26/2020  
14       Tue 10/27/2020 HCPC/Planning Commission Meeting
13       Wed 10/28/2020  
12       Thu 10/29/2020  
11       Fri 10/30/2020  
10       Sat 10/31/2020  
9       Sun 11/1/2020  
8       Mon 11/2/2020  
7       Tue 11/3/2020  
6 20     Wed 11/4/2020  
5 19     Thu 11/5/2020  
4 18     Fri 11/6/2020  
3 17     Sat 11/7/2020 Last Day to post sign on Creamery for Nov 24 meeting
2 16     Sun 11/8/2020  
1 15     Mon 11/9/2020  
0 14     Tue 11/10/2020 HCPC/Planning Commission Meeting
  13     Wed 11/11/2020  
  12     Thu 11/12/2020  
  11     Fri 11/13/2020  
  10     Sat 11/14/2020  
  9     Sun 11/15/2020  
  8     Mon 11/16/2020  
  7     Tue 11/17/2020  
  6 20   Wed 11/18/2020  
  5 19   Thu 11/19/2020  
  4 18   Fri 11/20/2020  
  3 17   Sat 11/21/2020 Last Day to post sign on Creamery for Dec 8 meeting
  2 16   Sun 11/22/2020  
  1 15   Mon 11/23/2020  
  0 14   Tue 11/24/2020 HCPC/Planning Commission Meeting
    13   Wed 11/25/2020  
    12   Thu 11/26/2020  
    11   Fri 11/27/2020  
    10   Sat 11/28/2020  
    9   Sun 11/29/2020  
    8   Mon 11/30/2020  
    7   Tue 12/1/2020  
    6 20 Wed 12/2/2020 Last Day to post sign on Creamery for Dec 22 meeting
    5 19 Thu 12/3/2020  
    4 18 Fri 12/4/2020  
    3 17 Sat 12/5/2020  
    2 16 Sun 12/6/2020  
    1 15 Mon 12/7/2020  
    0 14 Tue 12/8/2020 HCPC/Planning Commission Meeting
      13 Wed 12/9/2020  
      12 Thu 12/10/2020  
      11 Fri 12/11/2020  
      10 Sat 12/12/2020  
      9 Sun 12/13/2020  
      8 Mon 12/14/2020  
      7 Tue 12/15/2020  
      6 Wed 12/16/2020  
      5 Thu 12/17/2020  
      4 Fri 12/18/2020  
      3 Sat 12/19/2020  
      2 Sun 12/20/2020  
      1 Mon 12/21/2020  
      0 Tue 12/22/2020 HCPC/Planning Commission Meeting


October 21, 2020

Dear Mr. Danly,

>>> Danly, Eric wrote on 10/21/2020 7:37 PM: (emphases added)

[Petaluma Respondent],

I have nothing to add to my previous email to you. Please refer to that email and the email Ms. Green recently sent to you in response to the issues you have raised. Thank you.

Eric W. Danly

City Attorney, City of Petaluma

As you can read in Appendix A, Ms. Green promised on 10/14 that “you [can] come to City Hall to inspect the file.” Therefore, we choose to hold the City of Petaluma to its earlier commitment, and reject your proposal for only the “the project file being assembled electronically [being] the entire project file,[that] we intend to transmit to you . . . electronically.”

As I wrote to you earlier, we have solid reasons for choosing Ms. Green’s earlier commitment for us to to inspect the files in person at Petaluma City Hall, just as we did on June 12 and August 4 ( about 2.5 months ago):

  1. We do not trust that the possible filtering of (and the needless extra work to digitize) the records will result in a complete record of everything that will be used as the basis for the HCPC members’ and Planning Commissioners’ deliberations on the Verizon PLMA-20-0003/PLUP-19-000 Project. It would be far more efficient for us to compare our previous database of photos of the records in the file to the actual paper files and then scan for new information, revision dates and anything else that we can see that has been added to the file, since we saw it last on August 4, 2020. Then we can take photos of only the most recent files. We are happy to receive digital files on a USB stick (as we did before) or via a cloud drive, in addition to the inspection of the paper files.

  2. Tomorrow is Oct 22, 2020, which is only 9 business days from Nov 3, 2020 — the likely deadline to submit our analysis for inclusion in the packet that will go to the HCPC members Planning Commissioners for their deliberations on Nov 10, 2020. In short, we are running out of time and need this weekend to review the new file additions.

  3. We recognize that many of the physical paper files are oversized pages; these pages reflect the applicant’s construction plans for this project. We need to verify if the plans have been updated in any way in response to City of Petaluma requests, dating back to July, 2020.

  4. We need to see if any substantial written evidence of NEPA review for the project has been added to the file, as such evidence was missing on both June 12 and on August 4.

  5. We need to gather information about all vendors that the City of Petaluma had considered or is currently considering to hire for this project — regardless of contract status — including, but not limited to the following: drive test vendors, outside technical consultants, outside legal consultants and any other experts whose opinions the City of Petaluma is considering adding to the final record upon which the HCPC members’ and Planning Commissioners’ will rely for their deliberations on the Verizon PLMA-20-0003/PLUP-19-000 Project. The selection of these experts is very important and germane to our preparation and our ability to defend our homes and lives from this dangerous and unnecessary Verizon PLMA-20-0003/PLUP-19-000 Project.

  6. We need to read in any Drive test vendor proposals the various methodologies considered and equipment to be used for the Drive tests that will establish dBm Signal Strength readings for Verizon’s telecommunications frequencies/bands that Verizon has licensed for the three-mile radius of the Petaluma Creamery, as listed in Exhibit B. We cannot stand by and trust that the City of Petaluma staff or the m-grouip will get these details right. Too much depends on the methodology of this drive test.

Please note that we will also need a listing of all records that the City of Petaluma chooses to redact and the reason for the redaction. That means for every redacted record, we need to receive


Date of record | From | To | Title | Reason for redaction

As I wrote earlier today, Mr. Danly . . . “Will you please return my call at 707-981-5522 today so we can schedule our requested and needed inspection of records for a 90-minute slot to start at a specified time between 9:00 am and 3:30 pm on Fri Oct 23, if not sooner?” This is our plan and we are asking for some cooperation from the City of Petaluma, because, the significant stonewalling and hiding of information from the public by the Petaluma City staff and the m-group from Aug 4, 2020 through Oct 21, 2020 has eroded any trust that may have existed at one point. As in all matters, trust is either earned or squandered.

I was disappointed today, Mr. Danly, that I did not receive a return call from you. Will you please call me tomorrow, so we can resolve this problem to the public’s satisfaction?

There are many open issues in my 10/21/2020 email that you, the City of Petaluma staff and the m-group have not addressed . . . just as there are many unaddressed issues right here → https://www.unsafeatanyg.com/petaluma/creamery/#latest (about 26,000 words of relevant information, analysis and questions denoted by Q:” , which makes it easy to search for the still-unaddressed questions).

Does your two-sentence reply, above, communicate . . .

  • a. that you have no information that can address these open issues or , more likely,
  • b. that you have the information and are refusing to share it?

Perhaps, there is another scenario or two I am not listing , but it is very hard to believe that [a], above is true, so we are going to have to assume that [b] is much more likely.

That makes in-person inspection of the records all the more important.

Thank you.


Regards,   

[Petaluma resident]


Appendix A: Key Emails re: Records Requests in Sept/Oct 2020

>>> [Petaluma resident] wrote to Heather Hines on 9/23/2020 12:24 PM:

I am reasonably requesting a return call today on Sept 23, 2020 from the m-group with a substantive update on the Petaluma Creamery project, including copies emailed to me of all evidence of all communications between the m-group/Petaluma city staff to following parties:

  • The applicants of the Petaluma Creamery project (Complete Wireless, Verizon or others)
  • Any wireless consultants the m-group or the city staff has communicated with in the last eight weeks in any wireless matter (any project or any wireless ordinance changes being considered)
  • Any parties involved in getting substantial written evidence of Verizon wireless signal strength coverage or call records that can establish if a significant gap in telecommunications coverage exists in Petaluma in the three-mile radius surrounding the Petaluma Creamery.

>>> [Petaluma resident] wrote to Brittany Bendix on 9/23/2020 4:04 PM:

I will be laser focused on making the m-group and the applicants fully accountable to a proper planning process
from this day forward. I am very detail-oriented. Let’s hope that the information that we are seeking is given to us in a timely manner so we can commence this work as soon as possible.

We are demanding that our US Constitutional 14th amendment rights be respected here: equal protection under the law, which implies equal time and equal consideration as that given to the other stakeholders in this project. We will tolerate no “preferential treatment” given to the personal wireless service industry, as confirmed in Federal law.

The 1996-TCA Conference Report recognized by the US Supreme Court in a 2005 Ruling (Abrams v Palos Verdes) is the “law of the land” and it applies to the entire US. The Conference Report is accepted as the definitive source for the legislative intent of the 1996-TCA:

“It is not the intent of this provision to give preferential treatment to the personal wireless service industry in the processing of requests, or to subject their requests to any but the generally applicable time frames for zoning decision.”

You should also take careful note of the following in the 1996-TCA (see https://scientists4wiredtech.com/readinglaw/)

47 U.S. Code § 324 – Use of minimum power

“In all circumstances, except in case of radio communications or signals relating to vessels in distress, all radio stations, including those owned and operated by the United States, shall use the minimum amount of power necessary to carry out the communication desired.”

Finally, please let me know when can we schedule the following?

  1. A 60-Minute Zoom call between members of Petaluma for Wireless Safety and the m-group personnel (Heather Hines, Brittany Bendix and Justin Shiu — to ensure that all m-group personnel who are touching this project are avavilable to answer our questions (obviating the need to check with “a, b or c”, who could not attend the meeting. We wish all three of you to be present for accountability reasons.

  2. A 90-minute immediate records inspection of the contents of the public record for the Petaluma Creamery project; we need to know what has made it into the public record through 9/23/2020 or whatever date we can schedule the inspection.

>>> Green, Jordan wrote on 10/14/2020 2:55 PM: (relevant quote with emphases added)

Dear [Petaluma Resident],

. . .

The City’s Planning Department is working to make a hard copy of the file current. Once that file is complete, we will provide you with a few dates and times for you to come to City Hall to inspect the file. If you have any further PRA requests, please submit them through the City Clerk’s Office at the following web address: https://cityofpetaluma.org/request-for-public-records/

. . .

Sincerely,

Jordan Green
Assistant City Attorney, City of Petaluma


Appendix B: Verizon Licensed Frequencies/Bands for Petaluma, CA

Source: https://specmap.sequence-omega.net/

Label Num Blk Area Freq BndWdth Ctr TxRx
700 MHz 9 C REA 746-757 11 751.5 tbd
700 MHz 9 C REA 776-787 11 781.5 tbd
Cellular 489 B CMA 835-845 10 840 tbd
Cellular 489 B CMA 846.5-849 2.5 847.75 tbd
Cellular 489 B CMA 880-894 14 887 tbd
Cellular 489 B CMA 891.5-894 2.5 892.75 tbd
PCS 25 A MTA 1850-1865 15 1857.5 tbd
PCS 25 A MTA 1930-1945 15 1937.5 tbd
PCS 29 B MTA 1870-1885 15 1877.5 tbd
PCS 29 B MTA 1950-1965 15 1957.5 tbd
PCS 165 C BTA 1895-1910 15 1902.5 tbd
PCS 165 C BTA 1975-1990 15 1982.5 tbd
AWS 141 B BEA 1720-1730 10 1725 tbd
AWS 141 B BEA 2120-2130 10 2125 tbd
AWS 57 C BEA 1730-1735 5 1732.5 tbd
AWS 57 C BEA 2130-2135 5 2132.5 tbd
AWS 7 D REA 1735-1740 5 1737.5 tbd
AWS 7 D REA 2135-2140 5 2137.5 tbd
AWS 6 E REA 1740-1745 5 1742.5 tbd
AWS 6 E REA 2140-2145 5 2142.5 tbd
AWS 7 F REA 1745-1755 10 1750 tbd
AWS 7 F REA 2145-2155 10 2150 tbd
AWS-3 45 J BEA 1755-1760 5 1757.5 tbd
AWS-3 45 J BEA 2155-2160 5 2157.5 tbd
mmWave 101 L1 BTA 27500-27925 425 27712.5 tbd
mmWave 103 L2 BTA 27925-28350 425 28137.5 tbd
mmWave 411 M1 PEA 37600-37700 100 37650 tbd
mmWave 411 M2 PEA 37700-37800 100 37750 tbd
mmWave 411 M3 PEA 37800-37900 100 37850 tbd
mmWave 411 M4 PEA 37900-38000 100 37950 tbd
mmWave 411 M5 PEA 38000-38100 100 38050 tbd
mmWave 411 M6 PEA 38100-38200 100 38150 tbd
mmWave 411 M7 PEA 38200-38300 100 38250 tbd
mmWave 409 M8 PEA 38300-38400 100 38350 tbd
mmWave 375 M9 PEA 38400-38500 100 38450 tbd
mmWave 371 M10 PEA 38500-38600 100 38550 tbd


October 21, 2020

To:
Mr. Eric Danly
City Attorney
City of Petaluma
11 English Street
Petaluma, CA 94952
707-778-4362

Teresa Barrett, Mayor
Peggy Flynn, City Manger
Brian Cochran, Assistant City Manger

cc:
Kendall Rose , City Clerk
Suzanne Terry, Executive Assistant to the City Manager
Mike Healy, Council Member
D’Lynda Fischer, Vice Mayor
Gabe Kearney, Council Member
Dave King, , Council Member
Kevin McDonnell, Council Member
Kathy Miller, Council Member
Sandi Potter, Planning Commissioner
Richard Marzo, Planning Commissioner
Blake Hooper, Planning Commissioner
Scott Alonso, Planning Commissioner
Heidi Bauer, Planning Commissioner
Christopher Caputo, HCPC Chair
Kit Schlich, HCPC Vice Chair
Terry Kosewic, HCPC Member
John Perlis, HCPC Member
Bill Rinehart, HCPC Member
Petaluma for Wireless Safety Members

Re: Next Steps re: Verizon PLMA-20-0003/PLUP-19-000 Project

Dear Mr. Danly,

[City Clerk Kendall Rose, will you please add this email/letter to the Petaluma Public record for PLMA-20-0003/PLUP-19-000 a WTF antenna farm that has the capability of outputting 533,440 Watts of Effective Radiated Power from 611 Western Ave. Petaluma, CA? Will you please also ensure that this email/letter gets printed and placed into the paper file for this project? We are requesting that this email/letter and all communications and other substantial written evidence that we place in the Public Record be added to the agenda packet that will be distributed to the Petaluma Historic & Cultural Preservation Committee and to the Planning Commission. Thank you for doing so.]

Mr. Danly, your response arrived Seven (7) days after I wrote the email on 10/14/2020 . . . 28 days after my 9/23/2020 email . . . and nearly 70 days after my 8/11/2020 email . . . and you are attempting to “sell” your 10/21/2020 email as responsive? Uh . . . no. How about you, Ms. Flynn, Mr. Cochran, Ms Hines or Ms. Bendix calling me today so we can discuss this and all other open matters detailed herehttps://www.unsafeatanyg.com/petaluma/creamery/#latest? That might work.

Will you please return my call at [redacted] today so we can schedule our requested and needed inspection of records for a 90-minute slot to start at a specified time between 9:00 am and 3:30 pm on Fri Oct 23, if not sooner? Please see my other responses below, prefaced with “resident:”.

My first question is how long have you and Peggy Flynn been “reviewing” the contract for the Written Evidence — Wireless Antenna Need Test— In Telecommunications (WE-WANT-IT) — the drive test of signal strength.

We, the public, need the following critically important information immediately. As I communicated on Oct 15, 2020 . . . regarding the Signal Strength Drive test, we have been in a months-long holding pattern, waiting for real information from the City of Petaluma (not just projections of intentions about what might happen):

  1. Who is the Drive Test vendor — does the public have the ability to research the vendor’s background? We need that answer now.
  2. When will the Drive Test work start? We need that answer now.
  3. What is the methodology of the drive test? We need that answer now.
  4. What equipment will the vendor use to collect and log the data? We need that answer now.
  5. Is the vendor doing coverage analysis in dBm? . . . or is the vendor doing some other analysis, which may not be necessary? We need to know that now.
  6. Will the vendor place the raw data of the Drive test into the public record? There is no way the m-group should hide this data from anyone.
  7. Is the City asking for a written report? None is needed.
  8. We need to understand the format of the data before the test is ordered/conducted.

>>> Danly, Eric wrote on 10/21/2020 10:01 AM:

Dear [Petaluma Resident],

This email is in response to your email, below, to Jordan Green in my office. Your email was received on October 14, 2020, and was in response to Jordan’s email to you of that same date. The information Ms. Green provided you on October 14 remains accurate concerning how members of the public can seek information regarding the Verizon cell tower project; coordination regarding inspecting public records regarding the Verizon application and any future related records requests; the steps that the City will and will not take to provide information to members of the public regarding the application while it is undergoing review; and staff’s efforts to maintain continuity of City programs and services while complying with the County health orders that have been promulgated to protect the public during the COVID pandemic. The purpose of this email is to provide some brief additional clarification in response to your October 14 email.

  • There is no right to immediate inspection of public records of California local government agencies under the Public Records Act.

resident: That is a right we have as California residents. Rights we have executed already on June 12, 2020 and August 4, 2020 at the City of Petaluma, so there is precedence established. Why is the City of Petaluma stonewalling now?

The City of Petaluma is not a private business and cannot choose to hide records from the public, or stonewall for many weeks, as the City of Petaluma has done. In short, we are not satisfied with the level of responsiveness we have received from the Petaluma City staff which is currently running out the clock on the Verizon PLMA-20-0003/PLUP-19-000 Project for an application which is knowingly incomplete. We communicated the specific areas of incompleteness to the m-group repeatedly, starting on June 15, 2020, as you can see here → https://www.unsafeatanyg.com/petaluma/creamery/#latest

Mr. Danly, what will the City of Petaluma do to do immediately correct the on-going discrimination against the members of the public? This is not a rhetorical question. We expect a timely answer back from you or Ms. Flynn, hopefully today.

Brittany Bendix is listed as the main staff conduct at the relevant City web page . . . https://cityofpetaluma.org/611-western-avenue-verizon-telecommunications-facility/

Staff Contact
Brittany Bendix
Deputy Planning Manager
707-778-4314
bbendix@cityofpetaluma.org

. . . but Ms. Bendix has not returned phone calls to me for months.

This is showing very clearly that the City of Petaluma has effectively remained closed to doing business with the residents of Petaluma during COVID-19 National Emergency. The City of Petaluma can’t discriminate against members of the public like this, can it?

If the City staff and the m-group uses COVID-19 as an excuse for not being able to fulfill their contractual duties as laid out in the m-group’s 2018 employment contract, then the City of Petaluma will be forced to admit that the City should extend the same level of non-responsiveness to applicants engaged in NON-ESSENTIAL activities.

Only the OPERATIONS and MAINTENANCE of telecommunications facilities is defined as an ESSENTIAL activity in the “County health orders that have been promulgated to protect the public during the COVID pandemic” — NOT the building of new telecommunications facilities — as we have repeatedly shared with you, the City Manager and the Mayor of Petaluma.

What has been the response to date on this important matter? . . . silence . . . nothing . . . which is additional proof that the City of Petaluma effectively remains closed to doing business with the residents of Petaluma. We keep excellent communication records, Mr. Danly. We have the evidence to prove what we are writing.

