WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENT DEADLINE: FRIDAY, JANUARY 15, 2021
For an official introduction to Safe Technology for Santa Barbara County and to learn more about how you can get involved in this ordinance process, read our recent media release here. The below media release is from the City and contains the link to the actual draft ordinance.
City of Santa Barbara Release Draft Small Wireless Facilities Ordinance for Public Comment
SANTA BARBARA, CA – December 1, 2020 Today the City of Santa Barbara released a Draft Small Wireless Facilities Ordinance for public review and comment. Written comments will be accepted until January 15, 2021. The Ordinance would regulate the placement of small wireless facilities (like cellular installations) in the public rights-of-way. The purpose of the Ordinance is to establish reasonable and comprehensive standards and procedures, including but not limited to aesthetics, construction, operation, modification, and removal, for small cell permitting within the City.
The proposed ordinance aims to promote the community’s interest in protecting the City of Santa Barbara’s visual character, consistent with recent FCC regulations preempting local zoning discretion. The draft regulations also outline the requirements for small wireless facilities application and installation procedures, establish the City’s location preferences and design standards, lay out the public notification procedures, and appeal process.
A copy of the proposed ordinance is available online at https://www.santabarbaraca.gov/gov/depts/attorney/news_and_documents/default.asp.
Comments or questions should be directed to Assistant City Attorney John Doimas at jdoimas@SantaBarbaraCA.gov.
Contact: John Doimas,
Assistant City Attorney
Phone: (805) 564-5326
It is both a privilege and a very real responsibility to participate in a process such as public comment on the small wirless facilities draft ordinance. Today, we see unfortunate results on the political stage when we the people, take our hands off the wheel. The city is offering you the opportunity to once again, have your hands on the wheel from the driver’s seat.
SafeTechSBC has produced a public comment guide which includes some of our asks and our informed perspectives on matters in the ordinance. We hope that you participate with a full heart in this process and use the pointers we have written for your assistance.
We look forward to working hand in hand with you on this significant matter.
SB WIRELESS FACILITIES DRAFT ORDINANCE
PRIORITY TALKING POINTS FOR PUBLIC COMMENT
A Special Message to You:
Hello Dear People of SB City and County:
SafeTechSBC has summarized the most critical talking points for you to make your public comments either via email, letters or speaking at the virtual city council hearings. We encourage you to pick whatever priorities you feel most strongly about, and in your own words, make your voice be heard.
City Council will be moved by the quantity and personal quality of your communications. As a motivated community, the more emails, letters and voices we submit, the more our leaders sit up and listen. There are members of the city council who are concerned about the massive amount of wireless radiation aiming to take over our city and county. The more we push back against this existential threat, and let them know what we want, we will strengthen and support their resolve to make the right decisions to protect our safety and wellbeing, and make it much harder for them to give industry their way.
Industry is persuasive, cunning and non-disclosing of their underlying intentions. They do not reveal all of the uses they are planning with this technology. Using surveillance capitalism as their silent strategy, they will invade our lives and our privacy both indoors and outdoors—all to their multi-level benefits and the benefits of corporations and the government.
That said, our city hired a Wireless Communications Law Firm to craft our now released draft ordinance who is known to favor industry over people. To this precarious edge, we must rise up and make a great noise. We must clearly tell our city and county what we want, march against Big Tech’s grab, and back industry down tower by tower. We must stay the course together right now, to establish safe technology for humanity and the environment. In a few short weeks, we must turn the tide of our future for decades to come.
Not only does SafeTech need you, the council needs you, and you need you. It is axiomatic: “We are all in this together. We stand at a historical moment: Be heard and be seen or be drowned out.” If we remain silent, we contribute to, over time, the destruction of ourselves and our environment. We, the people, have the power to level this tsunami before it’s too late.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Talking Points Overview……………………………………………..5
Ordinance Sections, Pages & Talking Points………………..……5-7
Background & Information
Lite Technical/Legal Information You Should Know………………7-8
Related Talking Points
STSBC Additional Asks: FTTP & Minimal Use of Power…………8-9
Minimal Use of Power
Approvals, Denials & Appeals……………………………………….10-12
STSBC Ask—Proof of Gap In Service
Persons Entitled to Notice(s) & Community Meetings……………12-13
Application Submittal Notice
High & Severe Fire Zones
Support Structure Preferences……………………………………….15-16
STSBC Talking Points
Encroachments Over Private Property……………………………….16-17
STSBC Talking Points
TABLE OF CONTENTS, CONT.
