If you are not familiar with Piedmont, CA, it is a lovely family-oriented community nestled in the Oakland hills. It is is only 1.7 square miles and contains 11,000 residents who moved there for the great schools and the jewel of the community: Piedmont Park, which is adjacent to the Elementary, Middle and High Schools has the city’s great Piedmont Sports Field (Witter Field) used for organized baseball, football, and soccer.

The city of Piedmont is basically an island, surrounded not by water, but by the City of Oakland, a host to many Verizon cell phone towers that adequately serve the area. At present, there are no Verizon cell towers in Piedmont, but that’s not a problem, because Verizon Wireless customers who live in or travel to Piedmont have adequate cellular coverage for making calls and texts whenever and wherever they want — connecting to the Verizon cell towers already installed in adjacent communities.

The following video is substantial evidence that there is no significant gap in Verizon Wireless Coverage for making calls and text in the residential areas of Piedmont, CA where Crown Castle and Verizon wish to install nine full-power cell towers at the height of second story bedroom windows. Therefore, the Piedmont City Council must defend the CA Constitution and protect their residents by denying all nine of these Crown Castle/Verizon Residential Cell Tower applications. We prepared and delivered substantial testimony to the Piedmont City Council on Mon 10/2/17 (video here).

We applied the correction factor for high-speed, pulsed, digital microwaves from CDMA and 4G/LTE, per the GigaHertz Solutions’ product manual and product video.

California Constitution

ARTICLE I DECLARATION OF RIGHTS

SECTION 1. All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

SECTION. 2. (a) Every person may freely speak, write and publish his or her sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of this right. A law may not restrain or abridge liberty of speech or press.

SECTION. 3.(a) The people have the right to instruct their representatives, petition government for redress of grievances, and assemble freely to consult for the common good.

From the City of Piedmont Web Site:

The public hearing on applications for Wireless Communication Facilities Permits and Variances submitted by Crown Castle NG West LLC and Beacon Development has been scheduled for 7:30 p.m. on October 2, 2017.

Crown Castle and Beacon Development filed applications in November 2016 for nine Verizon distributed antenna system wireless communication facilities, located generally around Piedmont Park and Piedmont High School.

Crown Castle is a company that builds wireless communications facilities and then leases them to wireless service providers, such as AT&T, T-Mobile, Sprint, and Verizon. The projects consist of

• Five installations [of microwave transmitters] on the tops of existing utility poles,
• Three installations [of microwave transmitters] on the tops of existing street light poles, and
• One installation [of microwave transmitters] on a new light.

The applicants have proposed that ground equipment related to the pole-top antennas be located in various locations including

• Cabinets shaped like mailboxes,
• Behind shrouds mounted on poles and street lights, and
• In underground vaults in the sidewalk.

The proposal will require review by both the Park Commission and Planning Commission, as well as final approval from the City Council.

Documents Linked to from City of Piedmont Web Site

• 10/02/17 – Crown Castle Distributed Antenna System (DAS) Application
• 10/02/17 – Crown Castle DAS Application — Attachments A – H (35MB File)
• 10/02/17 – Crown Castle DAS Application — Attachment I (45MB File)
• 10/02/17 – Crown Castle DAS Application — Attachments J-O

Note: For the the microwave transmitting antennas planned for these nine cell towers, the power output is over three times greater than that envisioned by the Wireless industry for so-called 4G/5G "Small Cells". Instead of about 500 feet, these microwave transmitters will transmit pulsed, data-modulated Radiofrequency 4G Microwave radiation (RF/MW radiation) about 1,750 feet. Of course, if the RF/MW radiation is not absorbed by any hills, homes, trees, people and pets in the path of this radiation, the RF/MW radiation will transmit much further.

Videos Linked to from City of Piedmont Web Site

1. Telecomm Law Firm at Special City Council Meeting: "Cell Tower College"
2. Telecomm Law Firm Webinar: "Wireless Communications Facility Webinar"

9/29/17 Email to John Tulloch, City Clerk of Piedmont

Date: September 29, 2017
To: Johh Tulloch
Re: Requesting City of Piedmont City-Council Bylaws

Thank for you talking with me today. I would appreciate it very much if you could forward to me today the City of Piedmont City-Council Bylaws so I can review how the Council might be able to handle public comments on agendized items during City Council meetings.

