Good afternoon. Welcome to today's City Council meeting. We'll reconvene an open session. Mr. Gulen, item 3.1. Thank you. Item 3.1 is a wireless small-cell deployment on city-owned streetlights and joint utility pools and presenting as Deputy Director of Development Services, Gabe Osborne. Good afternoon, Mayor Schwedhelm and members of the Council. As Mr. Gulen mentioned in the introduction, the item before the Council at this point in time is an update on our small-cell deployments, which are cellular infrastructure that is being installed in the right-of-way. I'd like to begin the study session by providing a brief background of how we got to where we are today. And that background will include past Council discussions. So we've had two action items that resulted in policy creation or amendments that we'll talk about. And we also had two study sessions to discuss the deployments of small cells. Also get into a detail of the different cellular types. So we're focusing mainly on small cells, but we'll also talk about macro sites, which are cellular installations that are taking place on private property. We'll talk about the difference, as well as the legal framework that controls those. So there is quite a bit of federal and state requirements that affect the approval process when dealing with cellular sites. Also talk about the... Can you remember just for a minute? Absolutely. Council, we're going to stop after I think about slide 16 to give you an opportunity to ask questions, then we'll finish the presentation. And then on slide 32, I think there's 33 slides after that. Another opportunity. So you'll have two opportunities to ask questions. Sorry, go ahead. No problem. So we'll also talk about installations. So this will focus on the installations that we currently have within the city limits. So those are either going to be installed small cells or permitted small cells. Those are all focusing on deployment of the 4G network that Verizon is focusing on. Now, of course, there is more of a nationwide discussion about 5G. So we will have a further discussion in the presentation about how the deployment of these small cells would potentially support the installation of a 5G network. We're also going to talk about community concerns. In the previous two study sessions, we focused a lot on the importance of expanding cellular connectivity. It's either closing coverage gaps or it's providing better data. So an example of a coverage gap would be dropping a cell phone call while driving down a street. The better data would be more capacity to high-speed data and better speed. So that's really catered to individuals that are usually in phones for that purpose of downloading video, for example. So we see from the prevalence of cell phone use that that is desired. But instead of focusing on that, we wanted to focus on some of the negative sides of that rollout. And those came through with the community concerns that we heard. So we're really not going to talk much about the portent of the network expansion, but we're going to talk about the community concerns. That's the intention of this study session. So following along with that, we wanted to take those community concerns and see what we can work out as far as solutions go to those that are within our control. So we'll be talking a lot today about a limited release on streetlight installation. So all the installations thus far have been on PG&E utility poles. So we'll talk about the importance of that. I'll explain further why we want to do that. And that will be limited to commercial areas only, non-residential. And I'll talk about what that looks like as well. And the intention behind that is really to address the concerns that we've heard over the last year or so. We will also be talking about emergency learning. That came up in previous study sessions. We were fresh off of the 2017 wildfires at that point. Since then, we had massive evacuations due to the concaved fire. We've also had power shutdown events. So we're going to talk a little bit about the importance of maintaining emergency alerting in those types of events. So when looking at the previous council actions, there was an adoption in July of 2007 that created council policy 300-04. And that's our telecommunications policy. And that deals with the installation of telecommunications equipment and antennas. And it mainly focused at that time on either publicly owned or privately owned parcels, not the right of way. And those are usually where you see macro sites. They're larger installations. So most of the language in that policy really governed macro sites. We amended the policy in February of 2017 to incorporate small cells. So those are slightly different. They're smaller in size and they're located in the public right-of-way. And that policy governs the guidelines that the provider must follow before getting approval of those sites. And in the policy, it requires a master license agreement. So that would be the provider executing an agreement with the city that gives them rights to install small cells in the city limits. It does not give specific polls. Then they have to follow through with a site license agreement, which is approval for a specific poll. And that is a discretionary action. So we can control the outcome of that. There are also annual license fees that are negotiated into the master license agreement. And the execution authority has been delegated down to the city manager or his or her designee. Currently, assistant city manager Gwin has the authority to execute those agreements. In addition to the adoption of the policy, we had council study sessions conducted on March 6 of 2018 and June 5th of 2018. And at that point, we were deploying small cells, really based on the fact that we had an approved policy to do so. So the intention behind the study sessions was to provide an update. And based on the feedback we received from council members and from the community at that time, we elected to pause the installations that we controlled under the policy, which were those on street lights. So for the last year or so, we've been trying to figure out a way to move this forward while addressing the concerns. So since the pause was placed by staff, as we talk through some of these solutions, some of them will move forward based on the language of the policy as early as tomorrow, and some of them will acquire a future council adoption. I'll be very clear as we step through these as to which ones will happen now, and that's our proposal, and which ones will come back to council to lump it back together into more of a formal policy discussion. So we'll start with a brief discussion of macro sites. So either typically larger installations, as we can see of the image on the left, that's an antenna array. So there's multiple antennas, they're larger in size. There could be multiple providers on one site. So the building on the right is actually the fire training center. So that's a city facility, and we see the antennas on the top. For other city facilities, they're commonly on water tanks, so they look for the height to get the proper coverage for the antenna. So they also go in private structures. So oftentimes the provider will negotiate with a private property owner. We've seen them in church steeples or on private buildings, and the construction is addressed under the zoning code, as well as the council policy. The approval process requires that the provider submit a use permit or a design review. They are reviewed against published design guidelines in the zoning code, and as part of that process, they're required to submit an alternate site license agreement, as well as a radio frequency analysis, excuse me, alternate site report, and a radio frequency analysis. So the alternate site analysis basically looks at other sites in which a similar facility can go to make sure that this is creating the least amount of impact. So they have to show that they looked at other sites prior to getting approval to put it on private property. The radio frequency analysis looks at the radio frequency emissions from the site, and we'll have a hefty amount of conversation about this. This is an important piece to the overall deployment. So this will be covered further in future slides to explain how that review process works. So in addition, the review process involves public meetings and public hearings. That's part of the use permit or the design review. There are building permits. Those are not for the installation of the equipment. Those are for the attachment of the equipment to the building. So that's what we look for as part of the building permit process, and there are also lease agreements if it's on city-owned property. So as I mentioned, there is a significant amount of legal framework associated with all the cellular installation types. The important one is associated with the RF, and it actually comes from the Federal Communications Commissioner, the FCC, and the RF basically has to be reviewed against admission limits presented by the FCC. So they determine the thresholds in which these sites can exceed, and then there's an analysis that takes place through the review process of the site to determine their within threshold. And there were federal law that was generated in 1996, and this is a telecommunications act that states that the city is prohibited from denying a permit to construct a wireless facility based on health concerns over RF emissions, provided that the emissions from the facility comply with FCC standards. So a big piece with the review is ensuring through that analysis that the installation meets the FCC standards. The more recent cellular type is the small cell, and this is smaller in size typically, and they were designed to basically fill in smaller coverage gaps. So we're seeing the placement predominantly occur in the public right of way, and they are currently covered under Council Policy 300-04 and Chapter 13 of the City Code, and that section of the City Code deals with street encroachments, and it requires an encroachment permit process. So typically when we review these installations, they are reviewed to ensure that they're consistent with public street standards. We're concerned about pedestrian travel, vehicular travel, and protecting the public corridor. It's important to note with the small cells that there are two pole types that they go on, and there's two separate processes for those pole types. So as we can see to the left, that is what's referred to as a joint utility pole. That pole is actually owned by PG&E. The city does not retain ownership rights over that. So on that pole, to the top, we have power, and the white circles are the small cell equipment, and the cables that are midway up are other communication cables. They may be fiber, they may be Comcast, but we have multiple providers on that pole. So those poles, since they're not owned by the city, do not fall under Council Policy 300-04, and they are able to go straight to an encroachment permit process, and that was discussed in depth in the previous Council study sessions. So as part of that, they apply for an encroachment permit. They have to submit a traffic control plan that makes sure that the actual construction under the encroachment permit does not impact traffic. We looked at it for consistency with design standards, and it does have a notification requirement. The notification requirement for encroachment permits is a little different than entitlements or design review applications. In that situation, since it's covered under the standards, it looks at construction impacts, and those are typically noise impacting driveways, closing sidewalks. So the notification process is typically 48 hours prior to performing work, which for the small cells we learned as part of this process is not enough for the community. They need more notice on these. So we'll talk about this as a fix a little later on in the process. There is also a building permit, and that's typically for the meter installation, and PG&E often requires that prior to setting a meter. Now, once again, there is legal framework around these. In this situation, it's from the state. So the California Public Utility Commission has granted the wireless providers rights to the poles. So they treat them very similar to a wired provider. So PG&E, when making a determination, doesn't have the authority to deny the installation on the pole as long as it meets certain criteria. And that criteria is usually associated with the installation not impacting the operational nature of other utilities that are on that pole and the structural aspect of the pole. So it's holding more weight. So as part of the process, the provider is required to submit a structural analysis. And in many of these situations, the pole is being replaced to address that as part of the installation. The other type of small cell are those that are on city-owned poles. So when we talk about pausing, this is what the pause has applied to. So we have not installed any small cells on city-owned poles to date. So from a construction process, it's very similar to the joint poles. They are required to get an encroachment permit. The council policy requires more front-end work. So as I mentioned in the previous slide, they're required to obtain a site license agreement as well as a master license agreement. They're also required as part of the review to mitigate any operational issues. So we do maintain the pole to provide the streetlight. So what we're looking at is how does that pole react in a pole knockdown? So there's shutoffs to make sure that that can be safely handled if it's laying in the middle of the street. We also look at routine maintenance and how they're occupying the pole to make sure we can handle that properly. Another aspect is we look at controlling the ground equipment. So what we've seen with previous rollouts, there's larger cabinets, and we'll talk about that in a little more depth later on about what the benefit of that cabinet is, but it's also a piece that occupies the right-of-way around our infrastructure. So what's the benefit of maintaining that right-of-way corridor and reducing the impact? So the legal framework in general around small cells is the FCC has been pushing for encouraging the deployment of these devices. And there was an action late last year that really encouraged agencies to move these forward. And one of the important pieces is they really say that we can't deny them. It really brings in the RF, but one of the important pieces is a shot clock. So they created a shot clock, which basically defines the period in time in which we must review the application. It's defined as either 150, 90, or 60 days, and most of the small cells will likely fall in 60 or 90 days. It's based on the complexity of the installation, and the application can be deemed automatically approved if the state or local agency does not act within that timeframe. Now what we'll talk about a little later on this presentation, all of this is fairly new. There is going to be a lot of case law that comes out of this. There's a lot of challenges associated with some of these, and it is going to take time to figure out ultimately where these land, but this is really the initial stance of where the FCC has been coming from with a recent order. So the next slide shows the actual deployments that we have in the city. So when we saw previous maps, what those maps focused on were permitted applications, but they also focused on applications that we had not seen yet. So they were really conceptual sites, and those are always good because we can understand the overall deployment of the provider. So what we see here is the only sites that we've had installed are from Verizon, and once again these are all on the joint poles. So we