Affirmation of Radio Frequency Standards Compliance…………..17-18
STSBC Talking Points
TALKING POINTS OVERVIEW
The talking points below are taken from the ordinance directly which are the top precedents that we find unacceptable. We will also include additional asks we deem important that were not included in the draft. The ordinance sections and page numbers are included in case you want to look at the draft itself.
This ordinance has been processed through our city departments such as the Planning Commission, Public Works, Land Use, Architectural Review Board, etc. and has been reviewed by our city attorneys. Each department and staff person added their particular changes. Now it is our turn for further refinement and improvement. Seen through our eyes, where the rubber meets the road, our input is the last step before negotiations between our lawyer and the city attorneys. The very last step is the revised and final ordinance draft is handed over to city council for adoption. Public comment has two opportunities; in writing with the ordinance input, and speaking at city council’s public hearings on the ordinance adoption process. Letter writing, emails and voicing our input is what will produce the highest quality protective ordinance possible. This entire process takes some time, and we want this ordinance in place as soon as practicality allows.
NB:When you see “STSBC talking points you are welcome to use those as well for your own talking points.
ORDINANCE SECTIONS, PAGES AND TALKING POINTS
9.170.030 Definitions Pgs 3-7:
Familiarize yourself with the terms. You will want to know what they are talking about in this ordinance.
Background and introduction P 1, paragraph 2:
ALERT!!—Telecom plans to install 30-60 towers per carrier. We currently have 3 carriers: Verizon, AT&T, T-Mobile/Sprint, each of them using different frequencies from the spectrum. There are other carriers forming. THIS MEANS WE WOULD HAVE A MINIMUM OF 2400 TOWERS IN OUR TOWN UP TO 4800 TOWERS. THESE NUMBERS DO NOT INCLUDE THE COUNTY AND ITS UNINCORPORATED AREAS, SUCH AS MONTECITO.
Related Talking Points
This is an enormous quantity of radiating towers. If you add in the satellites and their millions of attendant earth stations, macro towers, individual towers, antennas on buildings, antennas on utility wirelines, not to mention cell phones on the street, wireless devices in our homes and offices, WiFi and Bluetooth in our cars and every building, it is a colossal exposure which we have never had in all of human history. WE MUST CONTROL THIS ROLLOUT AND REDUCE OUR EXPOSURE!!
The macro towers which are being upgraded as we speak are entirely capable of delivering the personal wireless services we all need without a gap in service. These upgrades allow for faster download speeds, particularly indoors where we would use them the most. All of our personal wireless services are already being met through these existing macro towers. There is no legal nor technological supportable reason to have all of these small wireless towers installed, everywhere we live, work and recreate. Perhaps in those regions where data is critical—businesses both large and smaller, and university campuses—but the truth is, big business, smaller margin businesses and individual homes with their businesses there, are moving over to Fiber Optics for obvious reasons: data security, speed of light downloads, privacy and cyber security. Since 8 miles of fiber is being run per square mile, it’s not that big a leap to run it to the premises. Using Fiber optics does not constitute an “effective prohibition” on the new technology. It installs it wisely for effective and intelligent use.
The short sightedness of tech for short term financial gain avoids the short, medium and long term harms to the atmosphere, the environment, privacy and sovereignty over one’s life. This doesn’t even mention the bio-effects “now made illegal for a basis for denial of a tower”. These biological issues, well established by science, are there, no matter what industry says. Because Industry has not allotted one dollar to safety research on all this invisible radiation, it is as Senator Richard Blumenthal said, “5G is one giant experiment. We are all flying blind here.”
Lite Technical/Legal information you should know:
In the words of Scott McCullough in his August 24, 2020 memo to Kramer on the behalf of Malibu, “Response to Kramer Memo on “5G Wireless Technology and Small Cells”, he states,
“5G can easily operate on the traditional lower bands used for cellular service and connect solely through macrocells, especially when it is supporting the “covered” “personal wireless service” that is given special protection from local regulation under state and federal law.