This need to understand the bylaws has come up based on my review of the video of the 8/21/17 Piedmont Special City Council meeting: a 30-minute presentation from Dr. Jonathon Kramer, a Telecomm industry lawyer, hired by the City of Piedmont to “educate” both the City Council members and Piedmdont residents:

Piedmont Mayor @ 1:40: “This is really background, Cell Phone 101 and you will get college credit for this course (laughter), as long as you pass the final.”

Piedmont City Manager @ 1:50: “This is a special meeting of the City Council. It was scheduled at the Council’s request, primarily to ensure that the Council is fully up to date with relative to wireless technology and all the drivers behind industry interest in small cell site installations . . . in addition we wanted to ensure that Council is advised as to State and Federal legal frameworks that impact Council decision-making. There are laws that restrict what cities can do at this level.”

You told me, Mr. Tulloch, that you expected Dr. Kramer would have presented unbiased information. I told you that I have had first-hand experience with Dr. Kramer and know that he has many different presentations that he gives depending on who is paying for his services and what conclusions these funders wish to communicate. His presentation on 8/21/17 was clearly a pro-Wireless industry presentation, designed to indoctrinate others into accepting the Wireless industry’s views.

This is evident in many places in Kramer’s 30-minute presentation but most assuredly in the presentation of the 12″ ruler slide discussing so-called RF/MW radiation “safety”.

The truth of the matter is that there are many flaws in the maximum permissible exposure guidelines set in 1996 by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) for pulsed, data-modulated RadioFrequency Microwave radiation (RF/MW radiation), including the fact that the FCC itself says on it’s own web site that

   “At the present time there is no federally-mandated radio frequency (RF) exposure standard.”

   https://www.fcc.gov/general/fcc-policy-human-exposure

The 1986 National Commission on Radiation Protection document (NCRP Report No. 86, Biological Effects and Exposure Criteria for Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields), NCRP-86.pdf (forwarded in a separate email), used by the FCC to set its commercial guideline (not a safety guideline) for RF/MW radiation exposures discussed problems at many different power levels of RF/MW radiation — at power levels high enough to heat living tissue and at power levels much, much lower than that. Mr. Kramer made his comparisons only to power levels that would heat tissue and insinuated that being 50 times lower than that arbitrary level would be “safe”. Mr. Kramer was very loose in his use of his terms of “safe” and “safety” to the point of misleading both the City Council members and the Piedmont residents.

The tens of thousands of substantial scientific studies completed both prior to and after 1986, many of them peer-reviewed, have proven time and time again that the FCC RF/MW radiation guidelines are nonsense and are not protective, so they can never be accurately referred to as safety guidelines.

The National Toxicology Program’s 16-year $25 million study on the subject released its results in 2016: significantly higher levels of brain cancer, heart cancer, DNA damage and pre-tumors for test animals exposed to RF/MW radiation at power levels far below that which would cause tissue heating; see Findings from the National Toxicology Program Carcinogenesis Studies of Cell Phone Radiofrequency Radiation (2016-0623-NTP-RFR-Carciogenesis-055699.pdf — forwarded in a separate email). Control animals had no brain or heart tumors.

The lack of mention of any of this substantial information in Jonathon Kramer’s presentation belies its real purpose — to mislead the City Council and the residents of Piedmont.

For this reason, the residents of Piedmont are requesting the Council allow them equal time by pooling their discussion time on the Crown Castle/Verizon agendized topic (10 people x 3 minutes each = 30 minutes) to allow their hired expert to deliver a presentation of the highest quality on the scientific and legal aspects of so-called Small Cell Wireless installations — including the City’s need to not violate Federal ADA laws, which will happen, if the City of Piedmont allows small cells to operate as very similar Crown Castle/Verizon small cells in Palo Alto are already operating today.