have 31 completed, and those are reflected by the green dots. We have 14 that are issued permits that have not been started, and those are the orange dots. And then the blue dot is important. They are not small cell sites. They are locations where they were providing wiring or fiber to support the small cell sites. So that was a piece that the community wasn't really understanding where last go around because we were focusing on the small cell sites in particular with our data transparency, and all of a sudden work to support the small cell was happening block away. So we wanted to make sure that that was brought into the conversation too to give the complete package of what that impact to the overall area looks like. So what we had in the other map, and I don't have a slide that shows that, but we can talk about what was being proposed the last go around. So we had two companies at the table the last time we did a study session that was Verizon that was interested in deployments and mobility, and Verizon had 68 sites at the time that they were looking at, and that would include these, and anything in addition to those would have been the street lights sites, and mobility had 18 sites that they were looking at. So that was a total of 86 deployments that we were looking at in the city with those two providers. Of course that did not include AT&T at the time, and it did not include Sprint. So as we move forward, we'll see a more comprehensive program as we bring more of the providers to the table to better understand the total saturation of small cells. So as part of the rollout process, there was a significant amount of community outreach that was performed. Verizon was the main provider at the time, and they conducted open house events that occurred in really the first quarter of 2018, and there were four of those. They were conducted in various days throughout the week and various times, and looking at the stats, we had 26 participants from the community in the first event, 20 in the second, 10 in the third, and four in the last event. And in addition to those meetings, we wanted to conduct more down to the neighborhood level sort of meetings with the community members that had concerns with us, and that's highlighted in those neighborhood meetings at the bottom with the Hidden Valley Group and the Neatomas Group. So those were two potential sites that were being looked at at the time. They were both on joint polls, and we wanted to get a good understanding of what that overall residential neighborhood was concerned with to really understand if it was RF, it was aesthetics to basically be able to bucket all those concerns. So we actually had two with the Hidden Valley Neighborhood Group, one with myself and one with Verizon talking to them about coverage, and then I conducted a meeting with the Neatomas Group around that same timeframe to better understand what those concerns were. And what we found is that they had a tendency to fall into the following categories is we did receive concerns regarding health risks, and they were citing RF exposure. Those had a tendency to come out in both the community meetings as well as the neighborhood meetings. There were a lot of concerns about aesthetics and the look and feel of these installations, and some of that concern was how does that affect property value? So they were claiming potential loss of property value. There was definitely a concern about saturation, and what we saw at the time, many of the members of the community thought was really the tip of the iceberg was small cell deployments. We only had Verizon installing, and Verizon had about 68. There were concerns that there would be more from the other providers, and we would have a significant number of these in residential neighborhoods. Many individuals cited a lack of notification, so it was either a lack of early notification or a lack of notification. And then we also had environmental impacts, and that was mainly associated with the cabinets that were being installed, which provided backup batteries to the small cells, powers it approximately four hours after power outage. And there were concerns about how that battery backup would operate in a vehicle strike situation, which we'll talk about in future slides as well. So as I mentioned, what we really wanted to do is get it down to what the community concerns are and how can we fix these. And with the federal regulation, obviously, the RF standards become problematic because we can't make a decision based on RF. So oftentimes I'll get the question, are small cells safe? And that's a bit of a challenging question to ask because of all the technical review that goes into the development standards in the review. So what we wanted to do is bring a consultant on board that could handle the technical aspect of RF testing of standard development in really 5G. And how is that going to evolve as far as the standards go from a 5G standpoint? So we went into contract with Hammett and Edison, and I have Bill Hammett with me today who will talk about the RF aspect. So the way it works with RF consultants is they often do reviews for the cellular providers. They participate in community meetings supported by local agencies, by school districts, and by cellular providers. So as a licensed individual, they are tasked with basically taking the information that's brought to them, making a determination, and giving finding that's to the best of their knowledge. So at this point, I'd like to bill forward to have him discuss the main points that are highlighted in this slide. Good afternoon, Mayor, Council Members. My name is Bill Hammett. I'm a registered professional engineer in the State of California. I manage a firm of 18. We're located just on Highway 12 in Sonoma. I have been there since 1994. A regular part of our practice is the calculation or the measurement or the mitigation where it's appropriate of radio frequency exposure conditions. We do this work for broadcast stations, for wireless carriers, for cities, for school districts, for landlords. As engineers, the issue is really straightforward. What are the exposure levels, whether calculated or measured, and how do they compare to the standards? I've been doing this for 34 years. McGraw-Hill has published the text I wrote on this topic, and I figure it's been well over 20,000 sites we've done evaluations for over that period of time. I wanted to address the question, are small cells safe? The timing is good, in that the FCC just released its most recent report in order. It had said some time ago, back in 2013, that they were going to study this issue and consider a new set of rules, and they've released those rules. The key finding is that there is no change in the exposure standards. They have not tightened the exposure standards that have been in existence since they were adopted in 1996. 1996, it was an act of Congress. It wasn't the FCC that said, well, let's have standards. It was an act of Congress signed by Bill Clinton, the Telecommunications Act, that directed the FCC. You will adopt a standard, and that'll be the only standard that's applicable throughout the country. Mr. Osburn has mentioned the exemption that is in the Telecommunications Act exempts local jurisdictions from applying anything tighter than the federal standard. So part of the analysis that he described, the application process, is a showing of whether or not it will comply with the standard. That's the threshold that needs to be met. Once that threshold is met, then the issue of RF exposure, health effects, is off the table as far as a local jurisdiction is concerned. So that's one piece of current new information, is the FCC's report in order. Another key piece of information is an update in the standard on which they had based their adoption on, that is the FCC is not a health agency. In fact, when Congress said you will adopt a standard, they went to EPA and said, well, what do we adopt? And EPA said, well, we don't have a standard. So the FCC ended up adopting a blend of two standards that were in existence at that time. One of those was the IEEE standard, the 1992 standard. It was updated in 1999. It was updated again in 2005, and now it's just been updated again in 2019. So we have that document based on all the research that's been done over that period of time. This is the standard. It's a very interesting technical read. They have not tightened the standards from the previous edition. And then the third bit is the expectation from the ICNIRP people. This is the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection. They have had a standard for many years. They also, much like IEEE, was looking at its standard. Do we need to tighten it? Do we need to change it? And ICNIRP hasn't yet issued theirs, but they've given an indication that they're not planning to tighten the standard. So a key quotation from all of this new information, and this is from the new 2019 standard, there is no credible indication of adverse effects caused by chronic exposures below levels specified in the standard. So for 70 years, they've been doing research on this topic, and there's no credible evidence of any adverse impact. That's at levels equal to this standard or below. So I'm just repeating exactly what the standards say. Excuse me. If people are going to interrupt the presentation, you're interrupting the meeting and you'll be asked to leave. So we're going to give everyone time to share their opinions with council and please respect the folks that are sharing their opinions with us now. Thank you. So those are the facts of what the environment is for the standards. FCC, IEEE, ICNIRP coming up. I want to talk a little bit about 5G, and I suggested to Gabe that he put in quotation marks because 5G means several different things. At heart, it's a technology for encoding data onto a radio wave. So if you listen to the radio, AM is amplitude modulation. It's a way of putting information onto a radio wave. FM is frequency modulation. It's a way of putting data onto a radio wave. As we've gone through different generations of improved data capacity by the carriers, by the industry, we've had 2G and 3G where there were different technologies. In 3G, they had two different technologies. GSM and CDMA were two different methods for encoding data on the radio waves. By the time they've got to 4G, LTE is the term you may have heard, long-term evolution, that's the technology, that's the technique that they use for encoding data on the radio waves. 5G and R, new radio, is just that. It's another way of encoding information onto radio waves. So when people say 5G, they could be referring to the new, more efficient way of coding data onto radio waves. And 5G can be rolled out on the same set of frequencies that are being used at all the existing sites right now that are on your phone now, that have been for a long time, different frequency bands that the FCC has allotted for that purpose. 5G sometimes refers to a different set of frequencies. And the commission is releasing new frequencies in the millimeter waveband. They're higher by about a factor of 10 in frequency. The wavelengths are shorter, they can get more information on, and it's going to be a very powerful method for downloading information. So we need to make a distinction because a lot of carriers now are going to talk about doing 5G on their existing frequencies. No change, no change in equipment. Some carriers have purchased from the government these new millimeter wave frequencies, and they'll be using those frequencies for 5G. The bandwidth is larger up there at the new bands. And so it's going to be easier for them to get more data through more bandwidth. But T-Mobile purchased old TV channels in the 600 megahertz band. They're going to be looking at doing 5G on that. Sprint has some frequencies in the, what's called a BRS band at around 2.5 gigahertz. So they're using existing frequencies and rolling, trying to roll out 5G to see if they can get better data capacity, which is anticipated. So the question was technology? Yes, it's a technology. Does it also refer to frequency? It can refer to frequencies. And some of the comments we hear behind me are talking about the new millimeter wave, where the standards do apply. We can go back to the question of the standards. The standards include the millimeter wave frequencies. The limits are established there. And the literature that I gave you the quote before, a lot of literature is done at millimeter wave frequencies. No credible indication of adverse effects. So that's the answer to the initial question, are they safe? Full compliance with the standards. Now, I was also asked to talk about the testing requirements, which are a local issue. And some jurisdictions have more strenuous measurement requirements than do others in terms of monitoring. What we find, having done this at literally tens of thousands of sites, is that the carriers install the radio, particularly the small cells. They'll install the radio, turn it on, and it runs. The radio is running at maximum capacity. It's not like somebody can crank up the power at some other location. The radios are put in, and they're relatively low-power facilities, five watt, 10 watt, maybe 20 watt radios. Just put them in and they run. So the levels that we've observed are very steady from these facilities. And the initial testing, in some cases, they may be put in omni-directionals. I know that some of the Verizon proposals were for omni-directional antennas, where they're up high on top of a phone pole higher than the neighboring homes and residential areas. And those will be omni-directional antennas sent in all directions. When you get into more built-up urban areas, they'll often use directional antennas going up and down the street rather than back toward buildings, which may be closer. And so part of the testing process that we use, we go in a bucket truck, go up, and with our meters measure at the antennas to make sure that if it is a directional, it's oriented correctly. Make sure that levels are as expected well below the standard. Typically, we measure the distance of the public limit as a matter of a foot or a couple of feet. That's as far as the energy goes before it drops below the public limit for a full-time 24-hour-a-day, seven-day-a-week exposure levels. And the inverse square law, and then I'll wrap up, the inverse square law says that as you move twice as far away from the power source, the energy level goes down by a factor of four to squared. If you go 10 times as far away, the power level is going down by a factor of 110 squared. It's dropping with a square of that increase in distance, which means when you get 10, 20, it's dropping rapidly. A typical exposure level, even opposite at the same elevation as an antenna would be a percent or less. So in addition to the safety factor built in the standard, there's another 100-time safety factor in most typical installations at least. I'm happy to take questions. This was the point at which you wanted to pause after slide 16. So I can talk at length on a variety of topics, how the systems work, the derivation of the standards, whatever might be of interest. I know you've had several study sessions already. Great, thank you. We're back to Council. Questions for either the staff or Mr. Hammett? Seeing none, go ahead and shoot. Mr. Mayor, what's considered a dangerous level of RF? The standards have two tiers. So there's a public exposure level. Five times relaxed from that. So five times higher is the occupational level. The occupational level has a 10-time safety factor in it, so you'd have to be 10 times the occupational limit before you reach the most sensitive measure of responsiveness. And that measure, I'll read you the quotation, the most sensitive reproducible effect