The industry plans to install 800,000 new sites, and most of them will be small cells that will support what is anticipated to be up to 50 billion “Internet of Things” (“IoT”) devices that will not use or rely on covered services. 4G was built to connect “covered” people. 5G is all about connecting non-covered “things.” “Covered” people are a mere afterthought.
…Most people will not need the advanced 5G-provided features and functions, especially if they have fiber-based wired Internet at home.”
What industry does not tell the public is that – at least in the beginning – the 5G business case centers on “corporate” and government, and depends on models that give rise to significant individual privacy concerns. For example, industry mentions “streaming video” but somehow omits that a very large amount of that will be surveillance video from wireless cameras in public areas that silently capture every move and record faces and license plates for future identification. The network will also have advanced capabilities that precisely identify and record the location of every user device (including privately-owned IoT devices in refrigerators and children’s toys), and capture immense amounts of “transactional” data (and sometimes even content) from each device. All this personal information will be available for correlation, identification and sale to third parties, including the government. 5G will lead to more intrusive tracking and private data exploitation by large and mostly-unseen companies and the government. The early money for 5G will come from surveillance and the sale of people’s private information, not revenue earned from voice, texts or push-to-talk capability.
We want to emphasize an important legal issue: while a 5G small cell can be used to support traditional mobile service, 5G small cells mostly exist to support services, features and functions other than those protected by state and federal preemptive provisions.”
Scott McCullough, cont.
“Industry hypes “4K movies” “emails,” “browsing the Internet,” “self-driving cars,” “tele-medicine” and “and ever increasing amounts of streaming videos.” While many individuals do enjoy these capabilities, none of them are part of “personal wireless service” or even a telecommunications service and the preemptive provisions in 47 U.S.C. 253 and 332(c)(7) do not apply to those services in isolation. Each of the aforementioned services is an “information service” or a “private mobile service” under federal law and not “personal wireless service” under federal law or “wireless telecommunications service” under California law.
Voice, texting and push-to-talk are “covered services”; Internet, email, IoT, M2M, streaming video, real-time navigation and telemedicine are not covered services. These are all potentially interesting products for those who are willing to accept the associated privacy implications, but the City is not required to allow a small cell to be built in a residential area merely so some people can enjoy these products while residents suffer the adverse visual and privacy effects and reduced property values that accompany new wireless installations.”
STSBC—additional asks: FTTP and Use of Minimum Power
We want Fiber Optics to the Premises/Fiber Optics to the Home
FTTP/FTTH is on the uptick now with big business, mid and smaller sized businesses catching on to the superb service and security Fiber Optics provide. Many homes are also installing Fiber Optics and with more businesses being run from home, the need for secure data is growing at a rapid rate. AT&T is expanding their installations of fiber now that they see the profit margins. FTTP is incomparable and the best choice available today. No longer is information available through the airways for all and anyone to hack, it is shielded and delivered safely and swiftly to it’s destination. With Fiber Optics, everybody wins, including the environment.
STSBC Talking Point: FTTP is not Functionally Equivalent to Wireless
Industry wants us to believe that FTTP and Wireless are functional equivalents. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Where Fiber Optics functions at the speed of light, is hard wired, secure, shielded, not a fire ignition source, is reliable, less expensive and not subject to most earth events,
Wireless is utterly unreliable, is subject to weather, fails in emergencies, is subject to random failures, its equipment a fire ignition source, is completely insecure, is slower and inconsistent, inefficient and invasive, it is obviously inferior and cannot be compared to wireless.
If anyone wants good information on FTTP go to POTSANDPANSBLOG.com and enter “FTTP” in the search bar.
Is it not ironic that we are going through all of this work and enormous expense and time, to produce a regulatory/protective ordinance? If we were installing FTTP, no protective ordinance would have to be established. It is evident we are dealing with a force that in inherently unsafe.
Use of Minimum Power—47 U.S. Code sect. 324: in the Telecommunications Act June 19, 1934, Ch. 652, Title 111, sect. 324, 48 Statute 1091
“In all circumstances, except in case of radio communications or signals relating to vessels in distress, all radio stations, including those owned and operated by the United States, shall use the minimum amount of power necessary to carry out the communication desired.” All Small Wireless Communications Facilities are “radio stations.”