The goal is for the City Council to understand the most accurate information, and that the FCC regulations that they think might shield them from liability will not do so in the end. We have substantial letters by trial lawyer Harry Lehmann that have already been entered into the CA public record on this very topic. We will enter these same letters into the City of Piedmont public record on 10/2/17.

Melding private antennas on public property in the public right of way creates a dangerous condition of public property, that Piedmont could avoid by, instead, encouraging fiber-optic cables to every home for broadband internet connections. Wireless is appropriate for making emergency calls and text (something Piedmont residents can already do), but is not appropriate for delivering high-definition or 4k video — that task is handled much more efficiently, reliably and safely (with no RF/MW radiation) via fiber optic cables — a network upgrade that Piedmont residents already paid for on their landline telephone bills from 1994 to the present.

AT&T and Verizon both fraudulently diverted these billions already collected for the express purpose of upgrading the public switched wireline network from copper to fiber optic — they illegally diverted the funds collected from their Title II-regulated Wireleline entities to their unregulated Wireless entities.

What did AT&T Wireless and Verizon Wirless do with these billions collected from customers? They installed fiber-optic cables only to their cell towers so they could get out from under the very regulations that were in place to protect the public. In circumventing this regulation, AT&T and Verizon are making obscene revenues (an average of $620,000 per year, per cell tower) and profits. Instead of an unlimited stream of data at 1,000 Megabits per second for about $25 a month (like they have in Russia or South Korea), we are being asked to pay much higher rates for 2GB to 5GB Wireless data plans and to endure all that unnecessary, toxic Wireless radiation that tramples Piedmont residents’ inalienable rights to safety and privacy. This is well-explained at articles/posts at the three links, below:

• http://scientists4wiredtech.com/2017/04/palo-alto-4g-small-cells/
• http://scientists4wiredtech.com/2017/03/rfr-hazards/
• http://scientists4wiredtech.com/2017/09/open-letter-to-ca-legislators-about-sb649/

Thank you for talking with me and for sending the bylaws today.

Testimony for 10/2/17

Group A: 
1. Stephen K - Intro: Aesthetics, Property Values and ADA Violations
2. Lisa C -    No Significant Gap in Verizon Coverage
3. Erin R -    Overlapping RF/MW radiation was not considered; legal challenges to small cells
4. Sophia H -  Introduce and play the two-minute video we filmed yesterday
5. Peter H -   Techncial Shortcoming in Crown Castle RF Radiation Report
6. Paul M -    1996-TCA: Preemption only applies to placement, construction and modification, not operations

Group B:
7.  Matt N -     Summation, CA Constitution and Introduce Fiber Optics  
8.  Lorraine C - Refute expert Jonathon Kramer's statement re: Significant Gap
9.  Kirsten M -     Refute expert Jonathon Kramer's statement re: Prohibition of Service
10. Mary W-      Refute expert Jonathon Kramer's statement re: Denial of Cell Sites
11. Tom L-       Refute expert Jonathon Kramer's statement re: RF Safety
12. SN  -        EMS Barriers of Access to home

Group C:
13. Jonathon B - National Toxicology Study
14. Stan S -    Neil Cherry Soviet Embassy Personnel Study/Analysis
15. Kim K -     Waldmann Tree Study
16. Hillary G - Self-compose
17. Joy N -     Self-compose
18. Wendy S -   Self-compose

Group A

1. Stephen K: (385 words in two and a half minutes)

We are asking you to deny the Crown Castle Applications. The Piedmont General Plan reminds all of us that “The City of Piedmont is renowned throughout the SF Bay Area for its beautiful neighborhoods, high quality homes, excellent schools, attractive parks, responsive City Services and small town charm. These qualities have defined the City since its incorporation more than a century ago. They make Piedmont an exceptional place, unique among the cities of the East Bay.” If you approve these applications, these qualities will greatly suffer as this city will transform into an Industrial Park. We are calling on you to safeguard the character of our city and protect the citizenry whom you serve.