>>> Danly, Eric wrote:

  • The same general procedural requirements apply to the public’s right to inspect public records as apply to requests to receive copies of public records. See Section 6253 of the Government Code.

resident: Precedence is also important, Mr. Danly. See above.

>>> Danly, Eric wrote:

  • There is nothing in the law, either in the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution or any other law, that obligates City staff to make themselves available for meetings with members of the public regarding applications that are undergoing review.

resident: To the contrary, Mr. Danly, how about basic fairness and equal protection under the laws? These don’t count in Petaluma? Is rampant discrimination allowed in Petaluma? I think not. That is what we are experiencing.

>>> Danly, Eric wrote:

  • During this time when City staff are expending significant effort in responding to the COVID pandemic, and wildfire events, staff is still serving our community.

resident: We have the evidence to prove otherwise, Mr. Danly. I refer you to the many emails, voicemail messages, requests for meetings, requests for returned calls, and requests for information that do not get addressed by City Staff. See here → https://www.unsafeatanyg.com/petaluma/creamery/#latest

We have the evidence to back up our grievances to our local government, which remains effectively non-responsive. This, for example is, I believe the second or third substantive email, I have received from you in four months (the first email from you labeled my substantive emails as “diatribes”, do you remember? ). The 30-minute sham Zoom meeting with you and Heather Hines on July 30, 2020 ended with no resolution to our open issues and information requests (we were limited to only ten minutes of time to ask questions which you and Ms. Hines chose not to answer).

The very next day, we requested additional meeting time to address the open issues. From you and Ms. Hines . . . no response for months and still no response today on these critically important matters. The evidence shows that the public is getting railroaded by some kind of alliance between city staff and the applicants for this project. Otherwise, we would have experienced more professional standards of returned calls, timely updates and substantive emails from the City of Petaluma staff.

We have complete and sufficient evidence to prove that the City of Petaluma has remained effectively closed to doing business with the residents of Petaluma from June 12, 2020 to the present. Using COVID-19 as some kind of excuse for not fulfilling contractual obligations may be convenient, but it is not sufficient.

>>> Danly, Eric wrote:

  • We met with you previously and simply do not have the luxury of allowing your demands for information, including information we have already provided to you, to prevent us from fulfilling our other public service responsibilities to our community. As Ms. Green noted, you may submit inquiries regarding the Verizon application to Ms. Bendix, who is coordinating the staff review of the Verizon application.

resident: Mr. Danly, one meeting was clearly not sufficient, as described above. The City of Petaluma has engaged with the applicants (Complete Wireless/whatever entity is dba Verizon, and the owners of the Petaluma Creamery) many times from June, 2019 through October 2020 and you are attempting to “sell” us on the idea that one meeting of “10-15 minutes” of question/answer time is sufficient, fair and non-discriminatory? The Petaluma City staff has to do better than that, in fact, the m-group’s duties and obligations are set out in their 2018 employment contract. As I shared on 10/14/2020:

m-group’s Base Level: Services:

“Full time coverage of the Planning Counter (Monday through Thursday, 8: 00 a.m. to 5: 00 p. m.) to provide general zoning information in response to public inquiry. Counter coverage also extends to timely response to emails and voicemails on similar issues as counter inquiries; “

​Covid-19 cannot be an excuse. These base levels services are not being delivered by the m-group. Full stop.

>>> Danly, Eric wrote:

  • In response to your records request, City staff are gathering all non-exempt emails to and from City Planning staff concerning the Verizon application, and are adding those records to the project file. We believe we will have that set of records ready for transmission by close of business Friday, October 22. Given the risks from in-person meetings during the pandemic, the current health orders, and the fact that the project file being assembled electronically is the entire project file, we intend to transmit to you that entire project file electronically to satisfy the City’s obligations under the Public Records Act.

resident: Nice try, Mr. Danly, but we politely reject you proposal as insufficient. In short, we do not trust the possible filtering of (and the needless extra work to digitize) records and insist on inspecting the entire file in person at the Petaluma City Hall for 90-minutes. This is a level of service that we achieved twice before on this project (on June 12, 2020 and Aug 4, 2020). On those dates, we properly socially-distanced and wore masks — procedures that are in line with county health orders and procedures that were deemed acceptable by the City of Petaluma in 2020 — twice.

Regardless of whatever records the City of Petaluma chooses to share with us digitally, we have a right to inspect physical records for completeness, which is our request. We feel we will need 90-minutes or less to complete our inspection at the same conference room in City Hall that was made available to us on June 12, 2020 and Aug 4, 2020.

>>> Danly, Eric wrote:

  • Notwithstanding your assertions to the contrary, City staff continue to to provide services to community members and maintain City operations on site in City facilities and remotely consistent with the current health orders have have been issued to protect the public during the COVID pandemic.

resident: Not responsive enough. Covid-19 cannot be used as a vehicle to condone discrimination. Our records of communications to the City of Petaluma that have gone substantially-unaddressed for months is strong evidence, not, as you allege — mere assertions — of non-responsiveness and non-performance by the City of Petaluma staff.

>>> Danly, Eric wrote:

  • Our City Planning colleagues have been very busy reviewing and preparing numerous pending projects, many of them particularly complex projects, to ready them for consideration by City decision makers and members of the public. The agenda materials on the CIty’s website provide ample evidence of the City Planning staff’s ongoing and extensive efforts regarding pending projects, as well as regarding City legislation related to planning and land use.

resident: Are you kidding Mr. Danly? Your statement that “the agenda materials on the CIty’s website provide ample evidence of the City Planning staff’s ongoing and extensive efforts” for the Verizon PLMA-20-0003/PLUP-19-000 Project is laughable. The information on that website is nowhere near complete or ample. Your second sentence with regard to the Verizon PLMA-20-0003/PLUP-19-000 Project is not supported by the facts and cannot be accepted as sufficient. You are referring to this web page, right? –> https://cityofpetaluma.org/611-western-avenue-verizon-telecommunications-facility/

For example, on that web page, there is not even one of our submissions in the public record explaining how the application remains incomplete and no information about the critically important Written Evidence — Wireless Antenna Need Test — In Telecommunications (WE-WANT-IT) Drive test of signal strength. We see NOTHING on that web page that address the elephants in the room. Once again, as I communicated on Oct 15, 2020 . . . regarding the Signal Strength Drive test, we have been in a months-long holding pattern, waiting for real information from the City of Petaluma (not just projections of intentions about what might happen):

  1. Who is the Drive Test vendor — does the public have the ability to research the vendor’s background? We need that answer now.
  2. When will the Drive Test work start? We need that answer now.
  3. What is the methodology of the drive test? We need that answer now.
  4. What equipment will the vendor use to collect and log the data? We need that answer now.
  5. Is the vendor doing coverage analysis in dBm? . . . or is the vendor doing some other analysis, which may not be necessary? We need to know that now.
  6. Will the vendor place the raw data of the Drive test into the public record? There is no way the m-group should hide this data from anyone.
  7. Is the City asking for a written report? None is needed.
  8. We need to understand the format of the data before the test is ordered/conducted.

>>> Danly, Eric wrote:

  • Notwithstanding the COVID pandemic, City staff are not free to refrain from reviewing and processing pending applications. Particularly regarding such applications as the Verizon cell tower application, doing so could be a basis of liability for the City and result in deemed approval status and vesting of applicant rights without a full consideration of the application by City decision makers and the public.

resident: You must be confused, Mr. Danly by what is an ESSENTIAL activity and what is a NON-ESSENTIAL activity as clearly laid out in the Sonoma County Health Orders. Allow me to clear that up for you:

The Sonoma County Health Official Order No. C19-03 Order No. C19-05 (Extended) and Order No. C19-15 (Extended Again) . . . all say the same thing . . .

“All individuals living in the County are directed to shelter at their place of residence, except that they may leave to provide or receive certain essential services or engage in certain essential activities and work for essential businesses. . .”

What are those essential activities?
Definitions and Exemptions.

“§ 10(c) For purposes of this Order, individuals may leave their residence to provide any services or perform any work necessary to the operations and maintenance of “Essential Infrastructure,” including, a number of activities relating to water, sewer, gas, transportation and a single mention of internet, and telecommunications systems”

So let’s recap. We have a federal national emergency — Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) Outbreak — and a local county order that specifies that only the work necessary to the operations and maintenance of telecommunications services is essential.

As you can plainly see, the County Health Orders do not define the building of new Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (WTFs) as Essential Activities.

Why is the City of Petaluma pretending otherwise?

Petaluma can and should join Simi Valley, CA, Easton, CT and Keene NH and take full advantage of this novel set of circumstances to legally declare a moratorium — a legal temporary delay on the processing of applications, placement, construction or operations of Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (WTFs) of any size and any G — until the federal national emergency has been declared over. This is even expressly stated in FCC Order 18-111 (see below).

>>> Danly, Eric wrote:

  • The timeline for processing the Verizon cell tower application will be governed by the Telecommunications Act, and the City’s regulations governing such applications.

resident: The COVID-19 National Emergency, was recognized even by FCC Order 18-111 from August 2018 that was Ruled on Aug 12, 2020 in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals:

FCC Order 18-111: ¶ 157. “in the case of a natural disaster or other comparable emergency* an express or de facto moratoria that violates section 253(a) may nonetheless be “necessary” to “protect the public safety and welfare”. . . emergency moratoria are legally permissible under 47 USC § 253.”

*COVID-19 pandemic is such an emergency!

Will you please return my call at [redacted] today so we can schedule our requested and needed inspection of records for a 90-minute slot to start at a specified time between 9:00 am and 3:30 pm on Fri Oct 23, if not sooner?

Thank you.


October 15, 2020

Ms. Heather Hines
Contract Planning Manager
m-group
City of Petaluma
11 English Street
Petaluma, CA 94952
707-778-4316

Ms. Teresa Barrett, Mayor
Ms. Peggy Flynn, City Manger

cc:
Kendall Rose , City Clerk
Brian Cochran, Assistant City Manger
Suzanne Terry, Executive Assistant to the City Manager
Mike Healy, Council Member
D’Lynda Fischer, Vice Mayor
Gabe Kearney, Council Member
Dave King, , Council Member
Kevin McDonnell, Council Member
Kathy Miller, Council Member
Sandi Potter, Planning Commissioner
Richard Marzo, Planning Commissioner
Blake Hooper, Planning Commissioner
Scott Alonso, Planning Commissioner
Heidi Bauer, Planning Commissioner
Christopher Caputo, HCPC Chair
Kit Schlich, HCPC Vice Chair
Terry Kosewic, HCPC Member
John Perlis, HCPC Member
Bill Rinehart, HCPC Member
Petaluma for Wireless Safety Members  

Re: PLMA-20-0003/PLUP-19-000: Still Missing Public Comment Record from Oct 13, 2020 HCPCP meeting

Dear Ms. Hines et al.,

[City Kendall Rose, will you please add this email/letter to the Petaluma Public record for PLMA-20-0003/PLUP-19-000 a WTF antenna farm that has the capability of outputting 533,440 Watts of Effective Radiated Power from 611 Western Ave. Petaluma, CA? Will you please also ensure that this email/letter gets printed and placed into the paper file for this project? We are requesting that this email/letter and all communications and other substantial written evidence that we place in the Public Record be added to the agenda packet that will be distributed to the Petaluma Historic & Cultural Preservation Committee and to the Planning Commission. Thank you for doing so.]

Thank you. Ms. Hines, for your response re: the missing first 28 minutes of the video of the Oct 13, 2020 Historic and Cultural Preservation Committee meeting, including about ten missing public comments, as one can see here:

Upon checking the links at around 4:00 pm on Oct 15 (about 48 hours later), we note the message below, but do not see a corrected video.

Will the Petaluma City staff please post transcripts of these missing public comments at https://petaluma.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=31&clip_id=3091 . . . while the City staff works with Granicus to get the full video from the service’s back ups and re-edits the video to make it complete?

Message from Granicus:

Staff is aware of a technical error that resulted in a delayed start to the video recording and are working diligently to remedy the situation. Draft minutes will be posted as soon as possible to account for the missing video footage. Thank you for your patience.

It would be great for the City Staff to demonstrate responsiveness on this request, as City staff responsiveness has been a serious problem during the COVID-19 national emergency, as described in the Oct 14, 2020 email: https://www.unsafeatanyg.com/petaluma/creamery/#latest sent to the following people:

I will look forward to a progress update later today, Ms. Hines. Please read my other comments below.

Regarding the Signal Strength Drive test, we have been in a months-long holding pattern, waiting for real information from the City of Petaluma (not just projections of intentions about what might happen):

  1. Who is the Drive Test vendor — does the public have the ability to research the vendor’s background? We need that answer now.
  2. When will the Drive Test work start? We need that answer now.
  3. What is the methodology of the drive test? We need that answer now.
  4. What equipment will the vendor use to collect and log the data? We need that answer now.
  5. Is the vendor doing coverage analysis in dBm? . . . or is the vendor doing some other analysis, which may not be necessary? We need to know that now.
  6. Will the vendor place the raw data of the Drive test into the public record? There is no way the m-group should hide this data from anyone.
  7. Is the City asking for a written report? None is needed.
  8. We need to understand the format of the data before the test is ordered/conducted.

>>> Hines, Heather wrote on 10/14/2020 2:19 PM:

[Petaluma resident],

Thank you for your voicemail of this afternoon alerting me to the incomplete video posting of yesterday’s HCPC meeting.

City Staff is trying to trouble shoot this issue alongside Petaluma Community Access (PCA) and get this corrected as quickly as possible.

I will follow up with an email to let you know how and when this has been remedied.

The accusations of this glitch in the meeting video being a deliberate act is offensive and un-called for.

To the contrary, this is not the first time this year that public meeting videos have been sloppily posted, preventing timely access to review recorded public comments . . . don’t you recall the following events from July, 2020, Ms. Hines? The public has done nothing wrong. We are demanding a level of service outlined in the m-group’s 2018 employment agreement (see attached):

From m-group SCOPE OF SERVICES (see attached)

m-group’ s scope of services falls under one of four general categories, Base Level Services, Building Division Support, Cost Recovery Services, and Special Projects.

I. Base Level: Services

  • Tasks under Base Level Services are those that cannot be assigned to a specific project, and which provide general planning services for the City, residents, businesses, and developers.

  • This includes:

    • Full time coverage of the Planning Counter (Monday through Thursday, 8: 00 a.m. to 5: 00 p. m.) to provide general zoning information in response to public inquiry.
    • Counter coverage also extends to timely response to emails and voicemails on similar issues as counter inquiries;

>>> [Petaluma Resident] wrote to the Heather Hines on July 28, 2020 at 9:00 am . . .

The July 27, 2020 Planning Commission Video is still missing from https://cityofpetaluma.org/meetings/ ; we alerted Petaluma Planning, City Attorney, City Clerk and City Manager of this mistake at 8:30 am on July 29, but no one has yet responded.

As we presented in public comment on July 27 at the Planning Commission meeting, the City of Petaluma by passing three simple ordinances to the current outdated Petaluma Wireless code for “mini”, “minor” and “major” Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (WTFs):

  1. Ordinance M (for WTF application moratorium),
  2. Ordinance VHP (to cap the power of WTFs to intensities that are needed for telecommunications service and no higher) and
  3. Ordinance WE-WANT-IT (to create and base decisions on objective, verifiable data of wireless carrier signal strengths at no cost to the City).”
You see the pattern, right?

Next, we are quite surprised that after 16-months of engagement with the Petaluma Creamery Wireless Telecommunications Facilities applicants (Complete Wireless/Verizon), the Petaluma City staff has still not been able to make the applicant submit a complete application. To the best of our knowledge, following a detailed review of the project files from June 12 to June 15, the application on was incomplete in fatally significant ways, which the m-group has known since June 15, 2020yet the m-group has not yet addressed all of the missing items . . .

>>> [Petaluma Resident] wrote to Brittany Bendix on 6/15/2020 at 3:08 PM:

Thank you also for speaking to us for about 20 minutes from 1:30 pm to 1:50 pm on some of the things that were missing from the file for PLMA-20-0003/PLUP-19-000 — missing items that were apparent even in our first hour of inspection. Please see the STATUS of each item below in red.

As we stated in the June 11 email, “we specifically, are interested in the following information:”

  1. STATUS: Incomplete detail for radios and power generation equipment (cannot be verified): “Manufacturer, Model No. and Specifications for each piece of equipment being installed” (note we only have verified the antenna manufacturer and model number, all radio and power generation detail is missing)

  2. STATUS: Missing analysis (cannot be verified): A Power Consumption Analysis to project Electricity consumption projected by day, month and year

  3. STATUS: MIssing analysis (cannot be verified): Any analysis about the minimum level of Effective Radiated Power that is actually needed to close an alleged significant gap in Title II telecommunications coverage (the only lawful basis for any preemption of local authority the Wireless applicant may have under the 1996-TCA in 2020)

  4. STATUS: Incomplete detail (we have only some, but not all emails and texts): All communications between Verizon and its agents and the m-group/Petaluma staff from Jan 1, 2019 through June 12, 2020.

  5. STATUS: Missing NEPA Review (cannot be verified): Any NEPA review, since according to Erica Rosenberg, the FCC NEPA attorney, “Every single Wireless Telecommunication Facilities applications must do a NEPA review” → https://scientists4wiredtech.com/action/nepa-strategies/

After reading the other documents that you provided to us over the weekend, we have found many more missing items which we are compiling into a complete list that will cite documentary sources.

Relevant Questions

  1. How can the m-group proceed with a Nov 10, 2020 HCPC and/or Planning Commission meeting with a known incomplete application? I believe doing so would violate Petaluma Muni Code and the m-group’s employment agreement.

  2. On what authority can the City of Petaluma not provide the public equal access and equal time for presentation in all meetings about PLMA-20-0003/PLUP-19-000 project — as has been the case from June 1, 2019 through Oct 15, 2020?

  3. When can we set a meeting with City Manager Peggy Flynn to discuss solutions to these serious problems? We are running out of time.

In this 10/15/2020 email, we, the public, are enforcing our rights to immediate inspection of the PLMA-20-0003/PLUP-19-000 project file — in whatever shape it is in right now — to determine if the application is any more complete than when we saw it last on 8/4/2020.

Recall, we have been asking for this immediate inspection of records for weeks, without reasonable response from the City of Petaluma:

>>> From 9/23/2020 . . . from the m-group we get only the big bagel, nada, bubkes, NOTHING of substance back . . . which is unacceptable.

Finally, please let me know when can we schedule the following?
  1. A 60-Minute Zoom call between members of Petaluma for Wireless Safety and the m-group personnel (Heather Hines, Brittany Bendix and Justin Shiu — to ensure that all m-group personnel who are touching this project are available to answer our questions (obviating the need to check with “a, b or c”, who could not attend the meeting. We wish all three of you to be present for accountability reasons.

  2. A 90-minute immediate records inspection of the contents of the public record for the Petaluma Creamery project; we need to know what has made it into the public record through 9/23/2020 or whatever date we can schedule the inspection.


Hines from 10/14/2020:

Echoing my own previous communication with you as well as direct communication from the City Manager, your continued harassment of staff is unacceptable.

I take great issue with your mischaracterization of and allegation of my communications as harassment. I do not appreciate such a transparent and unfounded attempt at gaslighting me — a well-informed Petaluma resident and professional in the field of Wireline and Wireless Telecommunications issues.

I am reasonably following up on many, many requests for actual information to answer our reasonable questions — requests that you and Brittany Bendix have repeatedly ignored. There is nothing wrong about members of the public insisting on responsiveness from our local government and defending their 14th Amendment rights when dealing with their local government.

US Constiution 14th Amendment:

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” (see Appendix A).