The so named “small wireless facilities” are anything but small. They transmit excessive Effective Radiated Power. To provide 5 bars on a cell phone, minimum power is required which can be as low as 0.01 watt.
9.170.090 Approvals, Denials and Appeals, P 11, #5
“The proposed project is ‘essential to or desirable for the public convenience or welfare’.
What is the proof for “essential”? Essential is “personal wireless services”, not data. “Essential” is voice, texting or push to talk. If any of these services do not occur within a given area, that would constitute a “gap in service”. No one should be without service. A genuine gap constitutes a need. (See STSBC ask: proof of gap in service below)
However, the new networks are not so much about essential services as they are about data, the Internet of Things, and Artificial Intelligence applications. While they hype all the cool things we can do with our cell phones and computers, on the back end they are feeding their special interests, which are not under the regulation of the FCC.
Data is not essential. It may be useful, interesting in special applications, but there are other ways to fulfill data needs. Understand “data” is a two way street. You may want data, but telecom is gathering data from you. That is it’s backdoor intention—to gather every shred of transactional data from your living, and sometimes content. This “gathering of data” is an insidious form of surveillance as it can watch utterly every thing you do and every move you make. Marketers/retailers are already making baby diapers with antenna in them. Not only is this an outrageous danger to perpetrate against a baby’s delicate body, is it anybody’s business what is going on inside your home? To industry, the quality of your life and your Constitutionally protected privacy means nothing. Making money off of you is everything. Industry will turn around, sell your private information to large corporations and the government. It’s called “surveillance capitalism”. The silent and invisible costs to us is enormous and largely unknown. For one, our basic dignity is destroyed.
In dealing with the telecoms and the FCC, language is critical. The two agencies change language and terms willy nilly to throw the people and the leaders off, to expand their reach, and to render the discarded language useless in court. No one is ever warned about the changes in wording, nor the changes in definitions and use of terms. We just “happen upon” it, and realize they’ve pulled another layer of wool over the eyes. Industry is trying to install these towers to “increase capacity”, not coverage. There is a very real need for greater capacity, but it is arguable if the massive number of towers are needed to increase capacity, and it is questionable if capacity everywhere has to be increased.
STSBC ask: Proof of Gap in Service
The telecoms already have very sophisticated software and simple ways to measure a gap in service with drive-by, real time measurements. Every single call is recorded in real time and the number of dropped calls measured. These records should be made available to the approval authority so that a true “gap in service” can be proven. If a gap is proven, then the least intrusive means are to be used to fill that gap in covered services.
Per Scott McCullough: “State and federal law require the City to allow a new facility only if the provider can demonstrate that it has a significant gap in coverage of its covered services, and further proves the proposed facility will be the least intrusive means to fill the gap in covered services. To be sure, once the facility is approved and installed the provider can also use it to supply non-covered services, but the City is not required to allow the facility if the gap-filling “need” relates only to the non-covered services.”
9.170.090 Approvals, Denials and Appeals, P 11, #6
“The proposed project…would not be materially adverse to public peace, health, safety, comfort or general welfare, and will not materially affect property values in the neighborhood.”
Real estate values are significantly impacted by a close up cell tower. HUD refers to them as a “nuisance” and many analysis and real estate professional publications state property values are dropping between 20-30%. This is a significant loss to an owner. This statement in the ordinance bears the question of just how is the city going to preserve property values in the neighborhood by installing cell towers? Again, there’s not a lot space from the Public Rights of Way to a property line. A tower in the majority of neighborhoods will end up right next to and/or in front of homes.
It is also of great interest “health, safety, comfort or general welfare” are stated several times throughout the ordinance, yet real health effects and personal safety from Radio Frequency injury is ignored. Just because something is invisible doesn’t mean it’s not there. And just because we can’t taste, smell, hear or feel it, also doesn’t mean it’s not there let alone biologically active. We dumb ourselves down if we think that way at all. If any of us have heard the words, “atoms, quarks, strings, ions and photons” to name a few, we can all agree we cant see, taste, hear, or feel any of these, but it doesn’t mean they aren’t there nor highly active and influential, when indeed, they are.