is disruption of food-motivated behavior in animal species ranging from rodents to primates and over a wide range of frequencies. So they'll have primates doing some task or related to food and behind the wall where they can't see it, they'll turn on RF and add a little bit more, a little bit more. At some point they can sense it and they just assume being the other part of the room. That's the most sensitive measure. It's not cancer, it's not cataracts, it's not any of these other things that you'll hear about, which occur, do occur, at exceedingly high levels. So there's not like a level, it's not a number? Yes, yes there is. It's four watts per kilogram. That's what the research shows, 70 years of research shows, is a threshold of effects. And that, the one I just described, is that effect. Okay. So the standards have a 50-time safety factor, puts it at 0.08 watts per kilogram. That's the 50 times the public limit. And if, as I described, you're 100 times below your 0.008 watts per kilogram, well below that four. What level is common to experience in a small celled tower? The question is proximity. If you're up at the antenna itself, you're working on the antenna, or you're changing the lights, you're going to be below the one milliwatt typical exposure threshold level. You might be 50% of the limit. If you're in a building nearby, you're going to be one or two percent. If you're at ground nearby, you're going to be a tenth of a percent. So 100 times below, 1,000 times below. Okay. And if we're dealing with the same radio waves, would that be the same as if I was standing next to a radio using high wattage to put out FM? FM antennas would be higher. They typically will operate at higher power levels, and they're up high on towers. So the proximity, you can't really get near them. That inverse square law is what comes into play. Okay. So we do work, suture towers are client, up on top of these tall towers that have the high power transmitter and antennas on them. And we help them with their occupational exposure limits so they know what to shut down and so forth when people are doing work on the tower. Okay. And I forgive me. I know you touched on this, but how does this compare to the new millimeter wave frequencies? Are these smaller frequencies that are moving through the air? They are a higher frequency, which means they're shorter wavelength. They're more efficient at carrying information. But they are part of the radio frequency spectrum. There's a large spectrum that goes from the alternating current that comes out of the wall socket 60 times a second. A wavelength at that frequency is 5000 kilometers. Here to New York is one wavelength at 60 hertz, the power line frequencies. Frequencies in the radio spectrum vary from a thousand feet at at AM to a fraction of an inch up at the millimeter waves. But they're larger. They're larger frequencies, I guess. One of the concerns that I think somebody mentioned to me was that the smaller wavelengths allow it to pass through hard material easily. Is that a valid claim? It's actually the other way around. It's the other way around. It's the other way around. In the radio frequency spectrum, when you get into ionizing energy, ultraviolet x-rays that add up over time, a little bit of damage, and we can talk about that, but the wavelength is so short that it'll get into a molecule and break off electron. That's called ionization. So ionizing energy is up above light above ultraviolet and x-rays. We're not talking about that. We're talking about radio waves, where the wavelength is anywhere from a thousand to a half an inch, and those don't like to go through something you can't see through. So when we're in and out of, in San Francisco as an example, you have to offer measurements to anybody who lives within 25 feet of an antenna. So we're in and out of apartment houses a lot because they're typically on apartment houses a little higher than the residential areas around. And we measure directly below the antenna, you're getting next to nothing. Jesus, is it really working? Well, yes it is. You can go over by the window, and it's higher at the window because the energy is going out toward the horizon, bouncing off of some other source and coming back in through the window. You move the probe over next to the wall, instead of the window, it goes down. A very reproducible, good demonstration of the fact that the energy is happy to go through something you can see through doesn't like to go through things you can't. Thank you, and you mentioned in your presentation that there were some strict testing standards being implemented in other municipalities. Can you touch on that a little bit? What type of methodologies are they adopting as they adopt ordinances like this? Well, the jurisdictions can insist on a preliminary study, which has been talked about, a theoretical study. We use the manufacturer's data for the antennas. We use the drawings as to where the antennas are going to be, evaluate where accessible areas might be where people could walk on a roof or on ground or in buildings nearby, and then calculate what it is at all those locations. All those locations have to comply with the standard in order for the city to have passed that threshold in order to grant a permit. After the fact, the cities can adopt whatever program, and you're asking which one. San Francisco, every two years, the sites have to be recertified. That's not the smell cells. That's only the macros that are on tops of buildings that require a conditional use permit. Every two years, that's about the most strict of those. So we're in back to these sites every two years. Typically, the operation hasn't changed, but the environment might have changed. A door that was formally locked might be unlocked. For small cells, it's not a question of the environment changing because their buildings nearby and the small cell is there and it runs. It's not that anything is changing in its operation, because if they do, they have to, if the carry wants to make a change, they'd have to come back here and go through a permit process again that was described. So that doesn't change in the environment. It really doesn't change. So in some cases, where we've been back again after a change has been made, unless there's a change in the environment, it's still the same. Thanks so much. Certainly. Council, any other questions? Okay, if I had one question for you, if you can pull up slide 10 and just to reiterate, make sure I heard that with, that's a joint utility pool. If there was a complaint to a resident in Santa Rosa saying, City Council, we don't like those in our neighborhood. Do we have any authority to do anything whatsoever on a utility pool that's pictured there? Yeah, that's an excellent point. And we will cover it in depth in further slides. One of the challenges has been on the aesthetic front. How can we control that? So as it stands currently, the city doesn't have a policy that governs the aesthetics. Other agencies are a bit more involved in that and they have attempted to control that. I will cite San Francisco as an example. They look at how do they physically look from one's living room on the pole? How do they look in historic areas? Do they impact view corridors? So there's potentially mechanisms that we can look at. As it's currently standing now with these deployments, and I do want to stress this, we have Verizon and AT&T at the table right now and they're looking at deploying. It attempted a very collaborative approach to understand the community's concerns and see what we can do to control those. And that isn't just the metal pole. We've had conversations about the joint pole, how we can reduce cabinet size. What can we do to push it closer? What can we do to spread it out? To have those little aesthetic features to it that make it look better. That's a good start. And I think what we'll talk about in future slides is how do we let that evolve into something that can solve the problems in the residential areas? And I think what will be pretty clear out of the study session is there's still concerns in those communities. And that's what we want to be sensitive to. So looking at what's in our control, how can we let that evolve? And that will be the next phase of when we come back to council and look at some of the case studies play out and understand what's going to happen with the FCC and develop a comprehensive policy that addresses that. Great. Thank you. Okay. Looks like those are all the questions for the first portion. Slide 17. Okay. So the next series of the presentation is really going to look at the solutions that are mainly policy related that we have in our control now. We will be looking at adopting in the future. So currently what we want to do is address the metal poles. And we are proposing to move forward with a limited deployment in non-residential areas for the metal poles. And the benefit of that, there's a few. One, it helps us guide our aesthetic requirements. We can get a better understanding of operationally how this equipment will impact our ability to maintain that a pole. It takes some pressure off the joint poles. And it gives more options of placement. So one of the important pieces that came to my attention from the community is when really get down to it, a lot of times they say that's just not the appropriate location for that. But it happens to be the only pole that we can put these on. So what we're going to use that program for is to help guide that bigger policy that we come back to council. So as I mentioned, I would point out those pieces that we would move forward with. This is one of those. We would start working with the providers. It would require executing agreements. It would require notifications to the residents well up front before we even gave any level of approval to understand what the concerns were. And as I mentioned, it will focus on commercial areas. So I'll have a slide that addresses those locations. We also want to increase transparency in the process. So we learned a lot of lessons from the rebuild. And that's the delivery of information and how important that is and how important it is to be transparent about the decisions that are made. So we're looking at mapping portals. We're looking at providing RF analysis and getting it to those individuals. We're looking at FAQs and guidance documents. So we want to bolster up our web presence to make it easier for people to get the information they're looking for to better understand what's happening. One of the important pieces is we really want to align our code sections. So we have notification processes that are a little different in our zoning code than our right of way code. We want to make sure once again that we are engaging the community early and often understanding those concerns and we want to align those code sections. So between the council policy between chapter 13 and chapter 20 of the code, we want to bring forward a formal package that addresses some of these and benefits. We also have a desire to improve emergency learning. And I'll leave that to the slide. Paul Lowenthal from our fire department is here to present that slide and he'll talk about some of the benefits of that. But it's really to develop solutions for us that are concerns which we feel is if we can control and it's giving some level of location flexibility which gives us the ability to address some of those concerns that we're hearing. So that's some of the direction and this will cover some of the future slides. We'll go in a little more depth in some of these topics. So we have engaged the two providers to look at some locations that would be included in our limited deployment. And the slide we see now is the result of those conversations with Verizon. So typically when we say commercial areas or non-residential areas, that's based on zoning classification. So it's defined by the zoning code. And then if we're right on the fringe of a commercial area, if it's directly adjacent to residential, we then look for a physical buffer and that's usually 300 feet. So we'll take 300 feet pushing it into a commercial zone. Where it gets a little challenging is because we have a lot of areas under transition. So we have mixed use, we have transit village, we have downtown where potentially you could have residential in a zone that was historically commercial. But you usually have really good locations as far as the street configuration or the placement where it isn't directly adjacent to a residential unit. It's right in the middle of commercial. And the two examples you'll see that kind of highlight that is we have one on Minnesino Avenue, which that's right across from the JC. It's a good corridor from a street standpoint. People are used to seeing that type of equipment on those types of streets, but it's one block away 200 feet from a residential area. So although that's a good location, what we've discussed is how we'll address the potential community concerns is we'll do a hefty level of outreach. And if we hear any concerns about it, we'll move forward with a different location because it's not right in the middle of the commercial area. Same holds true for downtown. So there is a location that we're looking at right next to the entrance to Prince Memorial. It's actually right across the street, next to commercial, good buffer to residential, but close enough to where we would engage those individuals to see what sort of concerns they have with that. One of the other benefits that I didn't touch on the other slide is a lot of what we'll see with these street lights or photo simulations. We want to see what these really look like in work through that. And that'll help us control the aesthetics. When we look at these other locations, they are clearly in commercial areas, Santa Rosa Avenue, Corby. We have one location here that's identified as Cleveland Avenue. That's actually Maxwell Court. And once again, that's in a transition area, but that's fully in a commercial area right now. So those are the areas that we're identifying. When we look at AT&T, they actually have five. We're allowing up to six. And in this situation, they have one right in front of Codding Town. They're focusing more on that Corby Avenue, Wilson Court, very much commercial. And they have a location in Verizon, had one as well on Stony Point Road. And that's right in front of city facilities on Stony Point Road. We initially, what the providers talked about that as a good location because it's close to the team that manages it. So they wanted to use that as a bit of a pilot to look at that site to understand how it was going to work with the electrical components of the streetlight. So the next few slides just give us a rough idea of those locations we're looking for. So once again, no residential. It's close to commercial. It's really not close to where people are occupying buildings on commercial. It's well protected. That's exactly what we're looking for. So that is a photo simulation. So that's roughly the size cabinets we would be looking at. There usually is ground equipment associated with these, but we think we have some solutions to get rid of the ground equipment all together. Now that will come back into play if we start talking about backup batteries. And that's a decision. And this is one of those items that we'll clearly point out that we are looking from impact from the council on that. And that will control the ground equipment. The next location is front of Codding Town. It's very difficult to see because it's essentially hidden by that tree. Once again, not around any residential, fairly open, major arterial roads. Those are the areas we're trying to identify. And this is the location in front of the Transportation and Public Works Building on Stony Circle, the location