I will not tolerate the well-documented, unprofessional behavior that is being exhibited by the m-group and the Petaluma City staff towards the public. Frankly, it shows negligence, at the very least.

Hines from 10/14/2020:

As you are aware, Brittany Bendix is your point of contact as the project planner overseeing the Verizon application and she will continue to provide status updates on the project as that status changes.

The statement above is, unfortunately, one that is not helpful, since the updates (the few that we receive) are devoid of sufficient detail to reasonably inform. The m-group’s well-established practices of

  • “holding their cards close to the vest”,
  • not sufficiently engaging in discussion with the public about the project and
  • continually extending to the applicants many undeserved “breaks”

. . . shows a clear pattern of discrimination against the public, a pattern which been deep-seeded and chronic.

In short, the m-group is not living up to their contractual obligations and the public demands much more reasonable and timely service from the m-group.

Hines from 10/14/2020:

As mentioned in staff comment at last night’s HCPC meeting, we are looking at a joint hearing of the Planning Commission and Historic and Cultural Preservation Committee to consider the design and use elements of the Verizon application and are tentatively looking at a hearing date for a joint meeting in November.

We would like the opportunity to convince all that proceeding in this way is not in Petaluma’s best interests. We propose the following timeline as the best one for the City of Petaluma:

  • Tue Oct 20 or 27 for Zoom Study Session to educate the HCPC and the Planning Commission on the best ways to make solid findings to say NO Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (WTFs) and not get sued (see links above — we might even be able to get attorney Andrew Campanelli to answer 30 minutes of questions by Zoom)
  • Tue Nov 10 for HCPC Advisory recommendation to the Planning Commission
  • Tue Dec 8 for Decision by the Planning Commission
  • Mon Jan 18 or 25 for the expected Appeal (regardless of the Planning Commission decision)
  • Hines from 10/14/2020: Law Suit filed by Verizon that the city could easily win, if sufficiently educated.

Hines from 10/14/2020:

To date we have not received call logs from Verizon and we continue to ask for that submittal but have not received the requested documentation.

Asking for call logs from the applicant without a meaningful ratchet, is useless, Heather. Since Verizon has not acted in good faith, the City of Petaluma has good cause to do the following:

  1. Cancel the application,
  2. Pass a moratorium on processing any Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (WTFs) applications during COVID-19 national emergency,
  3. Use that time to revise the City of Petaluma’s wireless code and
  4. Open back up to processing Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (WTFs) applications after the President declares the COVID-19 emergency over.

Hines from 10/14/2020:

It is my understanding that you would like to set up a time to review the hard copy project file and I will ask Brittany to reach out to schedule a time for you to review the file at City Hall.

This has been our interest, of which you are well-aware and have ignored for weeks:

>>> [Petaluma Resident] wrote to Brittany Bendix on 9/23/2020:

Please let me know when can we schedule the following?
  1. A 60-Minute Zoom call between members of Petaluma for Wireless Safety and the m-group personnel (Heather Hines, Brittany Bendix and Justin Shiu — to ensure that all m-group personnel who are touching this project are available to answer our questions (obviating the need to check with “a, b or c”, who could not attend the meeting. We wish all three of you to be present for accountability reasons.

  2. A 90-minute immediate records inspection of the contents of the public record for the Petaluma Creamery project; we need to know what has made it into the public record through 9/23/2020 or whatever date we can schedule the inspection.

This is what we have been experiencing from the m-Group and the City Manager’s office for months:

  • Ignoring the public’s questions . . . avoiding answering them at all, including during our one meeting for 30 minutes on July 30, 2020
  • Ignoring many requests for additional meetings, as choices are being made by the m-group, without engaging with the public
  • No consistent, reasonable practice of returning phone calls and emails in a timely manner and updates are without sufficient detail
  • Ignoring our requests to inspect records at the City of Petaluma City Hall offices for weeks (similar to two earlier inspections that we conducted on June 12, 2020 and Aug 4, 2020)
  • Not enough transparency into the decision-making processes that are clearly being jointly made and influenced by City Manager Flynn, City Attorney Danly.

In short, we have the evidence to show that our criticisms of the m-group’s management/mismanagement of the PLMA-20-0003/PLUP-19-000 project is well-founded and has not been addressed in the two months, since we first wrote to City Management and the City Council Members about this:

>>> Please, recall I wrote to on Aug 11, 2020 @ 9:23 am:

“Our experience to date has been disappointing on multiple fronts:

  1. m-group’s disregard for the incompleteness of the current PLMA-20-0003/PLUP-19-000 application, which still exists today [update: the application still remains incomplete on Oct 14, 2020 — are you not curious, Ms. Hines, about the many ways the current PLMA-20-0003/PLUP-19-000 application remains incomplete — all on your watch?]

  2. m-group’s disregard for providing a full accounting of the shot clock management for PLMA-20-0003/PLUP-19-000 [update: as of Oct 14, 2020, we still don’t have this]

  3. m-group’s disregard for addressing/answering the public’s questions detailed here –> https://www.unsafeatanyg.com/petaluma/creamery/#latest— some of which have gone unaddressed for over seven weeks [update: as of Oct 14, 2020, we still don’t have answers]

  4. m-group’s disregard for securing and placing into the public records objective, reliable and verifiable data to assess whether or not a significant gap in Verizon Telecommunications coverage exists in the the three-mile radius surrounding the Petaluma Creamery; note: any applicant coverage maps that are not backed by verifiable raw data measurements placed into the public record for all to review are not reliable, verifiable or even truthful records. [update: as of Oct 14, 2020, we still don’t have information detailed enought to satisfy the public that the m-group is not just being the blind leading the blind in this technical matter — there are many details that need to be addressed before the Wireless Antenna Need Test/Drive Test is conducted]

  5. m-group not disclosing in a timely manner material requests from the applicant — most recently evidenced by not informing the public until Aug 3, 2020 the existence a July 7, 2020 letter from the applicant that requested the mutually-agreeable shot-clock end date to be extended from Sept 1, 2020 to October 6, 2020 (see here https://petaluma.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=31&event_id=44965&meta_id=463862)

  6. m-group’s disregard for scheduling a follow up meeting for the shortened July 30, 2020 meeting that did not address the agenda points outlined by the public in its 7/30/2020 email; 12-days later . . . we are still needing to reschedule a follow up meeting [update: as of Oct 14, 2020, we have only experienced months of stonewalling from the m-group]

  7. m-group Director Heather Hines’ decisions to not return over ten voicemail messages during the period of June 12, 2020 through Aug 11, 2020. We have received exactly one return call from Ms. Hines during this period, and zero during the period when Brittany Bendix was on personal leave.” [update: as of Oct 14, 2020, this is no better: neither Heather Hines or Brittany Bendix return phone calls in a timely manner, if at all.]

We have been seeking a meeting with City Manager Peggy Flynn and Mayor Teresa Barrett to discuss the current management/mismanagement of project PLMA-20-0003/PLUP-19-000 and reasonable solutions to these well-established, well-documented problems.

We would appreciate a prompt and professional response from City Manager Peggy Flynn and Mayor Teresa Barrett. Thank you.


Regards,  

[Petaluma Resident]


Appendix A: 14th Amendment

The Fourteenth Amendment addresses many aspects of citizenship and the rights of citizens. The most commonly used — and frequently litigated — phrase in the amendment is “equal protection of the laws“, which figures prominently in a wide variety of landmark cases, including Brown v. Board of Education (racial discrimination), Roe v. Wade (reproductive rights), Bush v. Gore (election recounts), Reed v. Reed (gender discrimination), and University of California v. Bakke (racial quotas in education). See more

Primary tabs
Amendment XIV
Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


October 14, 2020

Ms. Jordan Green
Assistant City Attorney
City of Petaluma
11 English Street
Petaluma, CA 94952
707-778-4565

cc:

Flynn, Peggy PFlynn@cityofpetaluma.org
Cochran, Brian BCochran@cityofpetaluma.org
Bendix, Brittany bbendix@cityofpetaluma.org
Hines, Heather hhines@cityofpetaluma.org
Danly, Eric EDanly@cityofpetaluma.org
Kendall Rose krose@cityofpetaluma.org
Kendall Rose krose@ci.petaluma.ca.us

Re: Seeking resolution to the problems for which I have presented ample evidence since Aug 11, 2020

Dear Ms. Green,

Nice to hear from you, Ms.Green. When was the last time we talked? Was it September 24th?

[City Kendall Rose, will you please add this email/letter to the Petaluma Public record for PLMA-20-0003/PLUP-19-000 a WTF antenna farm that has the capability of outputting 533,440 Watts of Effective Radiated Power from 611 Western Ave. Petaluma, CA? Will you please also ensure that this email/letter gets printed and placed into the paper file for this project? We are requesting that this email/letter and all communications and other substantial written evidence that we place in the Public Record be added to the agenda packet that will be distributed to the Petaluma Historic & Cultural Preservation Committee and Petaluma Planning Commission. Thank you for doing so.]

You wrote today on 10/14 — (see Appendix A, below):

“The City’s Planning Department is working to make a hard copy of the file current. Once that file is complete, we will provide you with a few dates and times for you to come to City Hall to inspect the file.”

. . . which is not a timely response to my Sept 23, 2020 request or our my Sept 24, 2020 telephone conversation with you. What part of immediate records inspection, which is the public’s right to conduct, does the City of Petaluma not understand or respect?

>>> From 9/23/2020 . . . it’s now two days later and from the m-group we get only the big bagel, nada, bubkes, NOTHING of substance back . . . which is unacceptable.

Finally, please let me know when can we schedule the following?

  1. A 60-Minute Zoom call between members of Petaluma for Wireless Safety and the m-group personnel (Heather Hines, Brittany Bendix and Justin Shiu — to ensure that all m-group personnel who are touching this project are available to answer our questions (obviating the need to check with “a, b or c”, who could not attend the meeting). We wish all three of you to be present for accountability reasons.

  2. A 90-minute immediate records inspection of the contents of the public record for the Petaluma Creamery project; we need to know what has made it into the public record through 9/23/2020 or whatever date we can schedule the inspection.

You also wrote today on 10/14 — (see Appendix A, below):

“The City is not scheduling a 60-Minute Zoom call between members of Petaluma for Wireless Safety and ​City Planning Department staff. Rather, the City will provide regular updates to you and other interested community ​members. You are always welcome to submit your comments in writing to Brittany Bendix.”

This is simply not acceptable, Ms. Green. The public deserves equal time and equal opportunity to educate the decision-makers on this project as that afforded to the applicants. Any honest accounting of the time given to the public — 15 minutes of one meeting on July 30, 2020 that did not give sufficient time to address all open issues — vs the time the City of Petaluma has given the applicants shows that the total time is clearly not equal. The public needs equal time to sufficiently educate the decision-makers and influencers (city staff/contractors/report writers). I refer you to the US constitutional 14th Amendment rights — which applies when we are dealing with our local government.

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

You also wrote today on 10/14 — (see Appendix A, below):

“Please note that the City is not ‘closed.’ Rather, City staff is working remotely as much as possible to curb the spread of the coronavirus. We are still providing all the services that we previously provided, but we are doing so mostly virtually.”

Let me be clear. We are correct in saying the evidence indicates that the City of Petaluma is essentially closed to doing business with the public. We have the evidence to prove it. Just listen to the outgoing voicemail greetings and the serious lack of effort by City staff to to engage with the public. No one even picks up a phone call in real time or even returns a phone call, following any professional, timely standards. We have a complete communications record showing a serious lack of response by the City of Petaluma from June 6, 2020 through Oct 14, 2020.

We are asking the City of Petaluma to either increase its efforts to engage with the public or stop doing business with the applicants, until the COVID-19 National Emergency is declared over and City Hall opens again. You see, we cannot even just go down and find someone at City Hall during business hours. This allows contractors, like the m-group and City employees to hide for months — which is what the evidence shows.

In short, contrary to what you wrote, the City of Petaluma is not continuing to maintain continuity of City services.​ Just because you write such a statement it does not make it true. What evidence can you provide to refute the evidence we have already presented in the public record about the lack of City of Petaluma sufficiently engaging with the publice re: the Verizon PLMA-20-0003/PLUP-19-000 Project?

>>> Petaluma resident wrote on 9/28/2020 9:00 PM:

[Petaluma Resident], I told you that I did not file a CPRA. Jordan Green falsely assumed that any request to inspect records constitutes a CPRA. That is not true.

>>> [Petaluma Resident] wrote on 9/28/2020 6:44 PM:

[Petaluma Resident],

I am confused at this part of the email? Did you request a CPRA on this project? Did you get a chance to talk to Jordan Green about this?

>>> Green, Jordan wrote on 9/24/2020 8:53 AM:

Dear [Petaluma Resident],

I will call you today to discuss the Public Records Act (PRA), the documents you are entitled to and the timeline the City has to respond to your PRA request. At what number shall I call you?

Thank you,

Jordan Green

I believe during our call on Sept 24, 2020, I addressed many of the same issues you are repeating below in your email in Appendix A. Please consult your notes from that conversation.

To be clear, I am not communicating any “concerns”. I am seeking resolution to the problems for which I have presented ample evidence since Aug 11, 2020. I have presented evidence regarding the m-group’s chronic and continuing mismanagement of the PLMA-20-0003/PLUP-19-000 project; evidence I have emailed to the City Manager and others.

When you write: “we are designating one point of contact for you regarding the Verizon application, which is Brittany Bendix”, I have clearly communicated that Ms. Bendix has been insufficiently responsive for a long time, so that will not work. The m-group’s inability to sufficiently answer the public’s questions and explain, in sufficient detail, about what is actually going on with the PLMA-20-0003/PLUP-19-000 project, the rationale for decisions being made and even who are the real decision-makers has been utterly lacking for months. Please see the evidence of such sparse communication in Appendices B and C.

I take people at their word, so when I read in an auto-reply email from Ms. Bendix that . . . ” I will make every every effort to respond to your inquiry by the end of the next business day” . . . and then there is no follow up since that date, something is clearly wrong and every effort is not being made. I also include the 2018 m-group contract, attached which outlines the m-group’s Base Level: Services:

“Full time coverage of the Planning Counter (Monday through Thursday, 8: 00 a.m. to 5: 00 p. m.) to provide general zoning information in response to public inquiry. Counter coverage also extends to timely response to emails and voicemails on similar issues as counter inquiries; “

Covid-19 cannot be an excuse. These base levels services are not being delivered by the m-group. Full stop.

If this cannot happen, then the City of Petaluma should not be processing any Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (WTFs) applications until the Covid-19 national emergency has been declared over by the President of the USA, whomever that is at the time. We have needed to discuss this with City Manager Flynn, as well. To date . . . no response from Ms. Flynn or Mr. Cochran.

We, the public, are getting jerked around — by both the applicants to the Petaluma Creamery project and by the m-group. The evidence is clear.

We wish to solve this problem to the public’s satisfaction, going forward. That is why we have been seeking to meet with Ms. Flynn and/or Mr. Cochran about this for over three months ( as presented here to the City Council in the public record on Oct 5, 2020 → https://youtu.be/GgSiXIakb1E?t=749 ) — without any credible response from City Management that communicates a desire to recognize and address this serious problem.

We are experiencing that the m-group and others involved are simply running out the clock without taking sufficient opportunity to prepare Petaluma for the best outcome: a denial of this disastrous PLMA-20-0003/PLUP-19-000 project project in a way that will easily stand up in court. We have every right to defend our homes and our lives from the significant public safety, privacy and property values harms that this Verizon PLMA-20-0003/PLUP-19-000 project certainly will inflict upon the residents of Petaluma.

I have substantial and specific knowledge of how best to navigate this Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (WTFs) approval process and have shared the following links with the public on my web sites, directly with the m-group and in public comment to the Petaluma City Council, Planning Commission and the Historic & Cultural Preservation Committee many times from June, 2020 through October, 2020.

The City of Petaluma — and its residents — would benefit from a timeline similar to the following. There is no advantage to hold a joint HCPC/Planning Commission meeting on Nov 10, as announced by Heather Hines on Oct 13, 2020 in the HCPC meeting. Curiously, at 4:45 pm on Oct 14, 2020, the video of the Oct 14, HCPC meeting is still missing the first 28 minutes, including the substantial public comment contributed by about ten Petaluma residents. What is going on?

Here is the best timeline for the City of Petaluma, going forward:

  • Tue Oct 20 or 27 for Zoom Study Session to educate the HCPC and the Planning Commission on the best ways to make solid findings to say NO Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (WTFs) and not get sued (see links above — we might even be able to get attorney Andrew Campanelli to answer 30 minutes of questions by Zoom)

  • Tue Nov 10 for HCPC Advisory recommendation to the Planning Commission

  • Tue Dec 8 for Decision by the Planning Commission
  • Mon Jan 18 or 25 for the expected Appeal (regardless of the Planning Commission decision)
  • Date TBD — Law Suit filed by Verizon ( a law suit that the city could easily win, if sufficiently educated.)

Thank you. I will look forward to setting up our requested meeting with City Manager Peggy Flynn at her earliest convenience.


Regards,   

[Petaluma Resident]


Appendix A: Email from Ms. Jordan Green

>>> Green, Jordan wrote on 10/14/2020 2:55 PM:

Dear [Petaluma Resident],

I have received your voicemails. Further, several other staff members have also received several voicemails from you. To help the City respond to your concerns, we are designating one point of contact for you regarding the Verizon application, which is Brittany Bendix. In the future, please contact Ms. Bendix if you have questions or concerns relating to the Verizon application.

The City’s Planning Department is working to make a hard copy of the file current. Once that file is complete, we will provide you with a few dates and times for you to come to City Hall to inspect the file. If you have any further PRA requests, please submit them through the City Clerk’s Office at the following web address: https://cityofpetaluma.org/request-for-public-records/

The City is not scheduling a 60-Minute Zoom call between members of Petaluma for Wireless Safety and City Planning Department staff. Rather, the City will provide regular updates to you and other interested community members. You are always welcome to submit your comments in writing to Brittany Bendix.

Please note that the City is not “closed.” Rather, City staff is working remotely as much as possible to curb the spread of the coronavirus. We are still providing all the services that we previously provided, but we are doing so mostly virtually. The faster we can curb the virus spread, the faster we can re-open our offices to our staff and the public. Until then, the public’s and the staff’s safety is a top priority, along with continuing to maintain continuity of City services.

Sincerely,

Jordan Green

Assistant City Attorney, City of Petaluma
11 English Street, Petaluma, CA 94952
Phone: (707) 778-4565 Facsimile: (707) 206-6040
City Business Hours: M-Th 8am-5pm, closed Fridays


Appendix B: Returned calls from Brittany Bendix or Heather Hines From Aug 12 through Oct 14, 2020

I must have left each ten voicemails in From Aug 12 through Oct 14, 2020

  • Returned calls from Hines: One (1) voicemail – to which I promptly replied, requesting another call back. From then Zero(0).
  • Returned calls from Bendix: Zero (0)

Appendix C: Email Communications from Brittany Bendix From Aug 12 through Oct 14, 2020

>>> Bendix, Brittany wrote on 9/23/2020 3:43 PM:

Hello, [Petaluma resident].

While City Hall buildings remain closed to the public in response to COVID-19 Health Orders, the Planning Division is providing services remotely, including virtual counter inquiries and entitlement review. I am working remotely and checking email and voicemail regularly. I will make every effort to respond to your inquiry by the end of the next business day.

Thank you for your patience,

Brittany

>>> Bendix, Brittany wrote on 9/23/2020 12:37 PM:

Hi, [Petaluma residents].

I just wanted to let you know that I received [Petaluma Resident]’s voicemail messages from last night and this morning, as has Justin, and I’m assuming Heather, although I haven’t connected with her yet today. I’m responding on their behalf.

