Petaluma Creamery

Join Petaluma West-VHP! 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 

Email/Call Justin Shiu, jshiu@m-group.us | 510-634-8443 x143
Senior Contract Planner for the City of Petaluma (employee of the m-group)

Link to Spec Sheet for Commscope NHH-45B-R2B Antenna x 16 Qty.

Frequency Max Power × Ant. Gain Watts ERP x Qty Watts ERP
696-806 300 × 16.8 = 5,040 × 16 = 80,640
806-896 300 × 17.5 = 5,250 × 16 = 84,000
1695-1880 300 × 19.3 = 5,790 × 16 = 92,640
1850-1990 300 × 19.9 = 5,970 × 16 = 95,520
1920-2200 300 × 20.3 = 6,090 × 16 = 97,440
2300-2360 250 × 20.8 = 5,200 × 16 = 83,200
Total Max ERP Output Capability N/A 33,340 × 16 = 533,440 Watts ERP
With 3dB override . . . N/A 66,680 x 16 = 1,066,8800

Unsafe at Any G!

Read the Project Documents

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.

June 18 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 West-VHP. 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 West-VHP!
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 West-VHP

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 West-VHP appreciated met 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

>>> Paul McGavin 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 West-VHP!, 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 West-VHP! 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 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 858-336-5069 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 (707-981-5522 — 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