STSBC ask: How will property values be protected from close proximity tower installations when streets, sidewalks and property lines are typically close to each other? Proximity of towers is of great concern to sellers and buyers.
Persons Entitled To Notice and Community Meetings: Pgs 5, 9—very important.
Persons to be notified about a potential cell tower installation—
notification to those who live within 300 feet of the proposed facility, as suggested by the ordinance, is not sufficient. We suggest notification within 1000 -1500 feet of the tower. How far do these tower emissions travel? 1 to 2 miles…
Persons notified about a community meeting regarding a potential cell tower installation is limited to the same 300 feet. We recommend 1000-1500 feet.
Public Notice: Pgs.10-11, A-D
- Posted Notice: This precedent addresses signage set at a location of a proposed tower. A 2’x3’ sign will be visible from the public rights-of-way and of course alerts the departments that signage has been posted.
Related talking points: this is a very weak precedent. It helps the city departments know of the site location, but is it really going to be noticed by the public? The point for us behind these signs is to get in public comment whether in writing or online hearings as soon as we are aware of the proposals. Appeals are available before they are exhausted so we need to get in on them earlier than later.
The city needs to supply a master plan of these towers instead of posting a sign at the site of a proposed tower. It’s so random and haphazard, how would anyone know a tower was proposed for that location, and would it even be noticed by someone who understands the meaning of it? We cannot all be everywhere at once. Let’s make this easier on the people. The reason they do not is because telecom wrote this draft ordinance. It’s weighted in their favor. It is true getting the people involved slows down their warp speed progress and makes more work for the officials, but it is our lives, after all.
B) Application Submittal Notice—within 10 days of receiving an application and before any approval, the city will mail public notice to all persons entitled. It will include appeal information.
Related Talking Point: This is again, the 300 foot limit. We ask for 1000-1500 feet.
C) Public Hearing Notice(s)
Related Talking Point: Again, those within the 300 foot radius will receive notice to attend the hearing and make public comment. They will also publish the notice in at least one newspaper of general circulation in the city and will include date, time and place of hearing. (This is an improvement and to extend the footage limit to a much larger one would be significant.
D) Public Notice Content: the general project description requires photo simulations along with contact information and whether a public hearing will be required for the application or not.
Related Talking Points: The Photo simulations from past records are useless. They are not labeled as to what street, cross street or address the proposed tower will be, or what the tower looks like in relation to the location. This should be accurate, a true record of what will be, and they need to be PHOTOS OF OUR AREA not some generic photo from another city.
Again, persons entitled to notification are within the 300 foot radius. We think 1000-1500 feet is far more sensible. Perhaps not for the city, but for the people it is.
STSBC Additional Ask: The question needs to be asked, does the public notice content include the company actually doing the work as DBA, (doing business as) for the carrier/service provider? That contact information also needs to be provided the public. The DBA is the permittee. All pertinent information pertaining to the permittee should be in the content.
9.170.100 Location Standards: Pages 14-16—VIP to understand.
For starters, take a look at the types of roads described by CalTrans starting at the bottom of page 4, Q, to page 5, T. Read this to lock in the roads in your area and around the city. This will alert you as to where the city is looking to install towers. You can see the city first prefers locations on state highways and manufacturing zones and with each subsequent listing, the preference declines. Sounds pretty good. There are problems.
SB is very small. We have mixed areas everywhere—residential with business and commercial, residential with manufacturing, residential with schools, hospitals, parks and service businesses. The “preferred location” could be a slippery “set up”, because of all the mixed zones.
So what are your thoughts starting with s to y—these involve parks and recreation areas. Do we want any cell towers near our parks and recreation areas? Do understand the already existing Macro Towers further away from where we live, work and enjoy recreation, serve our needs already. We do not need all these smaller facilities close up wherever we are, to be served with wireless communications. Because 4G, which we have been using the last ten years, is being upgraded to 4.1G LTE Advanced, it works quite well. (The fact about 5G is it fails the moment you enter a building. It will default immediately to 4G, which is always there). The carriers say 5G is mostly for “outdoor use”.