We have not received any new submittals from Verizon or the requested call logs, although we are aware that they are attempting to fit the antennas on the roof of the building so that they are beyond 75-feet from the adjacent dwelling unit. Additionally, based on telephone conversations with the applicant and Verizon’s legal counsel, we expect that they will challenge the Municipal Code’s limitation on wattage.

In anticipation of Verizon’s response we have been reaching out to consultants with the objective of completing a drive test, as well as possibly providing broader technical review services. At this time we are hoping to make a selection as soon as possible, after which we will advise Verizon, yourself and [Petaluma Resident].

These efforts are in addition to coordinating with our Building and Fire divisions to better understand the safety and hazard conditions present at the Creamery and how they relate to the wireless proposal. I have also spoken with neighbors this week who, beyond the wireless project, have additional concerns relating to the Creamery’s operations and will be coordinating with our enforcement division to investigate these complaints. I understand that a recent complaint has also been filed with BAAQMD, but I was not provided any details other than the neighbors anticipate a letter from BAAQMD acknowledging operational violations. I have not had an opportunity to track that down, but if you or [Petaluma Resident] have that information, that would be helpful.

Additionally, I want to inform you that moving forward Justin Shiu will not be working on this project. Please direct inquiries to me.

Thank you,

Brittany Bendix, Deputy Planning Manager

>>> Bendix, Brittany wrote on 8/12/2020 9:18 AM:

Hi [Petaluma resident],

During our conversation on Monday had you mentioned wanting to set up an informational presentation to the HCPC and PC on their ability to review/take action on telecommunication proposals. I had requested that you put that proposal in writing and include your suggested framework as you had a lot of thoughts related to speakers and format, but I haven’t seen it come through. Can you please send that to me?

Thank you,

Brittany Bendix, Deputy Planning Manager


Appendix D: m-group SCOPE OF SERVICES

m-Group’ s scope of services falls under one of four general categories, Base Level Services, Building Division Support, Cost Recovery Services, and Special Projects.

I. Base Level: Services
Tasks under Base Level Services are those that cannot be assigned to a specific project, and which provide general planning services for the City, residents, businesses, and developers. This includes:

  • Full time coverage of the Planning Counter (Monday through Thursday, 8: 00 a.m. to 5: 00 p. m.) to provide general zoning information in response to public inquiry. Counter coverage also extends to timely response to emails and voicemails on similar issues as counter inquiries;

  • Processing flat fee permits such as fence permits, home occupation permits, short term vacation rental permits, cannabis permits, outside dining permits and zoning permits; Zoning clearance review for all business licenses processed through the Finance Department;

  • Project review for all referrals from outside agencies including but not limited to the State Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control and the Sonoma County Permit and Resource Management District;

  • Inter Departmental coordination, including:

    • facilitating weekly Development Review Committee meetings

    • attending agenda setting and senior staff meetings, and

    • regular check in meetings with other city departments;

    • Maintaining the Planning Division website;

    • Compiling monthly activity and major development reports for the City; and

    • Media relations.


Nextdoor.com from Sept 28, 2020

There are many harms from wireless 4G/5G Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (WTFs)

  1. Public safety harms
  2. Privacy harms
  3. Property value harms

. . . all well described here.

There are two separate issues to consider:

  1. Wireline Broadband access (Comcast, Sonic, etc.) is how a vast majority of people access the Internet because it has no data caps (Sonic) or at least very high monthly data caps (Comcast), which has nothing to do with Wireless Cellular Service from Verizon, AT&T or T-Mobile Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (WTFs) infrastructure, which have monthly data caps ranging from 1 GB to 10 GB.

  2. Wireline Broadband and Wireless Broadband are NOT functionally equivalents services, according to the 1996 Telecom Act. The 1996-TCA defines “personal wireless services” as making wireless phone calls and defines “functionally equivalent services” as AT&T wireless phone calls vs Verizon wireless phone calls vs T-Mobile wireless phone calls. Full stop. Cellular wireless broadband is NOT part of the 1996-Act and does not benefit from any protection or preemption of local authority.

In short, cellular wireless broadband is slower, less secure, more expensive and, therefore an inferior choice to Wireline broadband. Read here –> https://scientists4wiredtech.com/3g-4g-5g-national-security-failure/


Nextdoor.com from Sept 27, 2020

Our city employees in the Petaluma Planning Dept. have been replaced by the m-group, a slate of Developer-happy Contract Planners — people who do not even live in Petaluma.

The m-group let the two applicants (Complete Wireless/Verizon in cahoots with the Petaluma Creamery owner — the “Developers” of this project) out of a box, since they were facing an October 6 deadline.

The m-group and the City Attorney, gave the “Developers” a major gift . . . the Developers NOW have until January 29, 2021 to fix all of the air pollution problems at the Creamery and then plan their law suit against the City, if the City denies their permit.

The m-group hides information from the public, doesn’t return calls for months (about 2 calls out of 20 get returned and no substantial information is communicated in those self-serving voicemails) and refuses to gather objective signal-strength data (at no cost to the City) — data that could give the Historic and Cultural Committee members, the Planning Commissioners and the City Council Members a way to say NO to this project for legally defensible reasons and NOT get sued. In short, the deck is getting stacked in favor of the applicants (the Developers of this project) and against the residents of Petaluma.

This sounds all too familiar in Petaluma in 2020. These events should motivate you. You can come up to speed by listening to the public comments over the last three months, featured here . . .

https://unsafeatanyg.com/petaluma/meetings

If you will be negatively affected by this massive cellular antenna farm project — 16 six-foot cell antennas with the capability of transmitting over 500,000 Watts of Effective Radiated Power over a 3+ mile radius from the Creamery — then you need to SHOW UP and help these neighbors defend their homes and their lives by opposing this unnecessary and unjust “taking” of public safety, privacy and property values for the enrichment of Billion Dollar Wireless Cos. and oppose the resulting 24/7/365 surveillance.

Please fill out the form here . . .

https://unsafeatanyg.com/petaluma/join

Those living around 500 to 1,000 feet from the creamery and those living on the hillsides with a direct line of sight to the creamery will be among the most affected.

Please start giving time and money to fund an attorney — already selected (https://scientists4wiredtech.com/thisworks) — so the residents can defend against the 20-30% loss in property values that they will face, if this project is forced into Petaluma against the will of the residents.


July 30, 2020

Mr. Eric Danly
City Attorney
City of Petaluma
11 English Street
Petaluma, CA 94952
707-778-4316

cc:
Teresa Barrett, Mayor
Mike Healy, Council Member
D’Lynda Fischer, Vice Mayor
Gabe Kearney, Council Member
Dave King, , Council Member
Kevin McDonnell, Council Member
Kathy Miller, Council Member
Peggy Flynn, City Manager
Brian Cochran, Assistant City Manager
Petaluma for Wireless Safety Members   

Dear Mr. Danly,

Thank you for participating in the Zoom call with Heather Hines from m-group and four members of the Petaluma for Wireless Safety this morning.

As we predicted, few of the agenda items of the 7/30/2020 @ 8:30 am email were addressed in our call, so we still have a need to complete the discussion that we have finally started with you, after trying to engage with the City Manager and you since June 12, 2020 about the important liability and other issues that the City of Petaluma faces when issuing permits for Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (WTFs), described quite succinctly here –> https://scientists4wiredtech.com/thisworks and https://mystreetmychoice.com/thisworks

I would appreciate, in the future, Mr. Danly if you did not mischaracterize my work as diatribes, which is a dismissive term and proves that you have not read my emails carefully.

Diatribe definition :

  1. : a bitter and abusive speech or piece of writing
  2. : ironic or satirical criticism

The pages that I cite on https://scientists4wiredtech.com/ are vetted, and sourced with links back to the originals. The attorneys with whom I work around the country on Telecom issues, including

  • Andrew Campanelli,
  • W. Scott McCollough,
  • Edward B. Myers,
  • Harry V. Lehmann,
  • Gary Widman and
  • Mark Pollock

. . . all appreciate the depth and accuracy of my research and analysis. In fact, after speaking with the three top FCC attorneys for NEPA at the FCC on 12/12/19 . . .

Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Competition & Infrastructure Policy Division

. . . we developed this web page –> https://scientists4wiredtech.com/action/nepa-strategies/

. . .which is the top search item for “NEPA Strategies” on Google, Bing and DuckDuckGo today.

We are often educating City Attorneys across the country –> https://scientists4wiredtech.com/sanfrancisco/#davis

Now, to follow up on your specific requests today, I spoke to and emailed attorney Mark Pollock and [tel redacted] gave him your contact information. He is expecting your return call today.

Allow me to provide the citations that are critically important to be included in the Petaluma City staff packet in support of the anticipated denial of PLMA-20-0003/PLUP-19-000 project a 16-unit antenna farm because the m-group and you, as the City Attorney, have not insisted on specific deadlines that would enable the public (the other co-equal stakeholders) sufficient time to review and evaluate the revised design before it might be heard as a “time certain” agendized item scheduled for Aug 11, 2020 in front of the Petaluma Planning Commission:

  1. https://scientists4wiredtech.com/campanelli
  2. https://scientists4wiredtech.com/compare
  3. https://scientists4wiredtech.com/legislation/1996-telecommunications-act-conference-report/
  4. https://scientists4wiredtech.com/legislation/titles-47-and-42-of-us-code/#A
  5. https://scientists4wiredtech.com/mozilla-v-fcc/
  6. https://scientists4wiredtech.com/2018-myers-et-al-v-fcc/ and https://scientists4wiredtech.com/2019/08/federal-court-overturns-fcc-order-bypassing-environmental-review-for-4g-5g-wireless-small-cell-densification/#summary
  7. https://scientists4wiredtech.com/2019-ca-supreme-court-decision-t-mobile-v-san-francisco/
  8. https://scientists4wiredtech.com/metro-pcs-vs-san-francisco/
  9. https://scientists4wiredtech.com/1998-cellular-telephone-co-v-town-of-oyster-bay/

Mr. Danly, the Public Needs CA AB.57 Shot Clock Verification — In Writing — In the Public Record By No Later than Tue Aug 4, 2020. Your private conversations with Mr. Albritton on this matter are not sufficient. We need clarity of the following agreed to by all stakeholders, stated in writing and entered into the public record for all to verify.

  • An accurate accounting — in writing — of shot clock management by Petaluma staff from Aug 7, 2019 to the present (we have been asking for this since June 12, 2020)

  • A determination that any decision by the Planning Commission on Aug 11, 2020 will permanently end the shot clock and any deemed approved privileges that applicant seeks to claim

  • By getting this determination in writing from all parties, this affords sufficient time for the City of Petaluma to process any appeal in a manner that is appropriate during COVID-19 national emergency.

We can add mismanagement of applicant deadlines to possible mismanagement of the CA AB.57 Shot clock on new Wireless Telecommunications Facility (WTF) construction (150 days), which by our accounting still has time left on it, since the application for PLMA-20-0003/PLUP-19-000 still has errors and omissions in it and should not be considered “complete” enough to be heard on Aug 11, 2020. The refusal of the m-group and the City Attorney to adequately address the existing errors and omissions of this application is very germane to the improper processing of this application during a national emergency.

President Donald Trump proclaimed in March, 2020:

“NOW, THEREFORE, I, DONALD J. TRUMP, President of the United States, by the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America. . . do hereby find and proclaim that the COVID-19 outbreak in the United States constitutes a national emergency, beginning March 1, 2020.”

We have a federal national emergency — Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) Outbreak — and a Sonoma county order that specifies that ONLY work necessary for the OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE of Telecommunications Services is considered an “Essential Activity.”

THIS DOES NOT MEAN the building of NEW Wireless Telecommunications Facilities is necessary for the operations & maintenance of “Essential Infrastructure.”

It makes much more sense to admit that a single “30-minute” Zoom call is not sufficient engagement even remotely equal to the time/attention afforded to the other stakeholders in this project from Aug 7, 2019 through July 30, 2020.

We are seeking, but not yet receiving equal access and equal time to city staff in this process. This lack of willingness to respect and engage with the Petaluma residents (the “natural persons”) negatively affected by this project is simply unacceptable and must change, going forward.

We strongly state that the City of Petaluma should only hear this item after COVID-19 is over and the public’s right to redress their grievances face-to-face with their government is fully-restored — Zoom public comments without the ability to to show our faces or present slide content is simply not sufficient. Please stop stealing the public’s rights like this.

The City of Petaluma can signal that they are actually open for business by promptly returning phone calls:

  • I count exactly zero returned calls from the City Clerk from June 10, 2020 to the present.
  • I count exactly zero returned calls from the City Manager or the Assistant City Manager from June 10, 2020 to the present.
  • I count exactly zero returned call from the City Attorney from June 10, 2020 to the present.
  • I count exactly one returned call from Heather Hines from the m-grouop since June 10, 2020.

That is simply not enough returned calls.

You can start today, Mr. Danly by calling attorney Mark Pollock [tel redacted] and then by returning my call at [tel redacted] to let me know how your conversation went.

You have the duty, Mr. Danly, to read, understand and reply to the items that Petaluma for Wireless Safety has placed in the Petaluma public record here (https://www.unsafeatanyg.com/petaluma/creamery/#latest et. seq), including emails I have sent to you seeking answers to relevant questions regarding the PLMA-20-0003/PLUP-19-000 project.

These numerous items have not been addressed, many of them for over a month.

I hope this email was succinct enough for your taste.


Date: July 17, 2020 

Heather Hines
Contract Planning Manager
Brittany Bendix, Justin Shiu
Employees of m-group/Contract Planners
City of Petaluma
11 English Street
Petaluma, CA 94952
707-778-4316

cc:
Peggy Flynn, City Manger
Brian Cochran, Assistant City Manger
Suzanne Terry, Executive Assistant to the City Manager
Teresa Barrett, Mayor
Mike Healy, Council Member
D’Lynda Fischer, Vice Mayor
Gabe Kearney, Council Member
Dave King, , Council Member
Kevin McDonnell, Council Member
Kathy Miller, Council Member
Claire Coope, City Clerk
Sandi Potter, Planning Commissioner
Patrick Streeter, Planning Commissioner
Richard Marzo, Planning Commissioner
Blake Hooper, Planning Commissioner
Scott Alonso, Planning Commissioner
Heidi Bauer, Planning Commissioner

[City Clerk Cooper, will you please add this email/letter to the Petaluma Public record for PLMA-20-0003/PLUP-19-000 a WTF antenna farm that has the capability of outputting 533,440 Watts of Effective Radiated Power from 611 Western Ave. Petaluma, CA? Will you please also ensure that this email/letter gets printed and placed into the paper file for this project? We are requesting that this email/letter and all communications and other substantial written evidence that we place in the Public Record from June 11 through Aug 4 be added to the agenda packet that will be distributed to the Petaluma Planning Commissioners. Thank you for doing so.]

Re: Petaluma for Wireless Safety Needs Professional, Thorough Answers to Unaddressed Questions for PLMA-20-0003/PLUP-19-000

Dear Ms. Hines et al.,

Thank you for your email response today.

Unfortunately, we do not consider what you emailed today, quoted below, to be a sufficient update. In fact, it only says, the m-group is choosing to take more time. I have asked you, Heather, to return my call, but you do not. Will you please call me today at [redacted]? We have only spoken once in the last month, despite many voicemails left for you. Will you also please answer the questions denoted with Q:, below? Thank you for doing so.

>>> Hines, Heather wrote on 7/17/2020 10:33 AM:

Thank you for your voicemail.

I know that Brittany spoke with you earlier this week and indicated that she would provide a status update today.

This email serves as that update.

Staff is reviewing the information that you provided this week.

I anticipate that staff will be able to complete their review of this information by the middle of next week and Brittany will follow up with both the applicant and interested community members regarding our findings for processing Verizon’s application.

Heather
Heather Hines
Planning Manager
City of Petaluma

Your 7/17/2020 email is a problem for the public because the Petaluma Creamery Cell Tower is a time-sensitive application. It is time-sensitive mostly because the m-group chose to not discuss this project with the public from Aug 2019 until June 2020. Now that the public has analyzed the files and established that there are significant errors and omissions in the application, we are unclear what steps, if any, that the m-group has taken to declare the application incomplete (which it is) and what, if any, new shot clock tolling agreement has been negotiated with the applicant. We shared the facts establishing application incompleteness on June 12, 2020 directly with the m-group and asked the m-group then to please write a letter detailing to the applicant what items remain incomplete.

Questions:

  • Q: What has the m-group done in response?

  • Q: Will the m-group please forward to me today any correspondence via email, letter or text that the m-group has sent to the applicant from June 1, 2020 through July 17, 2020?

Petaluma for Wireless Safety simply cannot wait until the middle of next week for transparency on these items. Doing so is unreasonable, given the timelines of this project. Petaluma for Wireless Safety will be reporting to the City Council on July 20, 2020 whatever information we get/or do not get from the m-group by then.

Please also note that the public got its first notifications of the Petaluma Creamery project sometime in late-May/early-June 2020, which resulted in the following informative Nextdoor.com posts/threads/discussions and a popular petition (nearly 5,000 signatures at https://www.change.org/p/planning-department-of-petaluma-stop-the-major-telecommunication-facility-at-the-petaluma-creamery and https://unsafeatanyg.com/signup

1. PETALUMA CREAMERY CELL TOWER (June 5, 2020) → https://nextdoor.com/news_feed/?post=150660413

“Hello neighbors, I’d like to to talk to our community about the Petaluma Creamery allowing Verizon to install a cell tower on top of one of their buildings. We feel that this is not beneficial to our neighborhood/community and may be geared more towards financial gain for the creamery owner.”

2. Verizon is proposing to put a cell antenna farm atop Petaluma Creamery (July 8, 2020) → https://nextdoor.com/news_feed/?post=154246879

“Verizon is proposing to install an antenna farm capable of continuously emitting 530,000+ watts of effective radiated power into our neighborhoods. That puts 16 macro cell tower antennas 75-100 feet from people’s homes. Planning committee meets at City Hall on August 11 to decide whether to accept Verizon’s application. Get more information at https://www.unsafeatanyg.com/petaluma.”

3. News About Petaluma Creamery Wireless Antenna Farm Project. (July 17, 2020) → https://nextdoor.com/news_feed/?post=155141758

“There is good information about the proposed Petaluma Creamery Wireless Antenna Farm project that was presented in public comment at various local govt meetings in June/July 2020 → https://www.unsafeatanyg.com/petaluma/meetings/

In my voicemails that I have left for you, Heather, I asked for professional responses to a number of open questions, which you continue to not address.

I am placing these reasonable, yet still unanswered, questions into the public record via this email and, by doing so, am establishing that these questions remain unaddressed as of July 17, 2020. I am also establishing the fact that the public deserves answers to these reasonable and informed questions. When can we expect answers from the m-group to the following questions?

A. Unaddressed Questions from https://unsafeatanyg.com/petaluma/creamery:

  • Q: From June 10, 2020: Does the m-group recognize the corrections made (via S4WT Comment:) to the mistake-ridden email from Justin Shiu to gpantiquus on June 8, 2020 at 3:36:28 PM? If so, will you please confirm your agreement in writing. If not, will you please provide the evidence, citations and reasoned decision-making for the m-group’s disagreement with the following corrections/comments?

  • Q: From June 11, 2020: Will the m-group please get the following missing information from the applicant to make the PLMA-20-0003/PLUP-19-000 application complete?