Aesthetics: The revised sites are still bulky and unsightly. If approved, the charm and character of this community will be forever lost. The proposed cell sites would be situated as close as 15 feet from bedroom windows, block views and eliminate our opportunity to ever underground our utilities.

Property Values: I previously entered evidence into the public record that Cell Antennas located near homes reduce property values from 10% to 20%; this is supported by many real estate surveys and by local realtors. The California Constitution states that all people have inalienable rights including protecting property. Piedmont City Code Ch. 17.46.010 indicates that "The regulations are designed to protect and promote public safety and community welfare, property values and the character and aesthetic quality of the city.” Approval of these cell tower applications, would violate these laws and principles.

ADA Compliance: Allowing antennas in neighborhoods violates the Americans with Disabilities Act, affecting the Electromagnetically Sensitive (‘EMS’) residents of Piedmont. Crown Castle is required to comply with the ADA and yet these cell sites create an access barrier for EMS-disabled residents to their homes and communities; EMS has been recognized by the U.S. Access Board since 2002 and is considered a protected, disabled characteristic. A California State survey conducted in 1998 revealed that 1.1 million Californians were very sensitive to electromagnetic radiation. The 428 El Cerrito Site is very close to my home and my wife has EMS to the extent that our Smart Meter had to be removed as the RF/MW radiation emissions were severely incapacitating her. If Crown Castle insists on installing this antenna in my neighborhood, they will not be complying with the ADA. If the City Council members approve these cell tower applications knowing about ADA noncompliance, they would be complicit.

2. Lisa C: (330 words in two minutes)

On September 30, 2017 I filmed a video with other Piedmont residents documenting the planned cell tower locations, the RF microwave radiation levels and the ability to make emergency calls and texts using a Verizon cell phone at these locations. This video will be entered as evidence in the public record to prove that there are no significant coverage gaps in Verizon service for calls or texts where nine Verizon cell towers are being proposed.

This video is substantial evidence that the City of Piedmont can use to deny all nine cell towers on the Crown Castle applications. There is also no need for these towers to be placed on residential streets around the park and schools. The least intrusive means for Verizon to improve or modernize its cellular service for Piedmont is to focus on upgrading their existing cell towers that are outside of the boundaries of the 1.7 square miles of Piedmont, which is about 1,100 acres.

This map shows the locations of the proposed cell towers. Nine high-power antennas are proposed in a small part of Piedmont. Each antenna will be broadcasting to 640 acres or more, but concentrated in a small portion of our city which is too much.

The conclusion is that there are no significant gaps in cellular coverage, so per the 1996 Telecommunications Act, there is no basis for continued pre-emption of local authority. Piedmont is not prohibiting the provision of wireless service. Verizon Wireless service is already present in Piedmont and therefore Verizon cannot force these cell towers into Piedmont and the City has every right to simply say no.

3. Erin R: (325 words in two minutes)

Nine high-power microwave transmitters in just 5% of Piedmont? Each antenna would be broadcasting RF/MW radiation to its surrounding 640 acres or more. The RF/MW radiation from these nine cell towers will overlap, which is not addressed in Hammet and Edison’s RF/MW radiation report — a report that only treats each microwave transmitter in isolation.

Piedmont’s own hired Telecomm industry expert, Attorney Jonathon Kramer from the Telecom law firm, is projecting 68 neighborhood Cell Towers for Piedmont. Each of these microwave transmitters would be broadcasting overlapping RF/MW radiation 24/7, unnecessarily. That would be a disaster for Piedmont and for similar communities across California and the US. That is why cities in the states of Ohio and Texas have already sued their state governments over Small Cell Bills that are similar to CA SB.649. Ohio has already vacated their Small Cell bill, Texas will be next and if Governor Brown does not veto SB.649, law suits will be filed in California.

68 so-called small cell microwave transmitters installed throughout Piedmont, which is 90% residential, just so Verizon, AT&T and others can compete against Comcast to attempt to sell us a Wireless television subscriptions is a gross overreach by an already obscenely profitable industry. Wireless video transmission is an economic activity that is not an essential activity — and therefore does not qualify for preemption of local authority. Essential activities are making emergency calls or texts and we can already do that using Verizon cell phones in Piedmont.