The “preferred and discouraged locations” will give you the bigger picture of what the city or telecom intends, but we will be fiercely protective of neighborhoods and high fire areas.
No Cell Towers in Residential areas except minimal installation for First Responder Stations located in neighborhoods. We highly recommend FTTP for those who want the new network additional services. Otherwise, the macro towers serve everyone quite well in personal wireless services.
No Cell Towers in High Fire and Severe Fire zones
Due to the combustable nature of these towers and their vulnerability to lightning strikes, earth events and collisions, and the fact that their backup systems are more likely to be diesel fuel, we strongly recommend no towers, or a minimal number of towers installed. for First Responder support, In high to severe fire residential areas, FTTP will avoid this ignition source.
Wireless services do have their place and new applications are being developed and/or approved in time. However, the fire department makes good use of drones and satellites to analyze terrain in the back country. Towers, unless significantly requested by First Responders should be considered only where a significant gap in service exists. Keep in mind the new networks are not about personal wireless services. They are about data, such as M2M communications, telemedicine, live streaming video, the Internet of Things, (IoT), Artificial Intelligence, (AI) and self driving cars. None of this applies to emergency services except in controlled applications.
Support Structure Preferences P. 16
Understand that the ordinance prefers to put antennas and equipment on existing structures such as monuments, kiosks, bus shelters and other street furniture.
Next, antennas and equipment would be installed on existing or replacement streetlights. We have some of these on State Street, Anacapa Street and other roads. Verizon is slated to put their equipment on street lights.
If no signage exists at these sites, how will persons be made aware of the radiation? If you are not aware of the presence of this equipment, you’ll be sitting in its radiation full strength.
STSBC Talking Points: What is the necessity of this over whelming number of antennas and their equipment? Are we feeding every individual mobile device with a private set of frequencies? We know that is not the case, though eventually beam forming will be coming. We also know that 4G which is the backbone of the new networks is sufficiently present from the macro towers, a distance away from us. What is this in-your-face up-close proximity all about? Does it not raise your sense of “over-kill”? This much radiation, when added together with satellites, their attendant earth stations, towers and antennas everywhere, mobile devices all over the streets and in our buildings, and all the wireless devices we have in our homes and buildings, is it not clear that we have thrust ourselves into a drenching, non stop, pulsating, unprecedented, unnatural, inescapable radio waved biosphere? Is this not beyond natural evolution? Is this tested for safety? The answer flat out is “NO!”. Is this what you want for your children, your grandchildren, pregnant women, your pets? Already sterility in young men is over 30 percent. What in the world are we doing?!
Encroachments Over Private Property P. 17, #2
“Towers are not to be place directly in front of any door or window”.
STSBC talking points:
In speaking with a Verizon RF Design Engineer, they prefer to pick a “side of the house” rather than the front. What if that side is where your bedrooms are? What if you have a two story home with your bedrooms upstairs. Second stories on up is where the radiation is at it’s strongest. They can also be installed at the back of your property where you might enjoy BBQ, playing outside and gardening in the back yard.
No matter where the tower is installed, it would be radiating down on you close up. You’d never escape it, you’d be sleeping in it when your body needs to drop down to the Earth’s Resonance, which is an extremely low frequency (7.83 Hz, or 7.83 pulses per second). The tower, your indoor routers, awake and charging cell phones and all our other wireless devices, will be pulsating, non-stop, at billions of times a second all over the inside of your home, while you are trying to sleep. Is it no wonder we are a sleep deprived society who at younger and younger ages are developing the illnesses that used to strike only the elderly.
Food for Thought
Though legally, local leaders cannot decline an installation based on health effects, health effects can certainly be spoken about in public comment to educate and alert them. Once alerted, they can never say they didn’t know.
We are aware that in the very near future bio effects will surmount the denial. By then, too many people will be ill. The sheer volume of need will easily overwhelm the medical and mitigation systems available. We need to halt this disaster before it crushes us. To see before hand will often be subject to ridicule, then outright denial and suppression, until the truth becomes undeniably visible. Then the facts become accepted as self evident. Cigarettes, lead and asbestos are good examples.