    • Specifically, we are interested in the following information:

      • Manufacturer, Model No. and Specifications for each piece of equipment being installed (this is still missing)
      • A Power consumption analysis to project electricity consumption projected by day, month and year (this is still missing)
      • Any analysis about the level of Effective Radiated Power that is actually needed to close an alleged significant gap in telecommunications coverage (the only lawful basis for any preemption of local authority the Wireless applicant may have under the 1996-TCA) (this is still missing)
      • Any NEPA review, since according to Erica Rosenberg, the FCC NEPA attorney, “Every single Wireless Telecommunication Facilities applications must do a NEPA review –> https://scientists4wiredtech.com/action/nepa-strategies/ (this is still missing)
    • We also need a full accounting (this is still missing) of the 150-day CA State shot clock (from 2015’s CA AB.57) for this Major Wireless Telecommunications Facility (WTF) project and to read the terms of the tolling agreements that you said were in place (the last being signed around June 2, 2020):

      • Date of application
      • Dates of any letters declaring the applications incomplete
      • Dates of letters accepting the application
      • Dates of 150-day shot clock running out? (if so, this is a real problem that needs to be immediately addressed)
      • Dates of the tolling agreement with the applicant or its agent and the mutually agreed-to end date
  • Q: From June 16, 2020: Whether or not the City of Petaluma will order a Written Evidence — Wireless Antenna Need Test in Telecommunications (“WE-WANT-IT”) for PLMA-20-0003/PLUP-19-000, which an industry-standard drive test of carrier-specific signal strength (in dBm) to establish if any significant gap in Verizon telecommunications coverage actually exists anywhere in the three-mile radius from the Petaluma Creamery so the Planning Commission can deliberate with reliable, objective data regarding actual Verizon frequency-specific signal strength data — the raw data of which will be placed in the public record for all to read, verify and analyze. (we have been discussing the critical need for the WE-WANT-IT test for a month, but have not learned of any final decision or even who is the final decision-maker; we instead see inaction, stonewalling and willful avoidance by the City of Petaluma. This issue is being ignored and needs to be addressed by the Petaluma City Manager)

  • Q: From June 16, 2020: Whether or not, with full knowledge that the PLMA-20-0003/PLUP-19-000 application is significantly incomplete and is missing its FCC-required NEPA review, will the m-group proceed with the June 23 [Aug 11] deliberation at the Petaluma Planning Commission meeting? (updated date due to applicant request; there are no decisions on this matter)

  • Q: From June 16, 2020: Whether or not, given the obvious problems with doing critically important business with the City of Petaluma during COVID-19 shut down, the City of Petaluma will decide to hold off on considering such massive changes to the residential character of many West Petaluma neighborhoods and postpone considering this item until after COVID-19 shutdown is over. (this issue is also being ignored and needs to be addressed by the Petaluma City Manager)

  • Q: From June 17, 2020: Will the m-group please get from the applicant the following missing information, which is needed to make the application complete because the application for PLMA-20-0003/PLUP-19-000 has remained substantially incomplete in the following significant ways for over a month?

    1. Application is missing details for radios and power generation equipment (specs cannot be verified): “Manufacturer, Model No. and Specifications for each piece of equipment being installed” (note we only have verified the antenna manufacturer and model number, all radio and power generation detail is missing)

    2. Application is missing a power consumption analysis: A Power Consumption Analysis to project Electricity consumption projected by day, month and year (power consumption cannot be verified)

    3. Application is missing verifiable analysis about the minimum level of Effective Radiated Power that is actually needed to close an alleged significant gap in Title II telecommunications coverage (the only lawful basis for any preemption of local authority the Wireless applicant may have under the 1996-TCA in 2020) (this is still missing)

    4. Application is missing its FCC-required NEPA Review: Any NEPA review, since according to Erica Rosenberg, the FCC NEPA attorney, “Every single Wireless Telecommunication Facilities application must undergo NEPA review → see https://scientists4wiredtech.com/action/nepa-strategies/. (this is still missing)

  • Q: From June 17, 2020: Will the City of Petaluma is take the common sense, no-cost step of first ordering an industry-standard Drive Test of signal strength before considering this item at the Planning Commission. It was the Drive Test data that made all the difference in Monterey, CA in March, 2018 → http://mystreetmychoice.com/monterey.html, when they denied Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (WTFs) and did not get sued.

  • Q: From June 17, 2020: Does the City of Petaluma recognize that the August 9, 2019 Ruling in United Keetoowah v FCC does apply to the Ninth Circuit?

    • The August 9. 2019 Ruling in United Keetoowah v FCC was decided by the circuit court of appeals in Washington, D.C., and does apply in California, which is overseen by the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

    • As you can see on this map, after the U.S. Supreme Court, the D.C. Circuit is usually considered the most prestigious of American courts because its jurisdiction contains the U.S. Congress and many of the U.S. government agencies, and therefore it is the main appellate court for many issues of American administrative law and constitutional law. Its Rulings apply to the entire United States, as admitted at 3:34:55 in the public record video by Verizon outside counsel Paul Albritton at the San Francisco Board of Appeals on Nov 20, 2019. “My colleague, Melanie Sangupta, reminded me that NEPA does apply nationwide.”

  • Q: From June 17, 2020: Finally, we are reporting to you that the public has had significant problems doing critically important business with the City of Petaluma during COVID-19 shut down. Why is City of Petaluma not deciding to hold off on considering such massive changes to the residential character of many West Petaluma neighborhoods and postpone considering this item until after COVID-19 shutdown is over? Other cities across the country have already done this, including Simi Valley, CA, Easton, CT and Keened, NH. Why is the City of Petaluma choosing to hear this item during COVID-19 lockdown when it doesn’t have to?

  • Q: From June 18 2020: Directed to the City Clerk, with no response: What are the proper process and procedures for noticing the public and for informing the City of Petaluma Planning Commissioners and the public about a very large project that would forever change the residential character of many West Petaluma neighborhoods: PLMA-20-0003/PLUP-19-000 — 611 WESTERN AVENUE – VERIZON WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY (WTF) 611 WESTERN AVENUE – VERIZON TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY (“Antenna Farm”), a project that would install 16 six-foot antennas, with the capability of outputting over 533,440 Watts of Effective Radiated Power 24/7/365 on the roof of a building at the Petaluma Creamery?

  • Q: From June 18 2020: Directed to the City Clerk, with no response: Where on the City web site or would you be able to forward to me the documents that detail the procedures that the Petaluma Planning Dept must follow to notify the public about a large project, such as the application for PLMA-20-0003/PLUP-19-000 and how they must respond to inquiries about the project? In what radius must notices be mailed and what evidence is there that such mailings occurred to everyone who required such notice?

  • Q: From June 18, 2020: Directed to the City Clerk, with no response: Where on the City web site or would you be able to forward to me the documents that describe the deadlines for and proper vehicles for public notice for items being considered on the June 23 [Aug 11], 2020 Planning Commission meeting?

  • Q: From June 18, 2020: Directed to the City Clerk, with no response: Where on the City web site or would you be able to forward to me the documents that detail the duties of the Planning Department to provide complete information to the Planning Commissioners. Since as we have already provided substantial written evidence in the public record that proves that application PLMA-20-0003/PLUP-19-000 still lacks the following critically important information, it seems improper that this application is proceeding for Planning Commission deliberations on June 23, [Aug 11] 2020.

A. Unaddressed Questions from voicemails left for Heather Hines/Brittany Bendix the week of July 13, 2020

  • Q: From July 15, 2020: Petaluma for Wireless Safety reported to Heather Hines and Brittany Bendix that residents of West Petaluma have experienced in the last few weeks that their Verizon service has degraded. I communicated that this is a common practice that has been observed by many communities facing an impending vote on an upcoming Verizon antenna project. It appears that Verizon has every incentive to degrade service (by manipulating the power output from their antennas) just before a vote to “manufacture the belief” that more Verizon wireless antennas are needed to address this fake problem. I pointed out that this is an act of bad faith by the applicant and is a reason to dismiss the application and start over. Instead of a he-said/she-said stream of hearsay and unverifiable claims, I strongly recommend that the City of Petaluma do what the number one Telecom attorney in the nation, Andrew Camapanelli, recommends doing: require a 12-month analysis of anonymized Verizon call records for the three-mile radius around the Creamery that will verfiably show the prevalence of completed and/or dropped calls in the area and therefore would be an objective measure of the NEED for the project. This would be no cost to the City of Petaluma and is necessitated by the bad-faith actions recently taken by the applicant. Feel free to call Andrew Campanelli at 516-746-1600, if you have any questions. For more examples of bad faith and evidence of duplicity by Verizon and its contractors, feel free to consult the Petaluma public record for evidence reported in two 2019 San Francisco Appeals

  • Q: From July 16, 2020: What did the m-group communicate to the applicant in the June 15 meeting with the applicant?

  • Q: From July 17, 2020: Since the State of CA has recognized the Petaluma Creamery at 611 Western Ave, as a historic landmark via criteria A and C, as detailed in public testimony here → https://www.unsafeatanyg.com/petaluma/meetings/ (it is in queue to be added to the State database), and the applicant’s consultant showed bad faith in not addressing the questions asked by the State historian, what will the m-group do to properly apply Petaluma Municipal Code to shift PLMA-20-0003/PLUP-19- back to a minor wireless facility (where it started) and then enforce the Municipal code to reduce the project’s Effective Radiated Power from the planned 500,000+ Watts to no more than 1,500 Watts ERP, per Chapter 14.44:Telecommunications Facility and Antenna Criteria | 14.44.090 Minor facilities — Basic requirements | (B) “The combined effective radiated power radiated by all the antenna present on the parcel is less than one thousand five hundred watts.”

Thank you for answering these important questions by 4:00 pm on Mon July 20, 2020. We will report to the City Council at 6:30 pm on Mon July 20, 2020 the m-group’s answers to these questions.


June 18, 2020 at 2:00 pm

Hi, Brittany et al.

[City Clerk Cooper, will you please add this email/letter to the Petaluma Public record for PLMA-20-0003/PLUP-19-000 a WTF antenna farm that has the capability of outputting 533,440 Watts of Effective Radiated Power from 611 Western Ave. Petaluma, CA? Will you please also ensure that this email/letter gets printed and placed into the paper file for this project? We are requesting that this email/letter and all communications and other substantial written evidence that we place in the Public Record from June 11 through June 16 be added to the agenda packet that will be distributed to the Petaluma Planning Commissioners. Thank you for doing so.]

Thank you for your response at response at 1:37 pm on Thu June 18.

Are you still going forward on June 23? If so, will you please provide the rationale for doing so, as we refuted whatever reasons you provided on Wed June 16 at 10:00 am?

  • The DC Circuit rulings do apply to the Ninth Circuit.
  • The application remains substantially incomplete and
  • There are ten weeks between now and Sept 1, 2020, the current (and negotiable) mutually-agreed-to end date.

Also, we have not heard anything specific enough from you about the Drive Tests to know if you have taken any real steps on this.

  • Which people did you contact and when?
  • Did you speak to Sara Dick at Waterford Consultants about Dave Cotton, the gentlemen from Redding that could complete the Drive Test?
  • When can such a Drive Test be completed?
  • Will the City of Petaluma delay the consideration PLMA-20-0003/PLUP-19-000 until after the Drive Test is completed, as it should?

If not, then what is the rationale for not completing this Drive Test before deliberating on this item as the Planning Commission?

We have many materials. Please see my question of the City Clerk earlier today — we are awaiting a response:

“As we have a very large delivery of files for the Planning Commissioners review for this project, these documents will be too large to email. We would prefer to put all of the files into the same USB stick that Brittany Bendix gave to us on June 12, 2020. Which person from the Petaluma City staff can meet us at the Petaluma City Hall today to accept this USB stick so our information can be included in the packet that goes to the Planning Commissioners? Please advise of the procedures the City of Petaluma has in place to address this important need during the COVID-19-induced period of “essential services only operational model” that we are being forced to endure in Petaluma’s government. Many of the City of Petaluma’s proceesses look pretty ill-defined, insufficient and broken to us, at this point.”

Who can meet us at City Hall today?

>>> On 6/18/2020 # 1:37 pm, Brittany Bendix wrote:

Thank you for your e-mails. We are working diligently to respond to the items you’ve raised; however, do not have a complete response prepared at this moment. You have provided a number of helpful resources, which I appreciate, and we are continuing to review those internally.

When we spoke yesterday morning, I had asked that you provide all materials you wished to incorporate into the staff report by the end of yesterday so that we could address your submittal in its entirety. Please let me know if you have any further items to submit for consideration and inclusion.

Brittany


June 18, 2020

To:
Ms. Claire Cooper, City Clerk
Ms. Samantha Pascoe, Deputy City Clerk
Deputy Contract Planning Manager
City of Petaluma
11 English St.
Petaluma, 94952
cityclerk@cityofpetaluma.org
707-778-4360

cc:
Peggy Flynn pflynn@cityofpetaluma.org, City Manager
Teresa Barret tbarett@cityofpetaluma.org, Mayor
Eric Danly edanly@cityofpetaluma.org City Attorney and cityattorney@cityofpetaluma.org
Claire Cooper ccooper@cityofpetaluma.org and CityClerk@cityofpetaluma.org
Sandi Potter sandi.lee.potter@gmail.com, Planning Commissioner
Patrick Streeter patrickstreeter@gmail.com, Planning Commissioner
Richard Marzo richard@lacehouselinen.com, Planning Commissioner

Diana Gomez dianaegomez@gmail.com, Planning Commissioner
Scott Alonso alonsoplanningpet@gmail.com Planning Commissioner
Heidi Bauer heidibauer2000@gmail.com Planning Commissioner
Kevin McDonnell kmcdonnell@cityofpetaluma.org Council Member
Heather Hines hhines@ci.petaluma.ca.us
Brittany Bendix bbendix@cityofpetaluma.org

We Need Answer to Questions re: Evidence of Proper Procedures That Need to be Followed in Processing Application PLMA-20-0003/PLUP-19-000

Dear Ms. Cooper and Ms. Pascoe,

[City Clerk Cooper, will you please add this email/letter to the Petaluma Public record for PLMA-20-0003/PLUP-19-000 a WTF antenna farm that has the capability of outputting 533,440 Watts of Effective Radiated Power from 611 Western Ave. Petaluma, CA? Will you please also ensure that this email/letter gets printed and placed into the paper file for this project? We are requesting that this email/letter and all communications and other substantial written evidence that we place in the Public Record from June 11 through June 16 be added to the agenda packet that will be distributed to the Petaluma Planning Commissioners. Thank you for doing so.]

I am writing to get clarification about the proper process and procedures for noticing the public and for informing the City of Petaluma Planning Commissioners and the public about a very large project that would forever change the residential character of many West Petaluma neighborhoods: PLMA-20-0003/PLUP-19-000 — 611 WESTERN AVENUE – VERIZON WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY (WTF) 611 WESTERN AVENUE – VERIZON TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY (“Antenna Farm”), a project that would install 16 six-foot antennas, with the capability of outputting over 533,440 Watts of Effective Radiated Power 24/7/365 on the roof of a building at the Petaluma Creamery.

We were able to gain access to the conference room on Fri June 12. 2020 for 90-minutes to inspect the project’s paper file and take photos of key documents. We also received on that day two USB thumb drives of various pdfs with communications and other supporting documents. From our review of these files, we have determined that the application for PLMA-20-0003/PLUP-19-000 remains substantially incomplete

We have communicated to Petaluma Planning, the City Manager and to the City Attorney that it would be inappropriate to consider application PLMA-20-0003/PLUP-19-000 on June 23, 2020, particularly given that the City of Petaluma clearly admits that it is operating at only “reduced” levels and cannot give the public ready access to City Hall and even prompt answers via email or by phone.

When calling City Manager Peggy Lynch on June 17 and June 18:

“Hello and thank you for phoning the offices of the City Manager and the Mayor of the City of Petaluma. To limit the spread of the Coronavirus, the City of Petaluma has moved to an essential services only operational model, effective March 17th. During this time, all City Buildings including City Hall will be closed to the public. All City Departments will be working at reduced staffing levels and will be providing those essential services primarily through email and phone . . .”

When calling City Clerk Claire Cooper on June 17 and June 18:

“Hello, you’ve reached Samantha Pascoe, Deputy City Clerk of the City of Petaluma. Our office is currently closed to the public, but remains available for limited services. Please leave a message or email us at cityclerky@cityofpetaluma.org.”

I am writing to clarify if Petaluma Planning staff is following proper procedure in processing PLMA-20-0003/PLUP-19-000.

We Need Answers to the Following Questions.
  1. Where on the City web site or would you be able to forward to me the documents that detail the procedures that the Petaluma Planning Dept must follow to notify the public about a large project, such as the application for PLMA-20-0003/PLUP-19-000 and how they must respond to inquiries about the project? In what radius must notices be mailed and what evidence is there that such mailings occurred to everyone who required such notice?

  2. Where on the City web site or would you be able to forward to me the documents that describe the deadlines for and proper vehicles for public notice for items being considered on the June 23, 2020 Planning Commission meeting?

  3. Where on the City web site or would you be able to forward to me the documents that detail the duties of the Planning Department to provide complete information to the Planning Commissioners. Since as we have already provided substantial written evidence in the public record that proves that application PLMA-20-0003/PLUP-19-000 still lacks the following critically important information, it seems improper that this application is proceeding for Planning Commission deliberations on June 23, 2020.

  4. As we have a very large delivery of files for the Planning Commissioners review for this project, these documents will be too large to email. We would prefer to put all of the files into the same USB stick that Brittany Bendix gave to us on June 12, 2020. Which person from the Petaluma staff can meet us at the Petaluma City Hall today to accept this USB stick so our information can be included in the packet that goes to the Planning Commissioners? Please advise of the procedures the City of Petaluma has in place to address this important need during the COVID-19-induced period of “essential services only operational model” that we are being forced to endure in Petaluma’s government. Many of the City of Petaluma’s proceesses look pretty ill-defined, insufficient and broken to us, at this point.

Still Missing from Application PLMA-20-0003/PLUP-19-000 (items that have been repeatedly communicated to Petaluma staff)

  • Objective data about current Verizon telecommunications signal strength that the public or any third party could view, analyze and verify (any proprietary data, would not qualify)

  • Results from a Need Test (an industry-standard Drive Test) that would provide this needed objective signal strength data

  • FCC-required NEPA review; in fact while typing this email, I received a return phone call from FCC NEPA Attorney Erica Rosenberg (202-418-1343) with whom I left a message yesterday. Erica confirmed, once again, that the City of Petaluma can require substantial written evidence of NEPA review for this or any other wireless project, that NEPA review is separate from CEQA review, that NEPA requirements are between the FCC (the creators and implementers of the rules) and the wireless applicants. What more do you need to know? Why doesn’t the City of Petaluma require this of the PLMA-20-0003/PLUP-19-000 applicant by letter today?

  • Equipment model numbers and specifications

  • A full date-by-date analysis of how Petaluma City staff managed the 150-day State Shot Clock for considering Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (WTFs) applications per CA AB.57

  • Complete historical analysis for the Petaluma Creamery, a recognized Historical site in Petaluma

  • Many other details we will place into the public record

In short, we have established — with substantial written evidence placed in the Petaluma public record — that application PLMA-20-0003/PLUP-19-000 is still incomplete in significant ways and, therefore, should not be considered by the Planning Commission on June 23, 2020, as is the current plan.

Following a 20-minute Video conference via Zoom on June 17, multiple calls to Brittany Bendix, Heather Hines, Peggy Flynn and Eric Danly have not been returned yesterday and today. I have also received no response to the June 17, 2020 3:00 pm email to Ms. Flynn and Mr. Danly sent by Petaluma for Wireless Safety. The City clerk has a copy of that email because I asked you to place it in the public record attached to application PLMA-20-0003/PLUP-19-000.