Non-essential activities are entertaining ourselves by watching sports highlights, movies, sitcoms and cat videos. Do you see the difference? So does Congress. None of the wireless industry pleas for “capacity” is covered in the black letter laws passed by Congress: the 1996 Telecommunications Act or the 2012 Spectrum Act. These laws only deal with wireless coverage and in Piedmont, Verizon Wireless coverage is complete as will be shown in the two-minute video that serves as substantial evidence of this coverage.

4. Sophia H: (65 words in 20 seconds; play the video for two minutes or for as long as you can)

Residential Cell Towers is not want Piedmont residents want for their community whether that is 68, 9 or 3 Cell Towers. Not when there is no need for them. Understand the difference between coverage and capacity. Preemption only applies to coverage, not capacity. This video proves that there is no significant gap in coverage for Verizon Wireless customers in Piedmont to make calls and texts.

Evidence: Play the video

5. Peter H: (450 words in three minutes)

I reviewed Crown Castle’s application, their RF exposure study[1], and the antenna specifications. I have a number of issues with the study:

First, there is a mistake in that the total power in the analysis is one quarter of what is written in the application. Scaling the 560 Watt in the study to the 2200 Watts in the application, the report should say 29% exposure [2] for a person in a nearby home, equivalent to continuously holding a cell phone just 2 cm from their head.

Second, the lack of municipal control is a serious issue. As Piedmont is required by California and federal law to safeguard its community, I see no provisions for this. For example,
– The City should be able to monitor the microwave radiation levels on the sidewalks and nearby houses;
– The City should be able to turn off the transmitters if unsafe, or even to protect city workers when changing the light bulb.

Third, the Piedmont study is inconsistent with other studies. The study claims a person in a nearby home will get 7.5% of the FCC limit, and a person on the sidewalk will get 2.2%.

This is remarkably low when compared to the Palo Alto study[5], in which the radiated power was 97 Watts and the exposure was 2.4% of the FCC limit. It’s hard to believe that Piedmont’s system can radiate over 5.5 times the power yet have less public exposure.
Finally, their study ignores all other RF sources adding: “There are reported no other wireless base stations at the site or nearby.”

Quoting their own report: “The maximum permissible exposure limits adopted by the FCC … apply for continuous exposures from all sources…”. Not just the base stations.

Cell phones held 1 cm from the head radiate at 100% of the FCC limit[3][4]. When we have people in nearby houses using cell phones, we must add exposures from both the cell phone and cell tower. And that exceeds the FCC limit.

I urge you reject the Crown Castle application.

References:

[1] CA-PHS02m3 Rev_2 RF Exposure Study

[2] 7.5% x (2200 / 560) = 29%

[3] Cell phone power measurements: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/major-cell-phone-radiation-study-reignites-cancer-questions

[4] CNET did some studies but did not publish data, referencing the warnings
in the packaging: https://www.cnet.com/news/cell-phone-radiation/

Google Nexus 5: "To comply with FCC/IC Rf exposure requirements a minimum separation distance of 0.49 inches (1cm) must be maintained between your body and the back of the phone."

Samsung Galaxy S5: "For body-worn operation, this phone has been tested and meets FCC RF exposure guidelines when used with an accessory that contains no metal parts and that positions the mobile device a minimum of 1.0cm from the body."

[5] Palo Alto planning documents (Crown Castle application) https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/49415

6. Paul M: (440 words in three minutes)

The two exhibits I just entered into the record are US Code citations: Exhibit A is Section 704 of the 1996 Telecommunications act and Exhibit B is Sections 6409(a) of the 2012 Spectrum Act. Both are examples of Blackletter law passed by the US Congress.

Black’s Law Dictionary, Ninth Edition defines this as —

Blackletter law. (18c) One or more legal principles that are fundamental and well settled. The term refers to the law printed in books set in Gothic type which is very bold and black.

Blackletter laws are the well-established legal rules that are no longer subject to reasonable dispute. Blackletter law is contrasted with legal theory or unsettled legal issues.