Affirmation of Radio Frequency Standards Compliance- P. 41, #24
The ordinance states “that the permittee shall submit an affirmation under penalty of perjury, that the PROPOSED INSTALLATION will be FCC compliant because it will not cause members of the general public to be exposed to RF levels that exceed the maximum permission exposure levels deemed safe by the FCC.”
STSBC Talking Points and Asks
This precedent needs significant changes. It is very easy on paper for the permittee to state the proposed tower will be compliant with FCC standards. The real proof is in its operation. Andrew Campinelli, attorney in New York, litigates this very issue finding most of the towers in operation exceed the FCC standards.
STSBC is asking for independent, real time field testing and ongoing monitoring of the operating towers, not a proposed, non-existent facility. The field testing should be unannounced so no adjustments could be made to the tower emissions. This is the only factual means of determining if the tower is compliant. Monitoring would assure that compliance is consistent and establish a warning the moment it is out of compliance. The cost of these services shall be passed to the permittee.
The statement above addressing that this compliance will not cause members of the general public to be exposed to RF levels that exceed the maximum permission (should be “Permissible”) exposure levels deemed safe by the FCC, is undergoing multiple law suits and requests for review of the FCC’s “safety” standards
‘The FCC’s “safety standards” are not only 10,000 times higher in the US than in any other part of the world, those standards are arrived at by outdated analog signal strengths. These standards have not been changed since 1961, long before we had digital signals. Today, analog, which is an averaged ever-present steady signal, is extinct. Digital, which is pulsed and modulated, functions in “peak mode”, which means it has spikes and drops in signal strength, millions to billions, soon to be trillions of times a second. If you ever want to see what 4G looks like on a graph, it would display a bed of nails in varying heights, to tortuous to lay upon!
STSBC recognizes the FCC standards are fraudulent and therefore dangerous, from the start, thus any policy or standards built upon them, are also baseless.
However, until and unless the court cases overturn the FCC’s guidelines, we are stuck with them and must mitigate them as much as possible. Arguing against these safety guidelines are not fruitless. Arguments are educational and promotional, until we overturn the unscientific and obsolete methods of measurements used by the FCC.
Insurance, pgs 36-37, #14 a-g
The Commercial General Liability, Automotive Insurance, Workers’ Com[, Errors and Omissions, Umbrella, Endorsements, Certificates all seem boiler plate and will be reviewed by our legal counsel. Our lawyer is an expert in insurance.
There are however, two major omissions in this ordinance that must be addressed: Insurance for DBA’s inadequate financials and a Pollution Exclusion Policy.
DBA’s are often shell companies having insufficient financial substance to remunerate plaintiffs in a law suit. This is not accidental. The shell company collapses as planned, the case is moved to the carrier whose particular corporation is not licensed to do business in CA, and then reneges on any responsibility. (Verizon for instance has several companies, not all of which are licensed to do business in CA. One has to check to see which one is on the insurance policy as the carrier). It’s an easy detail to miss, but massive in its import. Our lawyer is particularly keen on these two issues and will fight to strengthen these precedents to save the city from significant liability.
STSBC Talking Points
The city should obtain all financials from the DBA and know which corporation or company the carrier is using. The city should demand the highest level of insurance available in the event of a law suit.
Telecoms are not insurable. Lloyds of London determined any and all claims related to EMF exposure will be excluded, (Exclusion Clause 32) and established it across the board. No insurance company insures Telecoms for such claims, leaving it in Industry’s hands to purchase private insurance. Lloyds refers to EMF’s as an “Environmental Pollutant”, and private insurers, of which right now there are only two (though it could be changed now), offer what is called a “Pollution Exclusion Policy”. The city should demand of the carriers/permittees carry a Pollution Exclusion Policy in the event an individual or individuals sue the city from injuries sustained by exposure to Radio Frequency Radiation. The dollar value of the policy will be discussed with the city by our lawyer.
We however, can speak up to this issue to the leaders, and make it known they are placing themselves at risk without such coverage. The harms are foreseeable. As our lawyer said we all have to have auto insurance to drive. It doesn’t mean we will get into an accident, but in the event there is one, we are covered. The same applies to this situation.
Bonds are rarely established and are an excellent idea. Immunity is complex legal material. Both of these are best addressed by our attorney.