The public is suffering at the hands of a COVID-19 “essential services only operational model” and we are getting neither the answers nor the responsiveness that we need in order to defend our own lives and homes in the midst of arbitrary and capricious decisions being made by City of Petaluma staff, decisions that are contra-indicated by the evidence already in the public record.

We are asking for the rationale of why Petaluma City staff are proceeding on the June 23, 2020, given this evidence, but we can get no timely responses.

We are reporting these failures in proper process into the public record today in this email.

Regards, 

Petaluma for Wireless Safety
https://unsafeatanyg.com/petaluma


June 17, 2020

To:
Ms. Peggy Flynn, City Manager
Mr. Eric Danly, City Attorney
City of Petaluma

cc:
Ms. Heather Hines, m-group
Ms. Brittany Bendix ,m-group
Justin Shiu, m-group
Claire Cooper, City Clerk
Petaluma for Wireless Safety

RE: Request for Meeting e: PLMA-20-0003/PLUP-19-000 Proposed Petaluma Creamery Antenna Farm (16 Antennas Capable of outputting 530,000 Watts of Effective Radiated Power)

[City Clerk Cooper, will you please add this email/letter to the Petaluma Public record for PLMA-20-0003/PLUP-19-000 a WTF antenna farm that has the capability of outputting 533,440 Watts of Effective Radiated Power from 611 Western Ave. Petaluma, CA? Will you please also ensure that this email/letter gets printed and placed into the paper file for this project? We are requesting that this email/letter and all communications and other substantial written evidence that we place in the Public Record from June 11 through June 16 be added to the agenda packet that will be distributed to the Petaluma Planning Commissioners. Thank you for doing so.]

Dear Ms. Flynn and Mr. Danly,

Members of Petaluma for Wireless Safety appreciated meeting with Brittany Bendix at 10:00 am today for 20 minutes via Zoom re: PLMA-20-0003/PLUP-19-000

I am following up to see if we can talk with City Manager Lynch and City Attorney Danly, either by Go-To-Meetring (see my access credentials, listed below) about why the m-group, the contract Planners for the City of Petaluma, is getting direction (from one or both of you) to continue to publish the Planning Department packet tomorrow for PLMA-20-0003/PLUP-19-000 in preparation of holding a Planning Commission Hearing on the project on June 23, 2017.

I am certain at this time you are both aware of the substantial written evidence we have already placed in the City of Petaluma public record that proves that the application for PLMA-20-0003/PLUP-19-000 remains substantially incomplete in the following significant ways:

  1. STATUS: Application is missing details for radios and power generation equipment (specs cannot be verified): “Manufacturer, Model No. and Specifications for each piece of equipment being installed” (note we only have verified the antenna manufacturer and model number, all radio and power generation detail is missing)

  2. STATUS: Application is missing a power consumption analysis: A Power Consumption Analysis to project Electricity consumption projected by day, month and year (power consumption cannot be verified)

  3. STATUS: Application is missing verifiable analysis about the minimum level of Effective Radiated Power that is actually needed to close an alleged significant gap in Title II telecommunications coverage (the only lawful basis for any preemption of local authority the Wireless applicant may have under the 1996-TCA in 2020)

  4. STATUS: Application is missing its FCC-required NEPA Review: Any NEPA review, since according to Erica Rosenberg, the FCC NEPA attorney, “Every single Wireless Telecommunication Facilities application must undergo NEPA review → see https://scientists4wiredtech.com/action/nepa-strategies/.

We do not understand why the City of Petaluma is not taking the common sense, no-cost step of first ordering an industry-standard Drive Test of signal strength before considering this item at the Planning Commission. It was the Drive Test data that made all the difference in Monterey, CA in March, 2018 → http://mystreetmychoice.com/monterey.html, when they denied Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (WTFs) and did not get sued.

Finally, we were surprised that Ms. Bendix was informed that August 9. 2019 Ruling in United Keetoowah v FCC did not apply to the Ninth Circuit. That is false.

  • The August 9. 2019 Ruling in United Keetoowah v FCC was decided by the circuit court of appeals in Washington, D.C., and does apply in California, which is overseen by the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

  • As you can see on this map, after the U.S. Supreme Court, the D.C. Circuit is usually considered the most prestigious of American courts because its jurisdiction contains the U.S. Congress and many of the U.S. government agencies, and therefore it is the main appellate court for many issues of American administrative law and constitutional law. Its Rulings apply to the entire United States, as admitted at 3:34:55 in the public record video by Verizon outside counsel Paul Albritton at the San Francisco Board of Appeals on Nov 20, 2019. “My colleague, Melanie Sangupta, reminded me that NEPA does apply nationwide.”

We spoke to Sara Dick saradick@waterfordconsultants.com at Waterford Consultants (949-212-5075) this morning and it appears that they have a gentleman from Redding, CA, Dave Cotton, that could use calibrated Narda equipment to log the signals strength data that would serve as accurate objective data, upon which the Planning Commission can base its decisions. We have a lot of experience with the unreliability and unverifiability of the Verizon-generated and Hammett & Edison-generated RF reports. These reports are based only on “proprietary data” and therefore the calculations and conclusions cannot be verified by the public. Placing Waterford Consultants data in the public record solves that problem and protects the city from facing a frivolous law suit from the applicant.

In addition, we reached out to Rusty Monroe and Bob Ross (619-318-7589) for Drive Test contractor recommendations. They first recommended Hammett & Edison, but, of course, that could not be a choice because H&E is already representing Verizon’s interests in the application: PLMA-20-0003/PLUP-19-000 and we provided evidence in the record yesterday that establishes H&E is not an objective third party. We also found this site which says this firm does work in CA: http://m.emfservices.com/cell-towers.htm

The goal is to get second-by-second logs of data on Petaluma’s streets in a the three-mile radius around the Petaluma creamery (and bill this to the applicant) in order to place in the public record verified data that can show if an actual significant gap in telecommunications coverage exists in the targeted area. Trust me, it is in Petaluma’s advantage to complete this Need Test prior to sending the item to the Planning Commission. The raw data needs to be placed in the public record for all to read, verify and analyze.

Finally, we are reporting to you that the public has had significant problems doing critically important business with the City of Petaluma during COVID-19 shut down. Why the City of Petaluma does not decide to hold off on considering such massive changes to the residential character of many West Petaluma neighborhoods and postpone considering this item until after COVID-19 shutdown is over, is hard to fathom.Other cities across the country have already done this, including Simi Valley, CA, Easton, CT and Keened, NH. Why rush this through when you don’t have to?

These are the items we wish to discuss before the close of business today on June 17, 2020.

Thank you for your prompt attention to this important matter.

A. Proposed Video Conference for June 17, 2020 . . . at any time up to 6:00 pm today

[Video conference call credentials redacted]

B. Other open missing issues for PLMA-20-0003/PLUP-19-000

>>> Person wrote on 6/11/2020

We will also need [on 6/12/2020]:, but still do not have . . .
. . . a full accounting of the 150-day CA State shot clock (from 2015’s CA AB.57) for this Major Wireless Telecommunications Facility (WTF) project and to read the terms of the tolling agreements that you said were in place (the last being signed around June 2, 2020:

  • Date of application
  • Dates of any letters declaring the applications incomplete
  • Dates of letters accepting the application
  • Dates of 150-day shot clock running out? (if so, this is a real problem that needs to be immediately addressed)
  • Dates of the tolling agreement with the applicant or its agent and the mutually agreed-to end date

We will forward a separate CA public records act request after we receive and evaluate the information, specified above.

C. Petaluma Creamery is Recognized as Historical Site –> Needs to be a Minor Wireless Facility

https://petalumamap.com/categories/heritage-sites


Petaluma Creamey is an Historic Site
Petaluma Creamey is an Historic Site
Petaluma Creamey is an Historic Site

>>> Heather Muir wrote on 6/16/2020 9:54 AM re: Petaluma Historical & Cultural Society:

From: Justin Shiu
Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2020 8:54 AM
To: Bill Rinehart ; Heather Muir
Subject: RE: Proposed Major Verizon Wireless Facility on top of Petaluma Creamery

Hi Heather,

The project is not subject to review by the HCPC, however, it does require approval of Site Plan and Architectural Review (SPAR) by the Planning Commission. Through the SPAR request, Planning Commission can consider design and compatibility.

Best,

JUSTIN SHIU
AICP | SENIOR PLANNER


June 16, 2020

To:
Ms. Brittany Bendix
Deputy Contract Planning Manager
Employee of m-group
City of Petaluma
11 English St.
Petaluma, 94952

Heather Hines , Contract Planning Manager, m-group
Justin Shiu , Senior Planner 510-634-8443 ext.143

cc:
Peggy Flynn
Teresa Barret, Mayor
Eric Danley, City Attrorney
Lisa Tennenbaum, Assistant City Attorney
Claire Cooper, City Clerk
Sandi Potter , Planning Commissioner
Patrick Streeter , Planning Commissioner
Richard Marzo , Planning Commissioner
Diana Gomez , Planning Commissioner
Scott Alonso , Planning Commissioner
Heidi Bauer , Planning Commissioner
Kevin McDonnell, Council Member

Re: Relevant Details for PLMA-20-0003/PLUP-19-000 About Hammett & Edison and Mackenzie and Albritton Actions that Were Subject to Appeal in San Francisco

[City Clerk Cooper, will you please add this email/letter to the Petaluma Public record for PLMA-20-0003/PLUP-19-000 a WTF antenna farm that has the capability of outputting 533,440 Watts of Effective Radiated Power from 611 Western Ave. Petaluma, CA? Will you please also ensure that this email/letter gets printed and placed into the paper file for this project? We are requesting that this email/letter and all communications and other substantial written evidence that we place in the Public Record from June 11 through June 16 be added to the agenda packet that will be distributed to the Petaluma Planning Commissioners. Thank you for doing so.]

Dear Ms. Bendix et al.,

In advance of a scheduled Zoom meeting at 10:00 am today between Brittany Bendix and two representatives from Petaluma for Wireless Safety, we are entering the following relevant evidence into the City of Petaluma public record re: PLMA-20-0003/PLUP-19-000.

Our meeting today with Ms. Bendix, a contract planner from m-group doing the work on behalf of a Petaluma Planning Department, a department which has no employees of its own and is doing its work under contract with the City of Petaluma as authorized by Petaluma City Manager Peggy Lynch, will last about 15 minutes because Petaluma for Wireless Safety ! faces a noon deadline to submit its analysis of the PLMA-20-0003/PLUP-19-000 file and the evidence to be included in the packet for PLMA-20-0003/PLUP-19-000 that will be forwarded to the Planning Commissioners later today.

To that end, we will have to postpone answering any other questions until our submission is complete.

The items we wish to address in this June 16, 2020 Zoom meeting are the following decisions and rationale for them:

  1. Whether or not the City of Petaluma will order a Need Test for PLMA-20-0003/PLUP-19-000, an industry-standard drive test to establish if any significant gap in Verizon telecommunications coverage actually exists anywhere in the three-mile radius from the Petaluma Creamery so the Planning Commission can deliberate with reliable, objective data regarding actual Verizon frequency-specific signal strength data — the raw data of which will be placed in the public record for all to read, verify and analyze.

  2. Whether or not, with full knowledge that the PLMA-20-0003/PLUP-19-000 application is significantly incomplete and is missing its FCC-required NEPA review, that the m-group will proceed with the June 23 deliberation at the Petaluma Planning Commission meeting.

  3. Whether or not, given the obvious problems with doing critically important business with the City of Petaluma during COVID-19 shut down, the City of Petaluma will decide to hold off on considering such massive changes to the residential character of many West Petaluma neighborhoods and postpone considering this item until after COVID-19 shutdown is over.

Thank you.


Entered into the City of Petauluma Public Record on June 16, 2020:

June 15, 2020

Honorable Mayor, London N. Breed
City and County of San Francisco
City Hall, Room 200
1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place
San Francisco, CA 94102
415-554-6141

Linda J. Gerull
Executive Director, Department of Technology
City and County of San Francisco

Re: Past and Future Placement and Construction of Densified 4G/5G so-called “small” Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (sWTFs) in the public rights-of-way in San Francisco

  • Response to Gerull emails of May 1, 2020 and May 31, 2020
  • Clear Need to Postpone SF-DPW Scheduled Meeting of June 17, 2020 at 10 A.M. re: a virtual public hearing to further implement the requirements of Article 25 of the Public Works Code

Dear Mayor Breed and Ms. Gerull;

Before we could respond to Ms. Gerull’s letter of May 31, 2020, we learned details about a critical meeting on this subject set for Wed June 17th. This meeting creates an emergency which we here bring to the Mayor’s IMMEDIATE attention before providing a more detailed response to Ms. Gerull’s recent email.

In light of the description of the June 17th meeting, (Appendix A) it is urgent that the Mayor’s office POSTPONE or CANCEL that meeting before some very short-sighted decisions are made. We urge the Mayor’s office, and/or the City Attorney to

  • first postpone,
  • then to get up to speed on these problems, and
  • then to make more far-sighted, less costly and less dangerous decisions regarding local regulation of sWTF placement and construction.

We support Ms. Gerull’s referring matters to the City Attorney and encourage his personal involvement in these matters. His input on whether to hold the June 17, 2020 meeting would be important.

The policy proposed for adoption at the meeting, encouraging placement and construction of hundreds of more sWTF facilities throughout the city without other agency or public review of the public’s health, safety or protection of the quiet enjoyment of San Francisco streets (and without FCC-required NEPA reviews) may negate the benefits recently won by the City in its hard-fought litigation over these issues in T-Mobile v. City of San Francisco).

From T-Mobile v San Francisco (April 4, 2019 CA Supreme Court Ruling)

“Obstructing the path of travel is one way that telephone lines could disturb or give inconvenience to public road use. But travel is not the sole use of public roads; other uses may be incommoded beyond the obstruction of travel. (T-Mobile West, at pp. 355-356.) For example, lines or equipment might

  • generate noise,
  • cause negative health consequences, or
  • create safety concerns.

All these impacts could disturb public road use, or disturb its quiet enjoyment.”

As proposed, the SF-DPW implementation of the July, 2019 changes to Article 25 — without the public’s sufficient input as clear stakeholders — will almost certainly

  1. injure people in their homes and on the streets, with cancer being only one potential effect (Ms. Hogan is only one example of what will continue to happen if nothing is done.)
  2. send a “gold-plated invitation” for private personal injury litigation with its attendant publicity and cross-examination about what the City and its officers did and did not know on the date of its decision,
  3. send another invitation to federal agency investigation over potential undue influence,
  4. trigger violations of NEPA requirements, as described by FCC NEPA attorney Erica Rosenberg (202-418-1343) here → https://scientists4wiredtech.com/action/nepa-strategies
  5. invite press publicity undercutting the current progressive reputations of the Mayor and Dr. Tomas Aragon, [see this morning’s Chronicle].

“Undue influence” issues may arise from several widely observed facts.

First, in July, 2019 Dr. Aragon was given a binder of studies documenting the harm caused by pulsed, data-modulated, Radio-frequency Electromagnetic Microwave Radiation (RF-EMR) from source antennas such as sWTFs, a file compiled by the Dr. Joel M. Moskowitz, Ph.D., Director, Center for Family and Community Health, School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley — where Dr. Aragon teaches part-time.

Repeated urgent requests for his comments on these scientific reports documenting dangers of RF-EMR exposures from these sWTFs have been ignored since October 2019.

While all relevant facts are not known, his refusal to comment creates appearances in the minds of many that he has been told to keep quiet about the true dangers of RF-EMR exposures from sWTFs. The dangers reported could have been assessed by him, by staff, by other agencies who also received the file of reports, such as SF-Board of Appeals or by the SF Department of Technology. Mr. Swig at the Board of Appeals has requested Aragon’s response numerous times → . https://youtu.be/SmJ4mNr6FWI?t=16m10s We have heard nothing but silence from Dr. Aragon since October, 2019.

The peer-reviewed scientific studies compiled by Dr. Moskowitz are clear and are not so complex that their understanding cannot be comprehended by engineers, lawyers and lay people.

It is important to understand that even the industry does not claim that sWTF installations are safe. The industry has funded no cientific studies that counter those studies provided by Dr. Moskowitz, which are peer-reviewed studies that have funding independent of the wireless industry, in the binder described.

See Video Comments of Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) → https://youtu.be/xJ07BhcM5_4?t=34m22s

Reinsurers, Lloyds of London, Swiss re and AM Best and others will not insure the Telecom firms for injuries, illnesses or deaths caused by RF-EMR exposures from WTFs, as documented here (<https://scientists4wiredtech.com/sebastopol/#death). Telecom companies’ investor SEC filings note that their earnings are subject to losses to litigation over health or safety (as documented here: https://scientists4wiredtech.com/thisworks). Other cities have seen these same facts and protected their citizens from likely projected injuries, illnesses and deaths caused by WTF construction. San Francisco can be at least as progressive as its neighbors to the north: Petaluma, Mill Valley, Fairfax, Ross and Sebastopol.

In addition, some WTF installations in SF were canceled due to comprehensive SF-BOA appeals that detail the dealings of the RF Engineering firm, Hammett & Edison and outside Verizon counsel for Verizon, Mackenzie and Albritton (as documented in Appendix B. The obvious appearance asks whether there were unspoken reasons why some owners were favored and other similar owners were not.

One observation we make on the legal matter noted in Ms. Gerull’s email, is that the FCC and City of San Francisco has been told by the California Supreme Court (cit. above) that under its US constitutional “police power” it may regulate WTFs to protect the quiet enjoyment of streets, (note that the city’s police powers include protection of health and safety, along with protection of the public on its streets). There are other relevant legal responses as well.

We are prepared to meet and assist the Mayor, City Attorney, Director of the Department of Technology or others who would like to see scientific documentation of the established negative health consequences from RF-EMR exposures from WTFs that are nevertheless compliant with FCC RF-EMR guidelines.

As we learned in the Judge Millet’s Oct 1, 2019 Ruling in Case No. 1051, Mozilla et al. v FCC:

“Congress does not generally hide elephants in mouseholes, and we think it utterly improbable that [Congress intended to authorize the EPA’s interpretation] by creating a list of several hundred toxic chemicals.”) (internal citation omitted). The mousehole, in short, cannot be the wellspring of preemption authority that the Commission needs.

The elephant in the Mayor Breed’s office right now is that compliance with the FCC RF-EMR exposure guideline does not equate to sufficient protection or safety.

Most importantly, we have advised Ms. Gerull of one way that health dangers of WTFs can be avoided, while permitting the Telecoms to provide all needed telecommunications service: cap the maximum effective radiated power that can be transmitted by sWTF antennas to no higher than 0.1 Watt.

““For any so-called “small” Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (sWTFs) that are

  • installed in the public rights-of-way, or
  • attached to any building, or
  • have antennas installed at a height that is lower than 100 feet off the ground,

. . . the applicant must install only antennas, radios and other supporting equipment that have no chance of exceeding a total of 0.1 Watt of Effective Radiated Power from the face of the antenna shroud for all frequencies/wavelengths capable of being transmitted from the antenna.””

Please feel free to contact us at your convenience. Most importantly – we urge you to postpone or cancel tomorrow’s SF-DPW meeting and bring the Mayor (whose reputation is at risk) up to speed on ALL relevant information before proceeding!

Thank you.