that we wanted to use as the pilot. So once again, we're really talking about solutions from mapping standpoint. So the image we have to the right was the RC Resilience City Recovery Maps that we developed for the rebuild. And one of the tools and the concepts we used in this was pretty simple. It was essentially, spatially, people know where things are and they want to click on them and get as much information as possible about that. So we've actually already started the development of a mapping function that will act in a similar fashion. So we'll highlight the cellular facilities. We'll give people information about where they are from a timeline standpoint, a permitting standpoint, and any associated documentation that they would want to see. So that's the transparency aspect that we want to bring in. We also heard concerns about lack of notice. So we've been working with the providers on that to say that we not only need to notice on the poll, we basically need to see a listing of the properties that receive the notice. And I also want to see the feedback so we can talk through that. So we're giving confirmation of noticing through this mapping portal as well. And we also talked about links to state and federal resources and requirements. And then as other agencies have developed, there's a comprehensive list of FAQs that will be developing as part of this process. This is another one of those items that is happening now. We will work through this in the next coming months and hope to have a delivery in the next six months of a final product. We talked a little bit about code alignment. And that is an important piece because if we start developing more stringent requirements from an aesthetic value where it becomes more discretionary, we want to make sure the code supports that. So as we work through this limited deployment, we're going to look at various techniques that we can implement on these polls to make them look better. And we're going to want to memorialize that in the code. So that'll be across the board. And we want to treat basically macro sites to some extent in the same way we treat small cell sites because people have the same level of concern and there's community engagement. And the community engagement is more robust in that level than it is in small cells. So we're trying to figure out once again how we can engage the community. That will be memorialized in that process. So it's really when we get into noticing, it's developing consistent radius to make sure we're not differing based on the small cell type. We want to give feedback prior to approving any site licenses agreement. It's not before construction prior to granting that overall approval when it's discretionary. We also want to streamline and review and improve the process on both macro and small cell. The more we can make this consistent, the easier it's going to meet to meet shot clocks and requirements from the federal government on turnaround times. And really the big focus is on the public process on these. I think the lessons we learned from the deployments prior to is we really need to do that better job of engaging the community. So I really can't stress that enough. So when we look at some of the solutions that we will implement, these are more how we get into some of the design criteria. So a lot of agencies, I've done quite a bit of research in the state of California and throughout the entire nation on small cells to see how aesthetics are really controlled. There are not too many agencies that specifically control the box that is placed on the cabinet. That is left up to the provider. So that's the physical equipment. They do place the location in the, or they do excuse me, control the location in the size of that box. So typically when we see small smells, there's antennas, which are the devices to the top. There's radios that communicate with those antennas. Some level powering to the device. And there's what was referred to as backhaul. So all these small cells connect to the bigger network in some way, shape or form. And that might be a fiber optic cable that comes in, but there's some communication measure from the antennas to the radios going out to the network. And then what we've seen in the cabinet on the right is that battery backup has a tendency to have a larger cabinet. There are options to look at going below ground with these. There are pros and cons to that approach. The cabinets, there are better locations in some situations for the cabinet. So we're looking at the appropriate location for that type of equipment. And our design criteria could then specify when we're going to allow this when we're not. So the equipment size and placement is pretty critical. That's what most agencies focus on. This expands on that a little bit. So the image to the left was produced in the press democrat. That's our link lane location. And many of the residents in that area were not happy with that installation for a few different reasons. So what we did is we worked with the provider. And this is just an example of when you reduce some of the equipment you control the impact visually of how it looks. And some people still may not agree that it looks well. So this is a step in the right direction. And it's simply just removing the large cabinets and there are tricks such as painting the equipment to make sure it blends into the pole. That's pretty consistent through most agencies that control aesthetics. Now when we look at the backup battery supply this location is actually on Montgomery Drive near Channel Drive. There is residential on the opposite side of the street but it backs up to this. So those are their backyards. We did reach out and we did not receive any negative comments on this. There are actually positive comments on this one. And if we look at the placement of the cabinet it is set back from the street. It is not in a planter strip and it is behind the pole and there's a retaining wall. So if we looked at protecting the box there are situations in which you can do that. It usually means pushing it back from the right of way. The aesthetic aspect of the box is directly in front of somebody's view out of the living room. And we can look at it along those lines to basically kind of govern where that goes. Once again we will talk about those benefits in the future slide about that backup power but this is more on the aesthetic front. This is actually an image from San Francisco. These are street lights and they're very small devices that you can hide with signage. So once again on the aesthetics there are signage measures or certain things you can do to screen the equipment that's placed on the pole. This is something that we want to entertain. These images were taken from the city of Fremont and they have a utility box art program and these aren't small cell boxes. These are likely boxes that are controlling traffic signal equipment. If providers want to put these in we have talked about how can they mitigate the visual aspect by placing art and there's a few different ways to run that program. We can keep it in house and we can require an in-loofy and we can acquire an artist to develop a theme for boxes in certain areas or we can create those themes and have the provider perform the art. So one of the pieces that we're going to roll up into the code update is this program and bring that back to council for determination in the future. So we definitely want to look at this and we've even talked to the providers about working something out potentially through the limited release to see what that program would look like as a bit of a test case. So the other important point is location flexibility. So this is an image of a Hidden Valley neighborhood and we dealt with this community group on two different occasions. There was a proposed location in this neighborhood and they had concerns with it and this is a Google Street View image and what you can see from this is the only pole out there is the wooden pole and the street light is actually on the wooden pole. That's actually the white circle there. So the only options the provider has is the wooden pole. They have a tendency to be a 20-foot setback, give or take from the residential unit, so you can't really create a buffer from the home and the placement is usually mid-block and intersection. So inevitably that wooden pole when you look at it falls in front of someone's home. So we sat down with the provider, we looked at how it would work from a coverage standpoint to look at other locations. In some situations you can pick locations that do not have a pole but are better for the community. And we have a lot of areas of Santa Rosa that look just like this much in the east, much in the older area, Link Lane is a prime example where the undergrounding hasn't quite commenced yet. So one of the pieces that we do want to look at once again will require a future council action is the ability to erect a custom pole as a way to mitigate residential concerns. So if we meet with those groups and they all agree that there is a better location that works for the provider, we don't necessarily want to limit that by the fact that we don't have a pole in that location that's potentially a solution. It will only be limited to that sort of occurrence. We typically don't want to add more poles, the desire is to pull those down. So we definitely want to play around with that tactic and see if it's a reasonable solution to mitigate some of the residential concerns. And I believe that's where we wanted to take the next break, the next one. So most of those items were policy related. And before we get into the emergency alerting and more of the fire-related pieces. Yeah, thank you. Councillor, are there any questions over that portion of presentation? Mr. Tibbets. Thanks, Mayor. Thanks, Gabe. I appreciate it a lot. One of my prevailing questions is on the one hand, I like that we're trying to take control of a situation that otherwise seems like we don't have any control over it. One of the frustrating parts for me, and I'm sure it's shared on the Council, is when we get calls from concerned neighbors or residents, the best answer I have for them is sorry, is the CPUC's jurisdiction. But one of my concerns is if it's my understanding that these antennas or small cell towers require a patchwork of relatively tightly knit antennas to provide ultimately the coverage that these carriers are seeking, if we are trying to do this piecemeal, how is that going to achieve in the long run for the carriers what they ultimately want to do? What I'm driving at is, as my fear is, are we bridging a gap to the residential neighborhoods where the CPUC polls exist? That's an excellent point. Thank you for bringing that up. And I think that gets into the concept of what is the comprehensive deployment program. So when we sit down with a carrier, we don't necessarily just want to talk about what it's going to look like in a limited deployment in commercial areas, because you're absolutely right. Is that a way to basically move forward with that? And does that then put further pressure on the residential? What we want to do is figure out a solution for the residential. So the better understanding of that exact situation of Hidden Valley, if we have sites in which the provider needs to fill a coverage gap in those areas, how do we basically tackle that? So knowing where they're all going is really critical to the conversation, because you have a better understanding of figuring out the ones that are easy, that people don't have as much concern with, and the ones that are more challenging in the residential areas. So I'm going to ask the question a little bit more bluntly, but how do we ensure that? What recourse will we have over the CPUC polls, both aesthetically and from an encroachment perspective? And that's a difficult one. And I think that what we're going to have to have play out is some of the case law associated with that to better understand the aesthetic controls on that. So with the CPUC and the federal government with the FCC requirements on the emissions, where it becomes challenging, what I've seen from most agencies is they've managed to grab that control back through aesthetic controls. And the development of those aesthetic controls is really important. And from a timeline standpoint, the FCC order required that they be in place at a certain time, and a lot of agencies jumped on that, and a lot of agencies are also sitting on the fence a little bit to see how it plays out. So I think what's really important to control that is we have to understand legally what we can control, which may take time to figure out. And we have to get right into policy development to look at that with that comprehensive discussion of the provider as well as the community to understand how to frame that policy. But it is an excellent point, and it is the challenge we've really struggled with over the last year is really understanding, we know we have control over the metal poles, what really can we control on the joint poles, which I believe is going to take a little time to figure out exactly what that looks like. Okay, I appreciate that straightforward response, and I'll hold my comments till later on that. Ms. Westerner. Thank you, and I appreciate all the community outreach, and I look forward to I'm going to hold most of my questions and comments to give the public who took time out of their work day a chance to comment on this. But I do have a couple of preliminary questions. One is for the areas identified that the Council and the Planning Commission have jointly made really clear that we want to support residential development, specifically Maxwell Court in downtown. Would we be setting a precedent where these, if we go forward and later on decide that we're going to try something else, and we have authority to do so, would we be putting ourselves in a position of having given these utilities to go ahead and then have people who are hopefully moving into these transitional neighborhoods be in an area where there's mixed policy? Once again, sorry about that. Once again, an excellent point, and I think that really is the challenge in a mixed use area, especially one that's in a transition state such as downtown, such as Maxwell Court, is you would focus on that on commercial. You would allow something like that under a limited deployment, and then all of a sudden as we allow this to progress, we determine that that scenario has changed and it's become residential, and then from an aesthetic standpoint there's more controls on that. So I think that that's similar to how policy in some situations progresses, that if we have rollouts and we determine from just the course of learning that it doesn't necessarily work, that we do have the position to basically change the aesthetic controls that would govern that in the future. And do you see this as any way interfering with the council goals of developing those two areas? So what we've seen from the small, so it's a very difficult conversation. Once again, I kind of mentioned that we've have a lot of individuals that use cell phones. We do receive a lot of public comment that is beneficial. So the most recent round of comments we receive are all positive about individuals getting better connectivity. So people are using the phone for data, and when we get that input, we know that that side that is interested in that. Of course there's other residents that have those concerns, so it's been very difficult to balance this out. So at what point does it become a product that we know people living downtown would potentially want, then it becomes a little challenging because then we're balancing out the other side of it?  