Only federal legislation passsed by our US Senators and US Representatives has the authority to preempt local officials’ duties, particularly when those duties pertain to the protection of public health and safety. Lower court judge’s interpretations cannot change Blackletter law. CA state and local elected officials, therefore, cannot simply be dissuaded from or decide not to regulate something when they are charged with such duties.

1. CA elected officials’ duties are proscribed by the US Constitution, CA Constitution and Federal, state and local laws — in that order

2. CA elected officials’ officials have each taken oaths to honor and uphold the Federal and CA State Constitutions.

3. Therefore, any activity not preempted by the Blackletter law of the 1996-TCA’s preemption clause remains under the authority of CA elected officials, despite opinions of lower court judges, who make mistakes all the time.

Anything that 1996-TCA did not mention remains under the authority of CA elected officials. So what’s not preempted by the 1996-TCA, meaning what must be regulated?

1. The regulation of any and all OPERATIONS of wireless facilities, for any and all reasons including the environmental effects of the RF radiation. In 1995/1996, the Congressional Committee declined to allow TCA’s passage, until the term "OPERATIONS" was left positively in the regulatory hands of state and local governments.

2. State and local officials’ regulation on the basis of anything having to do with health effects. Period. The adverse health effects from RF/MW Radiation exposures absolutely remains under the regulatory power of state and local officials, per FEDERAL LAW. "Environmental effects" are defined as those that occur outside, beyond, or not in or on the human body.

3. Speech of any kind, on any topic.

This is why you can no longer believe the fables, stories and propaganda put forth by the Wireless industry. They are operating outside the law and are aided and abetted by the FCC in doing so. FCC Regulations cannot and do not trump Blackletter law.

References:

332(c)(7) of Title 47 of the United States Code

(7) Preservation of local zoning authority

(A) General authority: Except as provided in this paragraph, nothing in this chapter shall limit or affect the authority of a State or local government or instrumentality thereof over decisions regarding the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities.

(B) Limitations:

   (i) The regulation of the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities by any State or local government or instrumentality thereof —

. . .

   (iv) No State or local government or instrumentality thereof may regulate the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the Commission’s regulations concerning such emissions.

47 U.S. Code §1455 – Wireless facilities deployment

(a) Facility modifications

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

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

   (A) collocation of new transmission equipment;

   (B) removal of transmission equipment; or

   (C) replacement of transmission equipment.

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

Group B

7. Matt N: (440words in three minutes)

Let’s review what we have already learned from the first speakers and talk about the duties of the Piedmont City Council with respect to the Crown Castle/Verizon Cell Tower Application.

1. We learned that the installation and 24/7 operation of the proposed nine Verizon cell towers would ruin the residential character and aesthetics of Piedmont, would significantly lower property values and would violate Federal ADA laws by not provding accommodations for EMS-disabled and sensitive people who live in Piedmont.

2. We learned that there is no significant gap in Verizon Wireless coverage and that coverage, not capacity, is the only test that allows preemption of local authority.

3. We learned that that streaming Wireless video is not an essential activity, only making emergency calls and texts is an essential Wireless activity. Only essential activities, such as the ability to make emergency calls/text can be used as justification for preemption of local authority.

4. We learned the analysis of the RF/MW radiation levels and patterns from these Cell Towers is based on a closed proprietary calculations and they are not consistent with the application or with other projects already completed by Crown Castle for Verizon.

5. Finlly we learned that the Operations of Cell phone towers, including the power levels and the hours of operations can and must be regulated by local authorities because only placement, construction and modification were pre-empted in the 1996 TCA.

The primary duties of the Piedmont City Council Members are to uphold the CA Constitution, which says:

California Constitution ARTICLE I DECLARATION OF RIGHTS

SECTION 1. All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

SECTION. 2. (a) Every person may freely speak, write and publish his or her sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of this right. A law may not restrain or abridge liberty of speech or press.

SECTION. 3.(a) The people have the right to instruct their representatives, petition government for redress of grievances, and assemble freely to consult for the common good.