Appendix A

Subject: Hearing for Adoption of Objective Standards for Personal Wireless Service Facilities

Hello Everyone,

On June 17, 2020 at 10 A.M., San Francisco Public Works will conduct a virtual public hearing to further implement the requirements of Article 25 of the Public Works Code, as amended by Ordinance No. 190-19, by adopting Objective Standards to determine whether a proposed Personal Wireless Service Facility to be installed on a Utility Pole satisfies the applicable Tier A, B, or C Compatibility Standard. I attached the proposed Objective Standards, visual representation of the design standards, hearing agenda, and instructions for comment.

San Francisco Public Works
City and County of San Francisco
1155 Market Street- 3rd Floor
San Francisco, CA 94103
415-554-5810


Appendix B

Excerpts from two 2019 appeals of so-called “small” Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (sWTFs) at the San Francsico Board of Appeals — in both cases, Verizon/Verizon’s Agents preferred to withdraw its applications in lieu of having these cases heard.

Sources:

A. 2298 Pacific, Inc. Appeal of Permit 18WR-0296

  • Link to. original appeal, without exhibits.

  • Link to large pdf file of Appeal with exhibits

Verizon, Modus, H&E, and their lawyers have taken and continue to take action to install this Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (WTFs) with full knowledge of the danger and damage they will cause. They intend to breach agreements to which Appellants are third party beneficiaries. They will intentionally and illegally prevent a landlord from fulfilling its legal obligations. They will intentionally and illegally cause: injuries from exposure in excess of FCC guidelines; a nuisance; emotional distress; trespass and interference with contractual relations, prospective business and economic relations. Punitive damages will be appropriate. The City risks liability for an inverse condemnation.11

Verizon, Modus, H&E and their lawyers understand these risks and the damage that will ensue and thus refuse to provide written assurances or to indemnify 2298 Pacific, its residents and officers. Ex. 612 # 5-6, 8-9; Ex. 8, #104, #105. Also, as discussed herein, Verizon’s agents have engaged in fraudulent conduct. This too is a breach of a material condition under UCP §3.5(g) and should vitiate this permit . See e.g. U.S. v. Throckmorton, 98 U.S. 61 (1878) (fraud vitiates). Because of its violations of the law and breaches of contracts, Verizon cannot meet its burden to show compliance with all permit requirements.

III. SF-DPH’S DETERMINATION WAS IMPROPER AND INCORRECT

As set forth below, Verizon’s Application was not Complete and DPW had no ability to refer it to DPH. See Order §6A4 and 6E. Also, DPH’s improper and premature determination appears in a short 10/29/18 memo by Arthur Duque (“Arthur”) which approves an antenna that was declared “OBSOLETE” and discontinued about a year earlier and which was for a steel, not concrete pole. Exs. 12-13. On these grounds alone, DPH’s determination was incorrect.

Putting these important issues aside, DPH’s determination was also incorrect because it relied entirely on unsupported presumptions in a 9/11/18 “report” by conflicted H&E that is, at least, unreliable, if not fraudulent Ex. 14. There is no evidence that H&E is trustworthy. Its finding emissions exposure below FCC standards for another facility near a school is being investigated. Multiple children and teachers in that Ripon school community now have cancer. Ex. 15. Moreover, as discussed below, Arthur’s determination is inherently unreliable because for years he has failed to verify the representations in H&E’s reports, including what emissions these cell towers actually produce once installed, despite for years making that a condition of his approvals.

Verizon’s agents repeatedly misrepresent that H&E is “an independent third party” and that the City conducts an “independent review” to assure compliance with FCC guidelines. The truth, however, is that H&E is paid by and works for Verizon and is represented by Verizon’s lawyers.13 It is not “independent” It has a conflict of interest.14

Nor does the City conduct an “independent review.” Asked to identify all work that the City, including DPH, did to verify its results and conclusions, H&E could identify nothing. Ex. B, #32. See also Ex. 9, p. 10, #q and p. 11, #u. Arthur’s memo itself reflects absolutely no independent analysis or verification of H&E’s measurements, calculations or assumptions. It nowhere answers obvious questions about H&E’s methodology or conclusions. It appears to be just a form that quotes H&E.

Asked to provide all documents to support the conclusions in his determination, Arthur merely produced identical copies of the H&E “report.” Ex. 18. Asked to provide all documents proving the reliability of H&E reports, he could produce nothing. Ex. 19.

H&E, who must “protect and safeguard the health, safety, welfare and property of the public”, is obligated not to misrepresent data and/or its relative significance in any report and is prohibited from knowingly permitting its work from being used for an unlawful purpose and from falsely injuring others. California Code of Regulations Title 16, Division 5 §475 and §475(c). It has violated these obligations.

H&E’s report” is intentionally misleading. H&E admits that no one from H&E actually measured human exposure to radio frequency at 2298 Pacific. Ex. #18. Thus, H&E cannot answer basic questions as to when, by whom, how, with what devices, under what conditions, and at what locations the alleged measurements were made. Ex. 8 # 18,64,70,76,83.15

Despite its representations (and in apparent violation of the Master License16), H&E also failed to consider the exposure results from the cumulative effect of Verizon’s equipment added to all other sources of RF or EMF on or near 2298 Pacific. In fact, H&E admits that it did not actually consider “any sources of radio frequency emissions exposure at 2298 Pacific.” Ex. 8, #23. H&E admits it did not consider nearby antenna or any sources of radio frequency emissions within 229B Pacific. Ex. 8 #24-25, 29.17 H&E admits that it merely “presumes” that the current cumulative radio frequency emissions exposure is “well below the FCC public limit.” Ex. #21.

Asked to describe the “existing radio frequency energy,” H&E merely repeats its presumption. Ex. #59. Asked to identify all current sources of radio frequency emissions exposure at 2298 Pacific, an intentionally evasive H&E says 11th ere are presently no known licensed sources.” Ex. #22. Asked to list all existing and proposed antennas and all other sources of radio frequency emissions that H&E considered in determining cumulative radio frequency energy at 2298 Pacific, H&E admits it considered nothing, simply repeating “there are presently no known licensed sources.” Ex. #52.

H&E must know that measuring cumulative exposure includes measuring exposure from all sources, licensed or not and both within and beyond 100 feet. Planning admits that PWSFs have a range up to 500 feet and that macro facilities can have a range up to a mile. Ex. 20, p. 8. The 100 foot limit in the report makes no sense. Asked whether questions other than those posed in the report need to be answered “to truly know the cumulative exposure to radio frequency emissions at 2298 Pacific” and if so, what those questions are, H&E evaded the inquiry, dodging: the “questions were posed by the DPH.” H&E cannot legally, professionally or ethically hide behind this excuse. See e.g. Cal. Code of Regulations Title 16, Division 5 §475 (c)(7J, (c)(9) and (c)(ll).

Nor is it credible that H&E believed there were no licensed sources. According to Planning, by just 2015, there were already “approximately 700 existing micro or macro … sites in San Francisco, each with between 1 to 16 panel antennas … [and] approximately 383 existing wireless facilities … ” Ex. 20, p. 8. H&E no doubt did the reports for many of these facilities. For example, Planning specifically mentions a macro facility at nearby 2001 Sacramento. Ex. 20 p. 9 (8/15 version). H&E did the report for that facility. Ex. 21. Moreover, there are facilities at 2288 Broadway, a little over a block away, which have a combined power output of over 17,000 watts. Ex. 22. H&E did the report for 2288 Broadway. Ex. 23. An incomplete map also reflects macro facilities on nearby Union and Buchanan at 16,650 watts, on Broadway and Gough for another 16,650 Watts and two on Union at Fillmore and Octavia each at 7,182 Watts. Ex. 24. There are likely others. H&E obviously was aware of these facilities but intentionally ignored them. No reasonable person would conclude that H&E proved compliance with FCC guidelines when it admits it ignored all sources of radio frequency energy.

In addition, work by one of Verizon’s other engineering firms undermines H&E’s “report.” For the same antenna at nearby locations, EBI Consulting warns that FCC limits are exceeded at 9 feet not the mere 3.5 feet that H&E claims. Ex. 5.

Even H&E’s own reports undermine its conclusions. Its other reports warn of exposure exceedance at 7 feet for this antenna, double the 3.5 it claims for 2298 Pacific. Ex. 26. H&E claims that “power density levels decrease rapidly with distance” Ex. HR #24. However, in a report for the same antenna measured at a distance of 65 feet (5 times further away than the alleged 13 feet at 2298 Pacific) H&E concludes that no one should be within 7 feet from it, double the distance it recommends for the same antenna at 2298 Pacific.18 Ex. Similarly, H&E admits in its other reports that the same antenna produces at least double the wattage, while the specifications for the antenna indicate that the maximum power output could be several times greater. Exs. 26 and 12. Not surprisingly, neither H&E nor Verizon has provided any documents supporting the conclusions that it is safe to be 3.5 feet away from this antenna or that the maximum effective radiated power is only 110 Watts or that it will only transmit in AWS and PCS or that it will not be aimed directly at 2298 Pacific or schoolchildren. Ex. 9 p. 6 # and p 5# e, pp.6-7 #h.19

Moreover, other evidence exists that H&E drastically underreports wattage to get approvals. For example, for 2288 Broadway, H&E claimed the maximum effective radiated power was 13,840. The City’s map says the wattage is closer to 17,000. Exs. 22-23. The Ripon students and teachers with cancer no doubt also believe that H&E drastically underreports exposure. See Ex. 15.

H&E’s representations about the equipment to be used will likely also prove fraudulent. Its report is for a CommScope Model 3X-V6SS-G-3XR for a steel, not concrete pole. Exs. 12 and 14. In its 2018 Application, Verizon provided the City with 2014 specifications for this antenna warning that they were “for illustrative purposes only” and would be “updated prior to publication.” However, the manufacturer had already declared the antenna “OBSOLETE” and “discontinued” in 2017, at least 9 months before H&E did its “report”. Ex. 12.20

DPH also relied on this untrustworthy “report” when it ignores emissions exposure under what any reasonable person can see are going to be the real conditions if this “OBSOLETE” antenna is installed. The antenna is tri-directional and capable of producing many times the wattage reflected in the H&E report‘ Ex. 26. H&E merely represented, with no reliable support for its representations, that only two directions would be activated, that the antenna would only be operated at a fraction of the possible wattage and that it would only transmit in two frequency bands and in certain ((principal” orientations. Ex. 14. Neither it nor Verizon produced a single, reliable document to prove that any of these crucial presumptions are correct See e.g. Ex. 9, p. 4#c, p. 5#e and Ex. 7, #27-29. When the third antenna is activated or the antenna is operated at full capacity or in different frequency bands or aimed at 2298 Pacific or school children, it will produce many times the exposure assumed. Although Verizon’s agents orally represented both that the antenna would never be operated in a tri-directional manner and that Verizon would never increase emissions from the facility, Verizon’s lawyers notably refused to confirm those oral representations in writing. Ex. 6, #7,14. Similarly, asked to provide a declaration “that there will never be an increase in the effective radiated power from the PWSF that is the subject of the Application,” Verizon refused. Ex. 6, #12. Asked to provide assurances that 2298 Pacific would be given meaningful notice and an opportunity to prevent an increase in advance and to explain when and how such notice would be given, Verizon refused. Ex. 6, #12-13. Asked why it would install a tri-directional antenna if it only wants the antenna to operate bi-directionally, Verizon evaded the question. Ex. 6, #18. Common sense impels one to conclude that Verizon would not install a tri-directional antenna that powerful only to operate it bi-directionally and at a fraction of the wattage possible and that it is using at other locations. Verizon can merely activate a direction aimed right at 2298 Pacific and school children or otherwise increase emissions or transmit in other bands, including those for which FCC guidelines are more stringent. No one will know unless Verizon volunteers that it is doing so. Given the misrepresentations and intentional concealments of information that have occurred, it is not reasonable to rely on Verizon to self-police. Nor should one expect conflicted, untrustworthy H&E to undermine its important client or to declare that its previous representations were false. It is concerning that the City could ever be content to rely on the conflicted H&E to merely confirm its previous representations.

Nor should anyone expect the City to police Verizon. Although Verizon’s lawyers repeatedly represent to hearing officers, this Board and to others that DPH conditions requiring post-installation RF measurements “ensure that the Facility will not exceed FCC limits on RF emissions,” the truth is that Verizon does not give DPH post-installation RF measurements showing compliance with FCC guidelines and the City does not even track what happens to a PWSF after it is installed.21 DPH hasn’t verified an installed PWSF’s compliance with FCC guidelines as required by its approval condition for years, if ever. Consider these disturbing admissions:

(1) In 2017, DPW complained that it was lacking Statements of Compliance with the Public Health Compliance Standard “PHCS”) and other required notices and photographs for about 80% of installed Verizon facilities. Verizon was told to put such information into a spreadsheet Ex. 28.

(2) Over two years later, (March 2019), the City confirmed there still was “no spreadsheet or other document with post-installation data, including a spreadsheet or other document with any information concerning post-installation compliance with the PHCS.” Ex. 29.

(3) DPW admitted as recently as March of 2019 that, despite the mandatory obligations under Article 25 22, it does not track when an actual installation takes place or what happens after a PWSF is installed (i.e. the installed PWSFs RF emissions). DPW can’t even tell which Application actually resulted in an installed PWSF. DPW further admitted “there is no information kept about the cumulative impact of the currently installed and operating PWSFs” and that “there are no documents that compare pre-installation with post-installations RF reports.” Ex. 29.

(4) DPH could not provide post-installation reports. DPR concealed from Appellants, who had an outstanding public records request for reports, that Arthur (and thus DPH) had never received a single, required post-installation test result confirming compliance with FCC guidelines in his entire 2 year tenure in this program at DPH! 23 Ex. 31.

Shockingly, it appears that DPH never cared about this or mentioned it until Appellants’ public records request caused concern that citizens might uncover this fraud. Ex. 31.24 Arthur’s ignoring required post-installation testing to confirm compliance with FCC guidelines for two years speaks volumes as to the reliability of his determinations. It only confirms that DPH merely accepts H&E’s representations without questioning anything, including whether its mere presumptions actually bear out in real world conditions and whether H&E’s representations, including about the equipment Verizon is going to use and how it is going to use it, ever prove truthful.

(5) Six minutes Wr. a public records request for his emails with Agatha closed on March 21,2019, Arthur sent Agatha an email with a subject line referencing the prior two years entitled, “2017 and 2018 Post reports for all approved DPW sites after installation.” In this email, he admitted that although DPH’s approval conditions required post-installation tests showing FCC compliance, “DPH has not been getting them to see if they do comply with the FCC public standard.” Ex. 34.

(6) *In a March 21, 2019 email to DPW’s Leo Palacios (“Leo”), Arthur admitted: “*DPH has not been getting any of the post-test results since I’ve been in this program** . . . There is no notification process to inform DPH . . . that a review is needed . . I would like to streamline this process so that DPH knows when these sites ego active’ and if they are in compliance with the FCC Public Standard.” Ex. 31. Leo registered no surprise. Ex. 32. He had to have known that DPH was not getting these reports.25

(7) In an improper ex parte communication to the Hearing Officer, Verizon’s attorney admitted “DPW could revoke the permits for Proposed Facilities if [post-installation testing] conditions are violated.” Ex. 38.

This situation is extremely distressing, to say the least.26 This Board cannot risk further endangering SF residents and in this case, thousands of children from 7 different schools, given this record, including H&E’s role in blessing a facility near a school where children and teachers now have cancer. And this Board should be very troubled by the many misrepresentations that have been made to it and continue to be made to it See e.g. Ex. 39, p. 4 (This condition ensures that the Facility will not exceed FCC limits on RF emissions.”) The truth is that Verizon and H&E have known that they can make any representation they want They know that DPH will not assure post-installation compliance with FCC requirements or verify H&E’s claims as required by DPH’s condition of approval. See e.g. Exs. 28-29, 31-32 and 34.

Although H&E represented in its report that its findings for this antenna are “consistent with measurements of actual exposure conditions taken at other operating nodes,” it failed to provide any documents to support this representation or even the addresses of these alleged nodes so that information could be requested of DPW.27 Ex. 9 p. 9#n and p. 8 #L and Ex. 8, #91b. Its representation may of course be fraudulent given the evidence that Verizon doesn’t actually do the required post-installation testing and DPH doesn’t confirm post-installation compliance with FCC guidelines. Exs. 28-29, 31-32 and 34. It is also on its face suspect given that Verizon stated in its 2018 Application that it was using this antenna “for the first time” while the antenna had already been declared “OBSOLETE” and discontinued the previous year. Exs. 12 and 40. Asked to provide all documents to support any of the conclusions on which DPH relied, H&E did not produce a single document. Ex. 9.

H&E’s work has also been discredited in other jurisdictions, in addition to Ripon. Ex. 107. And, as discussed below) its “report’) was not properly verified. Also troubling are H&E’s efforts to conceal its methodology, refusing to explain its calculations on the grounds that they are “proprietary.

Like H&E and DPH, Verizon, Modus, Planning and DPWwere all given opportunities to demonstrate this PWSF’s compliance with FCC guidelines. None could. Planning and DPW admitted that they had no documents to support any of H&E’s conclusions. Ex. 41. Similarly, Modus produced nothing. Exs. 10-11. Verizon, like H&E, refused to reveal “the amount of all radio frequency emissions to which the residents of 2298 Pacific are currently exposed.” Ex. 6, #21. It would not state the amount of all radio frequency emissions to which the residents of 2298 Pacific will be exposed if all of the proposed PWSFs in San Francisco are approved.” Ex. 6 #22. It refused to say whether there ((are there any base stations, and/or operational radiating antennas near 2298 Pacific that are already exposing the residents of 2298 Pacific to radio frequency electromagnetic fields.” Ex. 6, #20. It refused to provide a reliable declaration under penalty of perjury that the proposed PWSF will never cause the residents of 2298 Pacific or any of its workers, agents, property managers or contractors to experience any exposure to radio frequency emissions that exceed FCC guidelines now or in the future or to explain why it will not do so Ex. 6 #5-6. It would not provide a single document: “showing the amount of radio frequency emissions to which the residents of 2298 Pacific are currently exposed” or “showing the amount of radio frequency emissions to which the residents of 2298 Pacific will be exposed given proposed and anticipated PWSFs in San Francisco.” Ex. 7, #4. It refused to provide “a list by address of all existing facilities that produce radio frequency emissions to which the residents of 2298 Pacific are currently exposed and to identity by address the amount of emissions produced.” Ex. 6, #1.

No one, not H&E, DPH, DPW, Planning, Modus or Verizon can provide any reliable information or documents that support the conclusion that exposure at 2298 Pacific will comply with FCC guidelines.

The pole at issue is about 8 feet from 2298 Pacific’s brick wall where elementary school children sit. Verizon conceals the fact that it intends to install a pole that is wider than the existing pole, while the cell tower will extend out still further from that wider pole, bringing the pole and antenna closer to 2298 Pacific. EBI found that FCC guidelines are exceeded at 9 feet for this same antenna. Ex. 5. This PWSF will expose people, including young schoolchildren, to emissions in excess of FCC guidelines. Also, workers using scaffolding or swing stages to conduct required maintenance and repairs on the building will be even closer to the antenna and risk exposure in excess of Fee guidelines. Similarly, 2298 Pacific’s arborists and others who work on its trees that are next to the proposed PWSF will risk exposure in excess of FCC guidelines. 2298 Pacific, Inc. will be prevented from conducting legally required maintenance and repairs. See Civil Code § 1941 and 1941.1 (a) (1). Millions of dollars of damage will ensue.

For the many reasons detailed above, it is clear that Verizon did not meet its burden to prove compliance with FCC guidelines and that DPH’s premature and improper determination incorrectly found compliance with the PHCS.28 Indeed, DPH’s determination is inherently untrustworthy in light of the revelation that for years it ignored the condition that it puts in its approvals, failing to assure compliance with FCC guidelines and to verify H&E’s representations.”