But I do appreciate you trying to opine on that question, which doesn't have a very clear answer understandably. I'm wondering, last question before I move on is, do we have any sort of mechanism to claw back? Not just address aesthetically, but adjust the location if it becomes a problem with any of these sites? We do when we have the license agreement. So for the streetlight poles, we control, it's a discretionary action, we can say yes or no to that. And one of the tricky pieces was on the brown poles, and you get in certain areas where there are mostly streetlights because the undergrounding has commenced. And those are more recently developed areas or where undergrounding policies have come through and dropped those poles. And those areas, we're just going to have more control because those poles the city owns, and we have a policy that governs how to do that. The challenge becomes in those areas where it's more predominantly the joint poles or there's a mix, how we balance it out in the absence of an aesthetic policy that can control it. Thank you. Any other questions, Mr. Sorter? Thank you, Mayor. I'm curious about the coverage. Are there any requirements that every area of the city have the same coverage? And if the worst that happens that we have a gap in the coverage, or the coverage on one block is just less than it is on another block, is there any, if that's the biggest result or the most negative result, which to my mind sounds not all that important actually, just because there's a gap in that coverage, is there a requirement that the coverage be consistent? So there's discussions about coverage gaps and how you actually determine that there is a coverage gap is justification for rolling those out. So we have no requirement locally to say certain coverage needs to be met in certain areas. That's on the provider to provide that product and the benefit to them of providing a better product is they're satisfying their customer base. So that's definitely part of it and there's a little bit now with data being an interesting piece because it's not as much of a coverage discussion in some situations with voice calls falling, it's all about data capacity. And at that point if you start seeing more of a demand then it gets more into that discussion than identifying these coverage gaps. So it's basically giving more capacity to the network than a coverage issue. So that's the tricky part to balance out between the desires of the community for more data as well as determining what these coverage gaps are and as well as the provider having that ability to provide the product that their consumers want to some extent. So to answer your simple question is we don't necessarily control it. We can actually force the providers to justify where the coverage gap exists and have that brought into the conversation to get a better understanding. That's very similar to our site analysis process we look at at macro sites. So how are you meeting your coverage demands in the most unobstructive process possible to make sure that they look at those sites and play that out. But there are no specific requirements on our end. I appreciate that. And just as a follow up, does the community have a role in determining whether they are willing to accept a gap in coverage as opposed to having another antenna in their neighborhood? Well, and I think the way we want to look at it in these things based just on experience is that the community should. And I think it's the example that we looked at in our Hidden Valley area. So it isn't talking to one resident that has the poll in front of their house. It's talking to the overall community in the overall neighborhood to better understand how that works. And oftentimes when we get to that level of conversation, there is the desire to see additional coverage. They understand the benefit. It isn't always all about RF. It gets into aesthetics and placement. And I think that's where you get into not only the engagement of the community at that level, but the flexibility to be able to address their concerns. Because I think in this situation it's really important to get that feedback and be able to incorporate that in the process. Thank you. Okay. I think those are all the questions. Paul? Good evening, Mayor and members of the Council. Paul Lothals is in Fire Marshal with the Fire Department, speaking specifically to the wireless emergency alert capabilities. In October 2017, obviously we're aware that our ability to provide situational awareness to fires developing around Santa Rosa was limited, as well as our ability to directly use wireless emergency alert tools. Since then, obviously a lot of changes have occurred that we've spoken with Council directly about. One of those is our ability to monitor fires developing around the city of Santa Rosa through the network of cameras. But a critical component of utilizing that early detection is also making sure that we're providing the emergency alerting to our community. If you remember last year, we tested the emergency alerting capabilities here in Sonoma County and specifically in Santa Rosa. And one thing that became very clear to us was that when we work and operate in areas we're trying to provide emergency alerting, the ability for the recipient to receive that emergency alert is dependent upon carriers, as well as location of the cell sites. We tested it specifically in Roseland. We saw how it did not work. But for us, that was actually good to know. As we're working to move forward and provide that early notification, early detection to our community, one of the things that we're working closely with to avoid what happened in October 2017 is target specific areas that we want to get the emergency alert to. What we refer to it as geotargeting. So one of the common concerns that comes up that I know we've talked about in the past is Oakmont. When we look at the need to evacuate someplace like Oakmont, one of the concerns is they think that we're going to evacuate all of it all at once. And that would typically not be our intention. We'd want to geotarget specific areas within our community, set the boundaries of where the evacuation needs to occur, and through our iPause system, our integrated emergency learning system, we utilize a geotargeting system to area and map out specific areas that we want to evacuate so that we don't run into issues. We're evacuating more than we need to and having unintended consequences with that. So we do benefit from additional sites that allow us to add those sites into the areas we're geotargeting to make sure that the people that need to receive the emergency information are actually getting the emergency information. There's also discussions about the data that can be used to support the emergency learning and whether or not we'd able to put maps. So currently right now you see that when you use our emergency learning, specifically why is the emergency alert is limited to text. We've also now enhanced it to where you can add in the links, but there's talk about being able to actually integrate in maps that would be beneficial during a wildland fire. In regards to the backup, one of the things that we have actually been asking because of outages and or catastrophic disasters that do cause long-term outages is the ability to get emergency information to our community in those first several hours. So we're seeing a lot of the macro sites actually taking their backup power and extending it with the installation of larger tanks to support their generators, but we're also actually asking on the cell sites. Currently we're seeing a lot of installations where they have only an hour or a couple hours of battery backup and we're looking at asking that they provide additional batteries to make sure that we have a longer battery backup in place so that we can get critical information to those in need, especially in the first few hours of a disaster. Okay, and that actually brings us to the completion of the presentation. So we'll go over a little bit of the next step. So I'll bring all that together into one slide and we really bucketed that into two categories. So we're focusing on really that limited release on streetlight poles. That's the piece that we can move forward tomorrow or we would like to move forward tomorrow. And there's a few different steps in that. So what that would involve is we would be executing master license agreements with AT&T. That'll bring the two providers to an equal playing field. We will be executing site license agreements with going through the appropriate public noticing processes for those sites that we discussed. Those sites aren't written in stone. As I mentioned, if we start seeing public feedback from those transitional areas, we'll move those sites into more commercial. That's also an area where we can accept feedback from council. And if those transitional areas are sensitive and we want to go to more commercial, we can definitely work with the provider on those sites. But the concept of moving forward six sites is what we want to move forward with this week and start that. That's going to involve working collaboratively with the cell providers to improve that notification process. So we'll work those requirements in. We do want to identify areas of potential battery backup. Once again, a good piece to get feedback on. Do should we focus on these and make that a primary goal or should we let aesthetics be the primary goal? So there are some locations where we can easily put them in, but it would be great to get some feedback on the direction. So we also are going to improve the educational mapping resources and we are going to develop RF testing procedures. So that was discussed briefly in Mr. Hammett's presentation. We want to define really what that looks like. And part of it is requiring that RF analysis and we can require the provider to provide it. We can hire a consultant and the consultant can provide it with a cost recovery mechanism to it or we can provide some peer review on the technical aspect of it. And then there's a frequency in which we can provide it. And like was mentioned in previous slides is that typically any change or modification to that equipment, we can basically have the RF analysis rerun to make sure that those are safe anytime it's touched as part of a permitting process. So we're going to look at that as well. The second bucket are the bigger code changes. So it's really how do we want to get back to our council policy 300-04 and look at those deployments that are allowed into that. We are not moving forward with those until we go back to council. So this is where we get into the really hefty code upgrades between chapter 13 and 20. We want to look at our design criteria. We do want to look at ways of streamlining the process. And it really is that core of developing the solutions for the residential area. And at that point we'll come back to council for the more formal adoption, which brings forward more solutions that addresses some of those concerns. Now, if we highlight some of these particulars, most of what's in one is easy enough to move forward under current priorities. We've been working on most of those. When we get into the utility box art program, that's going to take a little more time to develop. And then doing the code adjustment, something of that nature is usually a six-month to a 12-month process. What we're looking at now is a lot of agencies have moved forward with this. So we're not really reinventing the wheel. We're taking what's already worked out and we're making it work for the city of Santa Rosa. So what we'll look forward with this is there's some level of cost recovery model. It does benefit the providers by moving forward. To help assist with the cost associated with that. But it will become a priority discussion. So we'll start shrinking the turnaround time, but the start date will have to be determined. If there's concern about design criteria, there's certain pieces that we potentially could pull out of there and focus on in a more rapid fashion. If that's better in a deployment to start saying we need to jump on that. But these are the ones that take a significant amount of staff time. So I wanted to make sure we highlighted those. So at this point that concludes the presentation. What I encourage anyone to do that has concerns about this, that's my contact information. We are going to be engaging the community as we move forward this looking for different solutions. So I encourage people to reach out and come to the table with some ideas. So with that I will actually slide back to this slide, which lists some of the details. Great. Thank you so much for that presentation you gave and others. So I think we'll first take a public comment here. So we have, oh we have a question, sure. Thank you Mr. Mayor. Did one want to get a clarifying question before we hear from the public because I think that it'll be interesting to hear what our residents do have to say. Is there a significant conflict between focusing on simultaneously on aesthetics and battery backup? I think the aesthetic, the battery backup should focus on the aesthetic discussion and the reason being is because there may be better ways to control that cabinet from a battery backup. So if we say our goal is to try to provide battery backup, if it ends up with that cabinet, can we put them underground? Is there ways to shrink that cabinet size? Can we place it on the pole in a different fashion that doesn't have the same impact? So it actually helps govern the aesthetic conversation because it lays it down as a foundation and in direction we want to take it. Okay and can you discuss the meaningful differences between the options for RF testing procedures between the peer review, the city consultant, or applicant responsibility? So often they are a means to the same end and you have a private consultant run an RF analysis and you generate an RF analysis. So one of the requirements often with macro sites is to say you have an RF consultant, you submit that and then we review it. Oftentimes we don't necessarily have the technical expertise and it's presented by a licensed professional. So the benefit of having that individual as a consultant is you can work through and get a better understanding and you control the result of it a little more. So it isn't necessarily the applicant providing that. The peer review aspect would step in if you really do not have the technical expertise, you can have another licensed professional review the findings to make sure that the conclusions are correct. So the benefit of bringing it in house is we control the timing of when the RF is done more than we currently have now. So that would say once again that it's done with initial installation, there can be a theoretical that's done up front to understand what it would look like testing when it's installed and then testing when it's modified and that's similar to what other agencies have done. Thank you I look forward to hearing what the public has to say about those things. Okay we are at that point we won't hear from the public.  Please let's not respond to every comment. The intended audience is the five of us here so if you want to wave with your support that's fine but please let's keep the plotting verbally acknowledging something let's keep that to ourselves so we can hear everything that everyone's got to say. So first up is Paul Andre Schwabach followed by Tom Laporta. My name is Paul Andre Shabrak. I'm a urban planner and a property owner in Santa Rosa and apart from the well-documented adverse health effects one key issue facing the city council is whether it is more important to install wireless transmission facilities throughout the city which will result in significant reduced property values and thereby lowering the property tax revenues versus the doubtful benefits of increased conductivity. The research clearly indicates that over 90 percent of home buyers and renters are less interested in properties near wireless transmission facilities. Documentation of a price drop of up to 20 percent is found in multiple surveys and published articles and I've got the references and the documents that I'm giving to you. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development which is HUD considers wireless transmission facilities to be quote hazards and nuisances. HUD requires certified appraisers to take the presence of nearby WTS into consideration when determining the value of residential property. HUD also prohibits FHA from underwriting mortgages for homes that are within the engineered fall zones of wireless transmission facilities. The standard property sellers questionnaire which realtors all over California use requires specifically cell phones as one of the disclosures of problems in a property and there's also in your packet there's the National Institute of Science Law and Public Policy Survey which was done in 2014 over a thousand people found that the overwhelming majority of respondents about 94 percent reported that cell phone towers and antennas in a neighborhood or building would impact their interest in a property and the price that they would be willing to pay for it and 79 percent said that under no circumstances would they ever purchase a rental property within a few blocks of a cell tower or antenna. 88 percent said that under no circumstances would they ever purchase or rent the property with a cell tower or group of cell towers on a roof or on the side of a building. So these are you know what you're planning to do would actually result in an immense drop in the value of property as a result of the proliferation of wireless transmission facilities. One of the effects for your tax revenues would be it would go down and property owners like myself would suffer a significant drop in our equity thank you. Thank you. Tom Laporta followed by Jennifer Laporta. Hello there we go. My name is Tom Laporta and I have a background as an RN and electronics technician. Here's a simplified version of how data carrying radio frequency radiation which includes microwave radiation affects us all. This radiation creates chaos in our bodies. If you're healthy you may not notice any immediate effects but the radiation is adversely affecting you nonetheless suppressing your melatonin and interfering with whole body central nervous system function reducing sperm quality and quantity and pairing cells from communicating properly and causing inappropriate cell division. Constant exposure slowly chips away at our defenses. The main energy producers in our cells the mitochondria are like electricians who detach electrons from food and push them through our wiring. This is called the electron transport chain. The electrons complete a reaction resulting in the production of energy. However RF radiation causes a work slowdown by those mitochondrial electricians that's less energy for health and more opportunity for disease to take hold or if you're already sick disease progresses. The scientific literature has been out there for decades informing us that our cells are thrown into chaos when exposed to manmade RF radiation via calcium channels. It's like a distracted hotel doorman who holds the door open too long and a crowd rushes in. Now you have to corral the people and get them back out the front door no way to run a hotel or a cell. Over 10,000 studies indicate that RF radiation is not benign no matter what the telecom interest industry reports. You can't see what you're not looking for but we're all here today because we did look and we found that exposure to RF radiation is hazardous particularly when modulated and when its wavelengths match the very dimensions of our brain and other organs producing maximal absorption and maximal consequences. In the face of all this evidence why do some studies show no ill effects? If the cell is healthy it can maintain a higher voltage a more intact cell wall and repair minor injuries from other environmental hazards. The cell may initially absorb RF radiation without acute adverse effects but damage is still being done. What we don't see is hurting us. The evidence is clear it's out there for the looking. Public officials need to use whatever tools they have to put the brakes on new wireless transmission facilities in the city. Let's not pay for faster download speeds with our health. Thank you. Thank you. Jennifer LaPorta followed by E Orleans Coley. A test and affirm that the following statements are true accurate and within my personal knowledge. The Telecommunications Act of 96 recognizes the actual environmental effects of radio frequency radiation or RFR from wireless telecommunication facilities or WTS. This act left regulation of the health effects entirely within state and local officials authority obligating said officials to protect its residents from health effects with regard to the placement construction modification and operation of WTS. In plain reading quote 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 end quote. On 3618 during this council meeting as recorded on video on the city's website city attorney Sue Gallagher stated quote the FCC preempts any state or local involvement on issues of RF emissions. There is federal law statute. There are FCC regs and also case law I looked at. Dot, dot, dot went so far as to say if a local jurisdiction or a state made any decision that was even partially based on RF emissions that decision would be set aside even if there were good valid other grounds for the decision. So that's pretty strict end quote. Clearly the recent decisions with T-Mobile versus San Francisco and the NEPA decision earlier this year underline that this old view is incomplete. FCC is not the U.S. Congress and does not make laws. Congress's TCA does not preempt local authority over WTF operations including emissions rather when given the choice to preempt operations Congress positively left all authority over operations entirely within state and local officials hands. By making reports like this the city attorney did not have this did not have all this recent law. It is necessary that you immediately stop all placement construction modification operations of new recent and applied for WTFs. Please write a letter to your wireless applicants that all of their applications are incomplete. The required environmental assessments or EISs must include negative health consequences and safety concerns as per the 4-4-19 California Supreme Court ruling in T-Mobile versus San Francisco. This will give Santa Rosa time to update its ordinance. Please let's have reasonable setbacks of these towers to where people sleep, live and heal. I have expressed no concern or any other non-stip stand of matter but I solely matters of fact and law. Accept your oath of office. Thank you. E. Orleans Coley followed by Bill Cossett. Thank you. You actually pronounced my last name Kerla, German. I represent an organization that is nationally wide and here in California I'm the president of Eagle Forum of California. It's an organization that has always been very concerned about privacy rights and property rights. I've written two books that I'm going to give to you. One I wrote back in 2012, just say no to Big Brother's smart meter and this one is Wo Nelly, 5G dangers and deception of powerful new wireless technology. I am very concerned because I believe that this data collection that is coming in on all of us is so pervasive. It's already pervasive with 4G but with 5G it is going to be sped up so much more quickly as you've already heard. That's one of the big things that they're using to push 5G every one months faster data. They want to be able to download a movie in three seconds when it used to take 24 hours but this data collection is really going to be the big oil. It's going to be bringing in so much money that's what is really pushing 5G. That's what the big tech companies want and some have estimated maybe five billion dollars are going to be coming because of 5G. Well in my book I mentioned this quote, smart cities that's what we all want to have our cities be with 5G will be like an expounded electromagnetic microwave blanket above each city and county permeating the airspace and providing seamless connectivity where people and things will exchange data instantaneously. This is what it's all about. It's called the internet of things. I have a whole chapter on it and how can this happen? We as well of all of these things will have to be connected. They want to have things to things to things to people connected. How can that happen unless people also have chips? That's the ultimate goal and I have much information about that in my book. Tom Wheeler who used to be the head of the FCC under Obama said that this super fast data collection is what 5G is all about. I urge you to please consider this and say no with any further implementing the deployment of these small cell antennas. Thank you. Thank you. Bill Cossett followed by Martin Miller. Yes, hi. My name is Bill Cossett and I'm a resident of the near Thomas area. We addressed the council last May in regards to the residential placements of these mini cell towers but thanks for the time today to address the council. My concern is again the saturation that these cell towers will provide. I'm glad to hear that the licensed professionals now on board to verify the use of these mini cell towers but I would really like to see them if there's 31 in place now to turn several of them on, use them under actual circumstances for several weeks and make the measurements there and then have the licensed professional check the results that he comes up with against what the manufacturer is saying will happen to see if we're perhaps oversaturating these areas because there seems to be an awful lot of dots up on that map or that just Verizon alone would like to install a mini cell tower and if we're going to have up to four providers if AT&T is coming on board now and then there's two more major providers what's the situation with that type of saturation are we going to be over covered when we don't really need to be so that would be my suggestion and also that I'm just a little concerned a very concerned with the fact that we're using 1996 standards you know dial-up modem era standards in 2019 for 5G and beyond so it's a I think that's a major concern from what I'm hearing so far today thank you very much for your time thank you Martin Miller followed by Jennifer Starr hi I attest and affirm the following statements are true accurate and within my personal knowledge my name is Martin Miller I'm a licensed active puncturist I also happen to be a licensed health insurance broker I live just over the border of Santa Rosa and spend a great deal of my time visiting and serving customers in this Santa Rosa area there's a growing body of research establishing a direct causal relationship between cell tower frequency microwave transmissions with markedly increased occurrences of cancer in the population living near to them so you have in one hand the 1996 standards and you have on the other hand the experiential reality which I'll mention a few for you now here's a short sampling long-term exposure to microwave radiation provokes cancer growth evidence from radars and mobile communication systems this particular report which I'll provide you afterward even a year of operation of a powerful based transmitting station for mobile communication reported reportedly resulted in dramatic increase of cancer incident among population living nearby unquote this next one is mortality by neoplasia and cellular telephone base stations by that they mean cell cell towers this 10-year study on cell phone antennas by the municipal health department of Belo Horizonte and sub universities in brazil found a clearly elevated relative risk of cancer mortality at the residential distance of 500 meters or less from cell phone transmission towers end quote the figure of 500 meters comes up several times in the number of these studies this one appeal logical evidence for health risk from mobile phone base stations stated eight of the 10 studies now these studies happened in seven different countries including france germany portugal uh and israel those of the ones combined oh and poland reportedly increased prevalence of adverse neurobehavioral symptom or cancer in the population living at distances less than 500 meters from base stations was interesting about this is none of the studies of these 10 studies reported exposure above accepted international guidelines suggesting that current guidelines may be inadequate in protecting the health of human populations and of course there was a large romazzini study in which lab animals were exposed to environmental uh levels allowable comparable to allowable limits and cell towers that found the rats develop increased cancers and this also confirmed the same results of the 25 million dollar us national toxicology program which uh was the gold standard of these studies that also found the same results uh this last one i'll mention is increased incidence of cancer near a cell phone transmitter station a significant high rate of 300 percent among all residents living within 300 meters and there was a 900 increase among women alone i think i fit it in thanks thank you jennifer star followed by jane herf hi there i'm a resident um in sabastopol i'm very interested in this topic and i'm just studying along the way i have two three children and um i can't and i care about our health and happiness in our home um one of the things that i'm learning just through looking at different articles and stuff is that data mining and selling data is making more profit than oil and um just the mere fact of looking outside of ourselves for information is already like a big dysfunction in our culture um thinking about aesthetics and what things look like um i think our communities are going to look pretty bad with more anxiety and depression and children with attention deficit disorder and all of the other ailments and illnesses that are connected to the radiation frequency that is going to be coming out of these devices i you know wish and hope that we can all get humble and just be grateful for the internet that we do have and um have some more patience with the downloading process um i think our culture needs to slow down instead of speed up um i was passed a letter that was written by a doctor gary camarada md dear mayor and council i'm writing both as a concerned citizen as well as a concerned public servant with regards to the proposed permitting of 100 close proximity microwave radiation antennas in san rosa i'm a family physician who works in our community health clinic system and have been in practice for now now for over 25 years in snow mccounty wireless radiation has biologic effects period there this is no longer a subject of debate when one looks at pub med online library of all medical research and the peer reviewed literature on the topic these effects are on all life forms plants animals insects microbes in humans we now have clear evidence of cancer with causality essentially established growing evidence links growing evidence links wireless radiation to dna damage neuro psychiatric effects cardiomyopathy leading to congestive heart failure and diabetes mellitus leading to renal failure and need for dialysis so 5g is not a conversation about whether these biologic effects exist they clearly do period 5g is conversation is conversation about unsustainable healthcare expenditures why do i say this the data on the adverse effects of wireless radio frequencies has been accumulating for decades now this with virtually no in the industry or public health oversight