This means that despite the Wireless industry-dominated advice dispensed by the City’s hired expert, Attorney Jonathon Kramer from Telecom Law Firm PC on 8/21/17, Piedmont is not just in the "aesthetics" business of time, place and manner, but firmly in the business of encouraging the most appropriate technology to benefit its citizens.

Fiber-optic cables installed to every home for unlimited 1,000 megagbit per second download speeds at reasonable rates for wired internet access is what Piedmont residents deserve from their Telecom companies. Everywhere where Google installed such fiber-optic cable from 2011 to 2016 enjoyed increased competition and economic activity.

8. Lorraine C: (380 words in about 2:30)

On 8/21/17, the Piedmont City Council held a special meeting called "Cell Tower College" and hired Dr. Jonathon Kramer, an attorney from Telecommm Law Firm PC in Los Angeles, to fly up and speak to the City Council members and the Piedmont residents. The video of the presentation is hosted on the City’s web site.

There were several statements Kramer made that showed that his presentation was clearly a pro-Wireless industry presentation, designed to indoctrinate others into accepting the Wireless industry’s views. We will address and rebut these statements with the next several speakers.

First are two statements Kramer made trying to lump Wireless capacity in with Wireless coverage, attempting to draw us all onto the Wireless industry’s playing field. Kramer was trying to establish that the Wireless industry’s desire for more Wireless capacity — in addition to the full coverage that is already in place — is a justification for preempting local authority. It is not.

Jonathon Kramer @ 09:05 in the video — "There are two really basic terms [you need to know], coverage and capacity . . . Coverage is simply the ability of a Wireless company to lay down a signal over an area . . . through FCC rule changes, more and more people started using cell phones, so that coverage was no longer just along major roadways and Interstate highways, it got into neighborhoods, like Piedmont."

Jonathon Kramer @ 10:15 in the video — "Now what’s happening today is capacity. Capacity says, well you’ve got a lot of cell site coverage, in the town, but not enough capacity on that coverage to actually provide all the services. So many of the Wireless companies are deploying what we now call ‘small cells’"

Unfortunately, stating the Wireless industry’s preference for delivering data to us in a way that maximizes their profits at the expense of the beauty and safety of our communities is an arrogant overreach.

We could all benefit from faster Internet to our homes, but there is a better way to deliver this data: fiber-optic cables — the same technology the Wireless companies use to deliver data to their cell towers. The Wireless Companies use fiber-optics because it is faster, more secure, more reliable and much more energy efficient than spraying data into the air 24/7. We can already use Verizon Wireless to make calls and texts. We would rather get faster, more secure Wireline Internet to our homes (via fiber optics) and then choose whether or not to run a wireless router in our homes. Some will and some won’t. The important point is that this option gives customers choice and does not forcibly expose everyone to 24/17 Wireless RF/MW microwave radiation from the curb just to get television or Internet service to our homes.

9. Kirsten M: (425 words in 3:00)

The issue of “significant gap” is one of the most important issues in any cell antenna application. The burden of proof for significant gap is on the carrier. If a significant gap is not proven, then cities do not have to grant access or approve a use-permit application. The following are some relevant court cases where judgments were in favor of local governments because a significant gap was not proven. A “significant gap” needs to be proven, not just a gap, per court rulings.

Jonathon Kramer @ 14:20 in the video — “The case Metro-PCS vs City and County of San Francisco said a significant gap in coverage belies a brightline test; lawyers in here know that means they have no idea, but if there is a significant gap then you have to allow [Wireless companies] to close the gap with the least intrusive means and they don’t tell us what that means.”