B. 1650 Baker St. Appeal of Permit 16WR-0123

  • Link to 2019-1016-Appeal-19-0087-1650-Baker-SF-CA
  • Link to 2019-1104-SF-BOA-Verizon-WTF-Appeal-19-087-Dismissed-1650-Baker-SF-CA
Hammett and Edison (H&E) report is invalid
  • As mandated by city law to receive a permit, the applicant (Verizon / Modus) needed to hire a RF radio frequency engineer to assess the proposed installation. Verizon hired H&E.
  • The H&E has a conclusion page which is signed by the engineer that conducted the study and wrote the report. It is the ONLY page that is signed by the H&E Engineer (named Andrea Bright) and the only page that has her official stamp as a registered California Professional Engineer.
  • A copy of this signature page and stamp page is included as Exhibit 9.
  • To quote, it says: “Based on the information and analysis above, it is the undersigned’s professional opinion that operation of the small cell proposed by Verizon Wireless at 1867 39th Avenue in San Francisco. California, will comply with the prevailing standards for limiting public exposure to radio frequency energy and, therefore, will not for this reason cause a significant impact on the environment.” (Emphasis mine, underlined)
  • This address is THE WRONG ADDRESS (it is not 1650 Baker Street). The engineer seems to have “cut and pasted” from another report and just applied it blindly here to a completely different location, which at worst is fraud and at best is negligence.
  • Either way, as a result. there does NOT exist any signed stamped conclusion about 1650 Baker Street.
  • While the top of the page says 1650 Baker as a printed header to the document, the actual signed page (the only signed & stamped page in the document) and the conclusion statement clearly states it’s for 1867 39th Avenue — which means this is not a valid signed for our address on Baker Street.
The DPH and DPW installation requirements have a history of not being met
  • Arthur Duque of DPH is the Senior Environmental Health Inspector at San Francisco Dept of Public Health -Radio frequency program. He is the only in the Radio Frequency Program at the DPH (Exhibit 10).
  • Arthur writes, in the letter stating DPH’s approval conditions in the section titled Approval Conditions, that “Once the antenna is installed, Verizon Wireless must take RF power density measurements with the antenna operating at full power to verify the level reported in the Ebi Consulting report and to ensure that the FCC public exposure level is not exceeded in any publicly accessible area.”

The language here is clear — it is a requirement of the permit. And yet:

  • Exhibit 11 Arthur Duque of DPH himself has admitted in writing, in an email he sent March 21, 2019 (only months ago) to DPW, saying “DPH has not been getting any of the post-test results since I’ve been in this program” [for reference: Arthur Duque has been with DPH for over 8 years].
  • That means Arthur admits in writing that for YEARS, he has not received required post-installation reports as required by the permit. We cannot allow such a blatant violation to continue and cannot trust the wireless companies to adhere by the clauses in the permit.
  • DPW itself also admits in writing (Exhibit 11) that

    1. there is no document with information concerning post-installation compliance
    2. there is no information about the cumulative effect of installed wireless facilities
    3. there are no documents that compare pre-installation with post-installation RF reports.”

June 15, 2020

To:
Ms. Brittany Bendix
Deputy Contract Planning Manager
Employee of m-Group
City of Petaluma
11 English St.
Petaluma, 94952

cc:
Teresa Barret,Mayor
Heather Hines, Contract Planning Manager, m-group
Justin Shiu, Senior Planner 510-634-8443 ext.143
Claire Cooper, City Clerk
Sandi Potter, Planning Commissioner
Patrick Streeter, Planning Commissioner
Richard Marzo, Planning Commissioner
Diana Gomez, Planning Commissioner
Scott Alonso, Planning Commissioner
Heidi Bauer, Planning Commissioner
Kevin McDonnell, Council Member

Re: The Problems with Attempting to Do Business with the City of Petaluma During Covid-19 Shutdown for PLMA-20-0003/PLUP-19-000: 611 WESTERN AVENUE – VERIZON WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY (WTF) 611 WESTERN AVENUE – VERIZON TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY

Dear Ms. Bendix et al.,

Thank you for meeting us at City Hall on Fri June 12, 2020. We spent from 12:30 pm to 1:30 pm taking photos of the paper documents in the file for PLMA-20-0003/PLUP-19-000 and copied the pdf documents from the two USB thumb drives that you provided to us.

Thank you also for speaking to us for about 20 minutes from 1:30 pm to 1:50 pm on some of the things that were missing from the file for PLMA-20-0003/PLUP-19-000 — missing items that were apparent even in our first hour of inspection. Please see the STATUS of each item below. As we stated in the June 11 email, “we specifically, are interested in the following information:”

STATUS: Incomplete detail for radios and power generation equipment (cannot be verified): “Manufacturer, Model No. and Specifications for each piece of equipment being installed” (note we only have verified the antenna manufacturer and model number, all radio and power generation detail is missing)

STATUS: Missing analysis (cannot be verified): A Power Consumption Analysis to project Electricity consumption projected by day, month and year

STATUS: MIssing analysis (cannot be verified): Any analysis about the minimum level of Effective Radiated Power that is actually needed to close an alleged significant gap in Title II telecommunications coverage (the only lawful basis for any preemption of local authority the Wireless applicant may have under the 1996-TCA in 2020)

STATUS: Incomplete detail (we have only some, but not all emails and texts): All communications between Verizon and its agents and the m-group/Petaluma staff from Jan 1, 2019 through June 12, 2020.

STATUS: Missing NEPA Review (cannot be verified): Any NEPA review, since according to Erica Rosenberg, the FCC NEPA attorney, “Every single Wireless Telecommunication Facilities applications must do a NEPA review –> <https://scientists4wiredtech.com/action/nepa-strategies/
After reading the other documents that you provided to us over the weekend, we have found many more missing items which we are compiling into a complete list that will cite documentary sources and will be forwarded to you tomorrow.

It seems very clear at this time that the file for PLMA-20-0003/PLUP-19-000 is NOT YET COMPLETE. Therefore it is inappropriate, per the current plan, to issue a Planning Dept. package to the Planning Commissioners on June 16 for their deliberation on June 23. We instead, request that you write a letter to the applicant(s) for PLMA-20-0003/PLUP-19-000 detailing the ways in which the application remains incomplete and we insist that the City of Petaluma take the steps to make the application PLM-20-0003/PLUP-19-000 complete before proceeding. This may require an additional tolling agreement, as well.

Some of the substantial written evidence that we will be entering into Petaluma’s public record tomorrow includes the following:

  • Copies of attorney-written and filed appeals for other Verizon/Verizon-agent proposed WTFs in California that show a clear pattern by Verizon/Verizon’s Agents to attempt to get approval for WTF projects with incomplete files. This seems to be a common corporate strategy; one that has caused other cites to be sued over considering such incomplete files.

  • Copies of detailed evidence that refutes the signal-strength claims Verizon’s has made on other similar projects. In short, the colorful coverage maps provided by Verizon are insufficient “comic-book” wish lists that are not based on verifiable signal strength measurements, facts or law. One glaring problem is that nearly all of the data used to make said coverage maps are not placed in the public record, so there is not way for any third party to verify its veracity. Verizon, Verizon’s agents and Hammett & Edison routinely claim that such data is “proprietary” as an excuse for not sharing such data.

  • This is why the City of Petaluma must hire a third-party, neutral RF-Engineer, at Verizon’s expense, to establish the actual signal strength readings via data logs from industry-standard Drive Tests of Carrier-specific frequencies/bands in the coverage zone — a three-mile radius from the Creamery (28 square miles).

  • Copies of at least three FCC Complaints filed against Verizon facilities for not completing FCC-required NEPA review before seeking project approval, just as this one is attempting to do.

  • We also attempting to complete a full accounting of the 150-day CA State shot clock (from 2015’s CA AB.57) for this Major Wireless Telecommunications Facility (WTF) project and we will need Petaluma Planning Dept. to assist on this task:

    • Date of application
    • Dates of any letters declaring the applications incomplete
    • Dates of letters accepting the application
    • Dates of 150-day shot clock running out? (if so, this is a real problem that needs to be immediately addressed)
    • Dates of the tolling agreement with the applicant or its agent and the mutually agreed-to end date   

Finally, everyone in the City staff seems to be trying to cope with the COVID-19 lockdown, but it is clear that things are not business-as-usual. City staff is not present in Petaluma, we cannot get timely answers to our emails or phone calls and it seems completely unnecessary for the City to be making decisions on such a large project that will truly change the residential character of nearly all of Southwest Petaluma, during a COVID-19 lockdown.

Such a lockdown essentially shuts out participation by anyone who does not have the skills to negotiate a Zoom meeting by computer or phone. Petalumans have the right to redress their grievances to their government face-to-face, which means in person.

Please wait until that can occur again — after COVID-19 lockdown has been lifted — before proceeding on this non-essential project. We can confidently call PLMA-20-0003/PLUP-19-000 non-essential because we have substantial written evidence that there is no gap in Verizon telecommunications service in a three-mile radius of the Creamery.

We strongly suggest that the City follow in the path of Simi Valley, and Easton, CT and decline to process all WTF applications until after COVID-19 shut down is over. Even the 2018 FCC Order 18-111 enables cities to declare such a moratoria during times of National Emergency.

We are looking forward to a timely response to this letter.

Thank you.


June 11, 2020

Ms. Brittany Bendix
Deputy Contract Planning Manager
Employee of m-group
City of Petaluma
11 English St.
Petaluma, 94952

cc:
Teresa Barret,Mayor
Lisa Tennenbaum, Assistant City Attorney
Heather Hines, Contract Planning Manager, m-group
Justin Shiu, Senior Planner 510-634-8443 ext.143
Claire Cooper, City Clerk
Sandi Potter, Planning Commissioner
Patrick Streeter, Planning Commissioner
Richard Marzo, Planning Commissioner
Diana Gomez, Planning Commissioner
Scott Alonso, Planning Commissioner
Heidi Bauer, Planning Commissioner
Kevin McDonnell, Council Member

Re: Need to Inspect Complete Public Records of Communications between City of Petaluma and Applicant(s) For PLMA-20-0003/PLUP-19-000:
611 WESTERN AVENUE – VERIZON WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY (WTF) 611 WESTERN AVENUE – VERIZON TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY

[City Clerk Cooper, will you please add this email/letter to the Petaluma Public record for PLMA-20-0003/PLUP-19-000 a WTF antenna farm that has the capability of outputting 533,440 Watts of Effective Radiated Power from 611 Western Ave. Petaluma, CA? Will you please also ensure that this email/letter gets printed and placed into the paper file for this project? We are requesting that this email/letter and all communications and other substantial written evidence that we place in the Public Record from June 11 through June 16 be added to the agenda packet that will be distributed to the Petaluma Planning Commissioners. Thank you for doing so.]

Dear Ms. Bendix et al.,

At 11:50 am on Thu June 11, I got off the phone with you and appreciated you listening to the substantial evidence that we discussed in how to establish a reliable Needs Test for any Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (WTFs) of any size (Major, minor or “small” WTF) and of any G, described in Appendix A, below and here –> https://unsafeatanyg.com/glenellyn/improved-ordinance/

We need your assistance in completing our due diligence on the proposed major wireless facility for the West Side of Petaluma — PLMA-20-0003/PLUP-19-000 — a project that proposes installation of an antenna farm and associated equipment (16 seven-foot antennas, with the capability of outputting over 533,440 Watts of Effective Radiated Power 24/7/365) on the roof of the Petaluma Creamery. All antennas and equipment to be screened and painted to match the existing building. –> https://unsafeatanyg.com/petaluma/creamery/

Shad Cloney and I are looking forward to meeting you on Fri June 11, 2020 at the Petaluma City Hall to inspect the records you can pull together for us. Please let Shad and I know what time works best for you. We are fine making a CA public records act request for any additional records that we cannot inspect tomorrow, but hope we don’t have to wait for the traditional 10-day waiting period, because we share the same deadline as you: the June 16, 2020 agenda packet distribution to the Planning Commissioners.

Our need for tomorrow is to spend about 90 minutes inspecting the file and taking photos of anything we deem to be relevant. We will bring a camera and tripod to complete this process. We have no need for any copies and are open to receiving files in digital format, if that is easier for you.

Specifically, we are interested in the following information:

  • Manufacturer, Model No. and Specifications for each piece of equipment being installed
  • A Power Consumption Analysis to project Electricity consumption projected by day, month and year
  • Any analysis about the level of Effective Radiated Power that is actually needed to close an alleged significant gap in telecommunications coverage (the only lawful basis for any preemption of local authority the Wireless applicant may have under the 1996-TCA)
  • All communications between Verizon and its agents and the m-group/Petaluma staff from Jan 1, 2019 through June 12, 2020.
  • Any NEPA review, since according to Erica Rosenberg, the FCC NEPA attorney, “Every single Wireless Telecommunication Facilities applications must do a NEPA review –> <https://scientists4wiredtech.com/action/nepa-strategies/

We also need a full accounting of the 150-day CA State shot clock (from 2015’s CA AB.57) for this Major Wireless Telecommunications Facility (WTF) project and to read the terms of the tolling agreements that you said were in place (the last being signed around June 2, 2020:

  • Date of application
  • Dates of any letters declaring the applications incomplete
  • Dates of letters accepting the application
  • Dates of 150-day shot clock running out? (if so, this is a real problem that needs to be immediately addressed)
  • Dates of the tolling agreement with the applicant or its agent and the mutually agreed-to end date

The shot clock problem that is well-described and solved in Sonoma, CA in August, 2019 –> https://youtu.be/Tjkrw_xPqRE?t=143

In my extensive experience in reviewing applications for Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (WTFs), I invariably find missing information on applications; information that must be complete before the item can be considered by the Planning Commission. We have yet had an opportunity to inspect these public records. We will give you a list and ask you to send a letter to the applicant deeming their application incomplete. Waiting for additional information from the applicant may delay the planned June 23, 2020 Planning Commission hearing.

We tried to inspect the records yesterday, but were unable to do so, despite our efforts. I received your message from your cell number (858-XXX-YYYY) to my cell number at 3:45 pm yesterday; well after I had to leave City Hall. Please, in the future, return calls to my Sonic.net landline ([redacted] — service that is tel + 1,000 Mbps down/1,000 Mbps up for $50/month). My cell phone is off 99% of the time.

I had one substantive conversation with Justin Shiu in late morning on June 10, 2020. Justin told me that he was forwarding all of his communications between Verizon and its agents and the m-group/Petaluma staff to Brittany Bendix Petaluma and he was going to check with both Brittany and Heather regarding the process by which then public can inspect all relevant public records for this project in a timely manner, which means that a traditional CA public records act request (with a ten day response delay) would not be timely enough to affect the June 16, 2020 agenda packet deadline.

These communications could be extremely critical evidence for the Petaluma Planning Commissioners to review for their deliberations. We need to inspect these records to assess that.

The public is playing catch up in order to achieve even some modicum of “equal time” from Petaluma Planning staff/m-group to lobby against this project. The applicant and their agents have had months of time to spread their marketing message to everyone.

I will look forward to meeting you tomorrow because not getting to inspect these records tomorrow would seriously hinder the public’s ability to analyze this project and lobby for a proper balancing of the needs of the natural persons and stakeholders (Petaluma residents) and the artificial persons (the Wireless applicants, the Petaluma Creamery and the City of Petaluma).

Thank you.



———- Forwarded message ———
From: Bendix, Brittany bbendix@cityofpetaluma.org
Date: Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 10:05 PM
Subject: RE: FW: RE: Verizon Cell Tower Petaluma
To: Shad Cloney shad@cloneyrealestate.com
CC: jshiu@m-group.us jshiu@m-group.us

Hi Shad,

I just finished . . .

S4WT Comment: [On June 10, 2020! Big Red started discussing this project with Petaluma Planning/m-group in Aug. 2019 . . . ]

posting the materials to a project website (not box, as I had thought originally). It’s available here:

https://cityofpetaluma.org/611-western-avenue-verizon-telecommunications-facility/

Please take a look and let me know if you need anything else.

S4WT Comment: [How about every communication: every email, text and letter exchanged between Verizon and its agents and Petaluma City Staff and the m-group from Jan 1, 2019 to June 11, 2020]

I’m hoping to have the final agenda and Commission Packet available next Tuesday, June 16.

S4WT Comment: [We have much to add to the Commission packet . . . ]

Most of the supplemental materials that will be in the packet are now posted on the website.

Thank you!

Brittany


Please read S4WT Comments, below.

From: Justin Shiu JShiu@m-group.us
Date: June 8, 2020 at 3:36:28 PM PDT
To: gpantiquus

Subject: Verizon Materials for Petaluma Creamery

Hi Gretchen,

It was nice to speak with you on the phone. Attached are some materials from the application that are available for review. The packet of materials that will be reviewed by Planning Commission should be available on the City’s website a few days before the meeting, which contains a report, conditions of approval (should the project be approved), project plan set, and other application materials.

The project will be brought to the Planning Commission for approval consideration on June 23rd. The attached “611 Western PC Notice” describes ways to participate or provide comments. The project is currently in the public noticing period before the meeting. Written comments can be sent during this time, and oral comments can be provided during the meeting.

The applicant, Complete Wireless Consulting on behalf of Verizon, will be at the meeting to present the proposal and answer questions as well.

As comments are often raised about radio-frequency emission, I wanted to note that the project provided a study of projected radio-frequency (RF) emission (attached) to determine whether safety standards


S4WT Comment: It is inappropriate to refer to the FCC pulsed, data-modulated, Radio-frequency Electromagnetic Microwave Radiation (RF-EMR) exposure guideline as a safety standard; it is only a commercial guideline. There is no basis to conclude that the guideline is protective or provides safety. Read more here https://scientists4wiredtech.com/wireless-industry-false-claims-that-regulatory-compliance-means-safety/


. . .would be met. The highest RF level anywhere at the ground or in any nearby building is projected to be approximately 34 %of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) exposure limit .


S4WT Comment: This is the highest level of RF-EMR exposure  in any project that I have seen. I have been reviewing Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (WTFs) projects since 2017. Exposures would be higher at second- and third-story windows (often bedrooms). This level of Effective Radiated Power is hazardous, as you can learn here at these links:


In other words, the RF emission levels would be about 3 times lower than the level deemed unsafe for public exposure by the FCC, the federal authority that regulates telecommunication facilities.


S4WT Comment: once again, compliance does not mean safety. https://scientists4wiredtech.com/regulation/rf-microwave-exposure-guidelines/


The City can receive and review all comments, but federal regulations do limit certain actions that cities may take. Under the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the City’s considerations of projects based on RF emissions and alleged health effects are limited to determining whether wireless facilities would comply with the FCC public exposure limit. Federal regulations do not allow cities to prohibit installation of wireless facilities on the basis of RF emissions or alleged negative health impacts, if such facilities would comply with FCC standards.


S4WT Comment: Justin, this is a serious error on your part. Please read the following and tell me on what are you basing your false statement that the city cannot consider the “alleged health effects” or “alleged negative health impacts” of Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (WTFs) projects. In short, “quo warranto”, Mr. Shiu?

From https://scientists4wiredtech.com/compare

Title 47 USC § 332(c)(7)(B)(iv): “No State or local government or instrumentality thereof may regulate the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the Commission’s regulations concerning such emissions.”


Please let us know if you have any questions or have written comments you would like to submit for consideration at the Planning Commission meeting.


S4WT Commment: Given the communication in this email, we will have many detailed questions of the m-group’s efforts in provding the Planning Department’s functions on behalf of the residents of Petaluma.


Best Regards,

Justin