of the development developing technology in essence we have been sitting on the data in our public health of diabetes mental health disorders and suicide as well as thank you thank you jane herge followed by kim shredder hi i'm jane herge a fairly long-term santa rosa resident i'm very opposed to this mainly for health concerns as radio frequency has been proven to be injurious to all living organisms not only birds and bees but everybody in this room we need to back off consider what we're doing very carefully we may worry that the state or the feds can overrule anything done in this room or decided but we're if we can take a stand for health for our community for life and the planet i think we should do that thank you thank you kim shredder followed by scott compton there you go okay my name is kim shredder i'm a santa rosa native and resident i attest and affirm that the following statements are true accurate and within my personal knowledge regarding slide 17 of the santa rosa city presentation and have attached exhibit a here are the solutions to protect santa rosa's health safety property environment and history from so-called small cells here and after wireless telecommunications facilities are wtfs and ordinance must include both city-owned light poles and pgna utility poles wtfs irradiate block the landscape and skyscape and disallow healthy private living as such they cannot lawfully be placed within 1500 feet of sensitive areas including without limitation residential and school zones senior centers health care facilities playgrounds and parks a detailed list of preferred or disfavored locations is included in the attached recommended revisions to santa's telecommunications ordinance few examples include all wtfs require a conditional use permit notify all property owners within 1500 feet of the proposed installation within 14 days of public hearing 1500 foot setback from other small cell installations radio frequency data report requirement ada compliance requirement general liability insurance in the amount of two to five million to protect the city of santa rosa obtained paid for and maintained by the permitting per the last item note that the reinsurance and insurance industries have refused to ensure the wireless communications industry for 4g and 5g technology when allowed in commercial or industrial zones wtfs must comply with city code 20.44 and their effective radiating power erp must be limited by means of protective fuses to 0.04 watts such limit as allows carriers to provide more than adequate coverage but not irradiate at maximum capacity the protective fuses are of nominal cost and will earn the city considerable income from violations of this erp limit the telecommunications act of 1996 tca does not preempt local authorities from regulating the operations of wtfs indeed it requires them to do so any refusal to to regulate as city officials are obligated to do and any misrepresentation such as a false denial of the existence of authority renders an official ultra virus the best solution for any city is fiber to the premises fttp fiber optic cable is the most energy efficient expedient reliable secure safe and democratic way to offer broadband service with fiber individual households can choose whether they want to run wireless in their homes via wi-fi or not santa rosa would use the fiber optic cable that we're already paid for through our phone bills as a starting point which the wireless industry uses free of charge i've expressed no concern or any other stand of manner thank you thank you can scott compton followed by alex crown mayor vice mayor and uh council members think you're having me my name is scott compton i'm actually i drove down from bend oregon to be here um i've been working at the community up there because there's a cell phone tower going in an elementary school right adjacent to the school it's a 78 foot tower so it's very low to the exposure to the children there but um i really wanted to kind of give everybody an overview of what i do and who i am i run a company called lifestyle hygiene i'm an electromagnetic specialist i'm also a video game designer of the past two decades and i'm a previous biologist at sanford university so i'd like to give you an uh kind of an overview of um like biological effects so everybody's talking about here and kind of put this in preface with the physics of what we had presented earlier today so biological effects obviously we've heard the dna effects genotoxic effects blood brain barrier effects haven't been mentioned yet learning behavioral memory effects myla sheath effects that's your insulation around your neurons protect your protect your brain that can be degraded over time with this which thing in the scientific literature autophagic activity and neuron effects inducing stress and anxiety effects and a big one that martin paul talks about a lot is the calcium channel the vg cc effects voltage gated calcium channels on the surface of our cell membranes but the real question is why why aren't we seeing what why is there a discrepancy between what we're hearing which is the intensity of the rf and and what else is going on with the light but light itself frequencies have different properties and one of the properties that's never talked about here and we won't hear industry talking about is the polarization of the light polarization sunlight comes down naturally and it's and it's non polarized meaning it just is chaotic all around it doesn't have like a waveform actively to it we're not hearing a lot about the the pulsed effects of light like even our artificial lighting is off of the 60 hertz grid and it's pulsing at us every moment and that has biological effects and the modulation how how the actual carrier waves are modulated on the light is also quite unique and different when when you do it artificially so when you look at these effects in the science what we see is an increased biological activity of these artificial frequencies so yes ionizing radiation can cause damaging effects like from this time but you have to have your proper dose size to do it and there are non ionizing effects which i just talked about which cause these biological effects so my big question is why are we having somebody a physicist talking about what really a doctor or a biophysicist should be talking about on this when we're talking about safety up on that board and what previously mentioned we also heard we also saw in slide seven at the beginning of the presentation it was actually going into the scc lawn on health effects but really it's it's really defined back in 1996 as environmental effects right and rf has also classified they use this as a blanket term radio frequency when you look at 300 megahertz in higher higher frequencies this is microwave radiation so i just wanted to make sure this is all clear thank you scott alex krone followed by kathryn dodd i attest and affirm that the following statements are true accurate and within my personal knowledge my name is alex krone i'm a licensed physical therapist and i work and live in the city of san aroza i address here in slides prepared by city official gabe osburn slide three exhibit a the amendment council policy 300-04 was drafted and presented to city staff and council on february 14 2017 by eric mchenry and verizon representative miss canada the presumed exemption of so-called small cells here and after wtfs to our city code 20-44 is without merit we have submitted evidence onto the public record that proves the same equipment and technology used for macro towers are being used for small cells in addition we have proof that the amendment to council policy 300-04 addenda for applications were not complete prior to the execution of the master's license agreement therefore these two contracts contracts are void ab initio slide 10 exhibit b the 2016 california public utilities commission order was used throughout this entire process by city staff persons to advise city council falsely that it had no jurisdiction over the placement of wtfs on pg and e utility polls city staff further used this document to advise city council not to adopt an ordinance to regulate the placement and thereby any other activity of wtfs on pg and e polls these public officials were and still are ultra viries induced in doing so slide 13 exhibit c this map is highly inaccurate indicating falsely the only joint utility polls under contract according to the information obtained from the city staff in their website were for only 41 polls this slide is showing 45 utility polls now such incompetency makes it unreasonable to expect the city to maintain an accurate precise detailed and dynamic website portal as is such proposed in slide 23 slide 15 exhibit d mr osborne falsely categorizes health as a mere concern despite established science science pertaining to adverse health effects which already occur in santa rosa and will increase with additional wtf irradiation of santa rosa homes schools workplaces and other institutions such peer-reviewed science literature as we have voluminously submitted is admissible under the supreme court dobear rule and cannot be refused ignored or mischaracterized the communications act of 1934 of which the telecommunications act of 1996 is an amendment states that it's very purpose to protect safety and property therefore health safety property value lack of notification and environmental impact are substantive and cannot lawfully be suppressed or dismissed out of hand as it has been done in this slide i have expressed no concern or any other non substantive matter but solely matters of fact in law i accept your oath of office thank you katharine dawg followed by pat that call in my name is katharine dawg good afternoon mayor and um shrent shrent helm um ice mare plumbing and members soya olivaris and tibet's i live just outside the city borders in wikia but i spent a lot of my time in the city proper as a local shopper a library visitor and caretaker of people with terminal illness who live in this beautiful city i would like to start by saying thank you to you for the attention you paid to the well-being of our residents especially during the tubs fire and the kinkaid fire i'll come back to that i'm a registered nurse with a phd in sociology with an emphasis in health policy i've worked in the legislative and executive branch of government at the local and federal level for over 35 years i greatly respect the commitment you bring to your position and the 1980s i worked i was working for a member of the san jesco board of supervisors and a strange disease began to affect members of the gay community it was the beginning of the AIDS epidemic like many perhaps here i lost friends and colleagues i thought that this would be the worst public health crisis i would experience in my lifetime i was wrong the health effects of the health effects of wireless radio frequency radiation are an invisible threat growing in exposure to all of us every day this is larger than lead larger than asbestos both of which we are still remediating it's larger than pesticides like dbt larger than smoking all of these previous epidemics took seven to ten years before the damage was detected the standards you heard about from hemid and edison have been disproved by countless articles of peer reviewed science you receive lots of factual science today and prior to this meeting by residents and by experts much of which i would like to associate myself with those remarks the FCC is a captured agency it's made up of telecom executives their statements in fact disregard credible scientific evidence they are the fox guarding the chicken house and we are the chickens i'm not going to go into what's at risk i'll hand you my testimony 4g and 5g densification of it is an involuntary exposure we are not volunteering to be exposed to this people can't afford to move from their homes here to avoid being sickened by rfr a serious constellation of symptoms recognized in international code of diagnosis or icd 10 as our elected leaders you must keep keep us safe and prevent major public health epidemic i want to add this last comment about our permission checking because that's what you're talking about you need an independent staff person of the city to do unannounced random visits and if they exceed two times in 12 months they lose their permit thank you thank you pat and bakalian followed by gary or good afternoon mayor and council members i am a resident of san aroza and i am here for my grandchildren and other young children who have no voice in their increasingly hazardous polluted environment wireless radio frequency radiation is a form of pollution and is becoming more of a threat to our children the environmental health trust says children are not little adults obvious uh children's skull skulls are thinner and tissues of a child's head including the bone and marrow and the eye absorbs it's significantly more energy than those of an adult's head it is scientifically accepted that children are more vulnerable to biological effects of microwave exposure than adults children's stem cells are more affected by microwave radiation no studies show that microwave radiation exposure is in children is safe in addition the FCC guidelines i believe are inadequate they are out of date they have been set in 1996 guidelines were based solely on preventing thermal effects like heating no guidelines the guidelines do not account for exposure of multiple sources and only consider 30 minutes of exposure from one device at a time the guidelines do not consider research showing that current cell phones can produce hot spots in the brain i have um handout that i'm going to give you that shows that um the guidelines were based on an adult male body not children children's smaller bodies and brains are not considered in the metrics the guidelines consider average exposure not peak exposures the american academy of pediatrics recommends that the united states government tighten wireless exposure limits and that the public reduce children's exposure to cell phones phones and other devices that emanate radiation the academy also cautioned cell phone that cell phone that cell tower radiation is linked to headaches sleep problems and depression i urge you to heed the advice of the experts and um i hope that you will join other cities in california around the u.s in the pending court case against the FCC thank you for your consideration please think of the children while you're making your decisions thank you thank you gary oar followed by janice bradshaw my name is gary oar i'm a lifelong resident of san rosa and i'm in one of the areas where one of these poles is going to be outfitted with i suppose the same small wireless uh device which has happened to be 20 feet off my bedroom and 35 feet from my neighbor's house is slated for the property next door to me but it's right on the edge of my property and on my drive we are common neighbors in that regard where the pole is uh i assume that the city council has on the internet probably put out flyer or you know contact as far as when the meetings are going to be in one thing another i don't know because i don't have internet um but what i would say is the paper finally came out today and i was finally able to find out some information i had another neighbor that called and had a hard time getting hold it finally did he got a hold of me but my concern is i'm here because of my neighbors and you know some of them most of them don't want to have this go in right where it's going i mean there's other places they could put it i think the city council needs to find a way to combat some of these positions that um the internet companies are trying to push off on you i guess the only way is probably to get a class action against pgne and against verizon that's the only thing i could see that would do any good i'm concerned for my grandchildren and my great grandchildren i don't even want to have them come to my house if this thing goes in because i'm afraid it's going to bother them and as for myself i'm old enough that i guess it really doesn't matter at this point but i think there should be some way of controlling the amount and the areas of where these things go and i appreciate your listening to me today and i hope you carry on for the rest of us thank you thank you jenice bradshaw followed by moshasha shaffer hello thank you for your time i attest and affirm that the following statements are true accurate and within my personal knowledge my name is jenice bradshaw i'm a mother grandmother past elementary teacher in resident of santa rosa the polarized pulse modulated microwave radiation from wireless telecommunication facilities wtfs that the city wishes to allow without regulation would produce many harmful effects on the neurologic functioning of the people of santa rosa it is well established in relevant peer-reviewed scientific studies that the highly xenobiotic foreign to life type of radiation deployed by wtfs produces very serious adverse impacts on the neurological systems of humans and animals the nervous system at the whole body level relies on precise electron flow to and from synapses as well as potential energy to function the pulse modulated rf radiation that the wtfs deploy interferes with proper functioning of this delicate system the addition of more wtfs emitting constant 24 7365 forever pulse microwave radiation will lead to more neurologic problems including without limitation demyelination of neurons melatonin suppression insomnia fatigue lack of productivity learning and memory impairments lord iq attention deficit the art disorder hyperactivity early early dementia's headache anxiety depression violent behavior and accelerated neuro degeneration let me be clear that by the physical nature of such microwave radiation action upon a delicate nervous system every person is adversely affected our children are more affected than the adults since i am a mother and a grandmother i'm very worried about our children and i was a past teacher i also submit into the public record substantial evidence that is peer-reviewed and as such admissible under the supreme court dog dog bark rule the evidence cannot lawfully be refused ignored or mischaracterized as mere concern indeed i've expressed no concern or other non-substitive matter but solely matters of fact and law and i accept your office i am submitting to you to each of you my presentation along with with links to studies i ask that you please read the peer-reviewed studies yourself please read them yourself don't just rely on anybody else what they're saying and also um i have a whole thank you time moshia shaffir followed by judith monroy moshia shaffir i i practice and license architect in the state of california first is a question and a statement we are the people we own this building and we own the voting machines we are given only three minutes to talk here why the mercenary of the telecom industry given unlimited time and i am upset about it what is missing here now medical experts researchers independent researchers that tell you the dangers of these magnetic fields in 1983 i attended a conference a seminar i was just a young beginning architect about indoor pollution we studied magnetic fields of 60 hertz from their home electricity and we learned how to make it safe for people today we're speaking of energies and fields millions time folds and we still talking about aesthetics like the man sitting in the middle of the room or engineer lying to us and telling us he's safe he doesn't have a medical clue in 1969 i served in the israeli army we used machines that omit electromagnetic signals to detect motion movement the orders were to stand behind the machines when i turned off because of the toxic radiation we were protected by our superiors looks like now no one is protected in this room i feel constantly uncomfortable here because of the radiation here best of my experience i never used wi-fi in my home in my office all hard wires and work well 2015 i was hired by company in mil valley after being there for two weeks i started being sick then i discovered that was a wi-fi router the only wireless machine in the office when i asked to turn it off i was threatened to be fired when i fireworked the scope i was fired those shall not bear false witness against the neighbor exodus 2013 the telecom company industry publishes false statements data research claiming that wi-fi and wireless are safe there are not these credits independent researchers and some of them are names they are telling us the truth because they do the own research dr. dicker klinghardt dr. shane golbert dr. george carlo that were harassed and fired by them dr. devra davis and dr. martin paul the scientific fraud is larger than tebaco merrick all right and everything thank you sir june monroy followed by tom soyer good afternoon i have prayed to a higher power that you will hear us today look how many have come in the middle of the week in the afternoon we have jobs we have children to pick up and yet these people are calling out to you as guardians of our well-being of the quality of life in santa rosa that's where you were brought here not to represent the people at this table i can tell you personally i sat there biting my tongue listening to lie after lie after lie i will tell you what really goes on and what happened to me i bought a house at 7 21 ling claim and one morning very early between christmas and new years i heard a lot of noise going on outside for several days over a week from christmas through the new year period when city offices were closed and it was hard to get a hold of people i saw these crews come in they were in trucks that did not signify who was involved there were blank trucks pin ski um rented trucks anything but equipment that would not identify what was really going on and who sent these people they started digging 20 feet for my living room my favorite chair which to me had been a sanctuary where i could sit and read in supposed safety they went and filled a pg and e pole with all this ugly equipment and then they sunk at least a five by four foot maybe larger of of this collection electric box and they stuck it in there and when i went to them and i said i live here what's going on they would not respond and i had to knock on the doors all over these buildings to finally narrow down about this electrical wiring that was going to go in 20 feet from me i protested i finally was heard the electric box was left but all the equipment of the pg and e pole was left they did not i'm telling you may it was a fraud of going out to inform the community not one person in that neighborhood except my next star neighbor thank you junef there's the lies there's mr tom tom Sawyer followed by brian powell hello there you go my name is tom Sawyer i'm an electrical engineer and a lifetime member of iEEE i hope we can keep these away from schools and residential neighborhoods one thing we haven't talked a lot about tonight is exposure time like if they're on signals then you have people passing underneath them they're very low exposure time for the most part if they're in front of a resident that's 24 7 also i'd like to point out that the FCC testing that was done in 1996 that was done that was not done with pulse cold modulation in mind and that's that's what we have today and so a lot of energy can be put into a single spike over a given amount of time and you can come up with the same amount of power all although that spike could have consequences uh that hasn't been included in that testing although i think a lot of other institutions and academic studies have shown that uh that there is an issue there um also you know occupational rf there's there's uh there's time limits on that so i know that wasn't brought out today and i also like to point out that mr. Hammond who i know uh is uh also a consultant to Verizon so just thought i'd throw that out there thank you very much thank you brian Powell followed by martha and blazer so there's only a few things that can make people say poor mental state poor nutrition and poor environment we can give an individual the best food on the planet and teach them to vibrate and think better than anyone around but if you stick them in a microwave and spray them with pesticide they'll get sick anyway we need to stop this madness this equipment was designed in the past for specific reason it's still the reason why it's being used this isn't my knowledge this is what's you go ahead and read back in history what this stuff was used for this is a weapon and we're under attack my son's 12 years old and he won't see his future if we don't stand up and stop this madness the individuals you see here are part of the problem we need to come together and stop coming into these meetings complaining about it with each other we need to stand up and fight we need to get every man and every woman that can stand and fight and get our town back and our country back we've lost control we've lost control of what's important and it's time to get it back that's nothing to do with cell phone towers these devices have been making people sick since they put them in my neighborhood in the early 80s I have so much information about what's been taking place my family's been here for over a hundred years we didn't have this mess until we started putting these we lost the bees the butterflies and they started saying oh the oak tree is sudden death oak no it's the same thing all living things are affected by radiation it's destroying everything at a cellular level it makes you weak it doesn't give you cancer it makes you susceptible to any and everything the young and the old and the compromise are the most susceptible this is madness we're under attack these people are attacking us they're allowing people to destroy our future and we're standing and allowing it to happen enough of this madness time to stand up and stop this get all the people that you know around and stand up and take these goddamn things down stop the government destroying our sons our children's future we have no shot if we don't stand up soon we're going to be destroyed these are weapons this is what they were made for and this is what they've been used for it's never been any different go ahead and do your research read in history go back to the cold war understand what you're talking about in here understand what it's been doing understand the effects you apparently don't because no one on city council we need to start learning to elect individuals that have qualifications because we keep electing individuals to council that are qualified to govern our safety of our communities because they don't know anything about what's going on it's time for change this is this is who has nothing to do with cell phone towers time to get our country back and start here with our community we need to do this now we have no time to waste if we don't stand up soon there's going to be no hope for our children's future all right thank you martha glazier followed by debora gambrell test and affirm that the following statements are true accurate and within my personal knowledge my name is martha glazer i am the mother of two teens at questford high school in santa rosa a homeowner landlord and an adjunct instructor in the college skills department pool at the santa rosa junior college my family lived in california for generations and for over 30 years we've been in santa rosa my parents were instrumental in creating a cultural community center the glazer center barba and jewels lived out a happy retirement santa rosa for their last years and died and are buried here community is an important value in my family i'm here today because i want to be able to continue to contribute to this community although speaking out now about my experience with electromagnetic sensitivity is very hard to do this is my contribution to our community at this time i am not alone with this condition ems is a common problem one with an official medical code icd 10 cm code w 98 x x a also called exposure to other non ionizing radiation initial encounter right now and for the last few hours i can perceive the radio frequency microwave radiation here in is already been it's been hard to be in here i already live in a world that forced me to carry a radio frequency radiation meteor around to make sure i live in a safe place i'm in a safe place to spend any significant amount of time in the effect of my being in an environment like this for more than a few minutes makes me very unsettled with a fight or flight feeling like i'm in danger this is the sound of the microwave radiation i perceive and react to we're all in this right now with prolonged exposure i will more specifically feel head pain and ear temple and jaw pressure and will begin to feel anxiety and difficulty remembering what i'm trying to say will struggle to follow my own train of thoughts get words wrong and forget simple words get dizzy lose my balance get nosebleeds i'll feel heart palpitations and exhaustion in a microwave radiation ambient environment i suffer with deep fatigue for which sleep does not revive me what has convinced me that my symptoms are induced by rf microwave radiation is that when i'm away from antennas and towers spend time in homes with no cell towers or antennas nearby use corded landlines ethernet wired high speed internet no sparring meters no smart devices no streaming routers i feel no symptoms at all all i need to be healthy is simply to be away from such radiation simple or is it it's getting harder and harder to be away from antennas and wireless devices the saturation of highly unnatural radiation that the telecom industry is trying to force upon communities makes it impossible to just stay away from wireless devices and enjoy the quiet of our homes and streets it breaks my heart to think that i won't be able to continue as part of this community antennas and radiation pull pushing community members out are destructive of community it's unhealthy for all to put profits over community values i know that santa rosa will no longer be habitable on by me with 112 more cell phone towers here even with 10 more what's already here is already devastating to my health and others feel this too as more people observe the impact of the radiation on their own bodies and those of their loved ones under the telecom act you have the power to stop these companies you from pushing through their agenda and chasing away many solid rooted community-minded people you can avert harm you for those who remain we have just learned this morning you're you're going to get support 100 mayors in italy have just declared a moratorium five many people in our community are now effecting the experience and the effects of these thank you deba uh deba gombrel followed by disayana in ov hi good afternoon my name is dr deba gombrel i am not a technology expert rather i'm a triple board certified physician and one of my roles is as a pediatric developmental specialist one of the things i do is i go into classrooms and evaluate the development of our children as they are transitioning from kindergarten to first grade and what i've seen this is based on my experience and my clinical experience what i see is when we turn on these rf emitting devices with the smart fans and all the smart technology that we have in our classrooms the children's behaviors change their ability to concentrate changes their perception of abdominal pain changes their complaint of headache changes their ability to move in their body changes now i was an intern when the whole merc vioxx scandal