Not exactly, Jonathon.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in APT v. Penn Township [http://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/983519.txt](http://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/983519.txt) says on page 18: “First, the provider must show that its facility will fill an existing significant gap in the ability of remote users to access the national telephone network. In this context, the relevant gap, if any, is a gap in the service available to remote users. Not all gaps in a particular provider’s service will involve a gap in the service available to remote users. The provider’s showing on this issue will thus have to include evidence that the area the new facility will serve is not already served by another provider. Second, the provider applicant must also show that the manner in which it proposes to fill the significant gap in service is **the least intrusive on the values that the denial sought to serve. This will require a showing that a good faith effort has been made to identify and evaluate less intrusive alternatives, e.g., that the provider has considered less sensitive sites, alternative system designs, alternative tower designs, placement of antennas on existing structures, etc.**”

The Third Circuit has used its definition of a significant gap in many decisions. One of these decisions, Omnipoint v. Newtown (Pennsylvania), was appealed by Omnipoint to the U.S. Supreme Court. The key objection by Omnipoint was the Third Circuit’s definition of “significant gap.” The Supreme Court refused to hear that appeal, thereby letting the Third Circuit’s decision stand.

There is no significant gap in Piedmont for Verizon Wireless, so there is no reason to approve any of these Verizon Wireless Cell towers.

10. Mary W: (300 words in 2:00)

Prohibition of service is a non-issue in Piedmont because the video earlier shows that Verizon customers can make calls and texts at all the locations the proposed towers are intending to serve. There is already sufficient Verizon Wireless service in Piedmont.

Jonathon Kramer @ 13:47 in the video — "[Local communities] can’t prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of wireless service."

Jonathon Kramer @ 14:57 in the video — "When we are looking at prohibitions of service, this gets down into the mud as to whether denying a particular cell site will create a prohibition of service . . . the courts are all over the place on this."

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found, in Metro PCS vs. San Francisco, 2005, that “[t]he TCA does not assure every wireless carrier a right to seamless coverage in every area it serves, and that the inability to cover a few blocks in a large city is, as a matter of law, not a significant gap.” While we recognize that the TCA (Telecommunications Act) does not guarantee wireless service providers coverage free of small “dead spots,” the existing case law amply demonstrates that “significant gap” determinations are extremely fact-specific inquiries that defy any bright-line legal rule. http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2005/03/07/0316759.pdf

Also the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found, in Sprint vs. the County of San Diego (2008) that, based on six specific criteria a local government ordinance specifying that the location, size, design, and operating characteristics of the proposed use will be compatible with adjacent uses, residents, buildings, or structures, allows them "to retain discretionary authority to deny a use permit application or to grant an application conditionally." Furthermore, "a plaintiff must establish either an outright prohibition or an effective prohibition on the provision of telecommunications services; a plaintiff’s showing that a locality could potentially prohibit the provision of telecommunications services is insufficient."
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?about=4912072400026586345&hl=en&as_sdt=2,48&as_vis=1

11. Tom L: (390 words in 3:00)

Jonathon Kramer’s presentation on 8/21/17 was a pro-Wireless industry presentation, designed to indoctrinate others into accepting the Wireless industry’s views. This is evident in many places in Kramer’s presentation but most assuredly in the presentation of the 12″ ruler slide discussing so-called RF/MW radiation “safety”, shown here.

The truth of the matter is that there are many flaws in the maximum permissible exposure guidelines set in 1996 by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) for pulsed, data-modulated RadioFrequency Microwave radiation (RF/MW radiation), including the fact that the FCC itself says on it’s own web site that

   “At the present time there is no federally-mandated radio frequency (RF) exposure standard.”

   https://www.fcc.gov/general/fcc-policy-human-exposure

The 1986 National Commission on Radiation Protection document (NCRP Report No. 86, Biological Effects and Exposure Criteria for Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields), NCRP-86.pdf (forwarded in a separate email), used by the FCC to set its commercial guideline (not a safety guideline) for RF/MW radiation exposures discussed problems at many different power levels of RF/MW radiation — at power levels high enough to heat living tissue and at power levels much, much lower than that. Mr. Kramer made his comparisons only to power levels that would heat tissue and insinuated that being 50 times lower than that arbitrary level would be “safe”. Mr. Kramer was very loose in his use of his terms of “safe” and “safety” to the point of misleading both the City Council members and the Piedmont residents.

The tens of thousands of substantial scientific studies completed both prior to and after 1986, many of them peer-reviewed, have proven time and time again that the FCC RF/MW radiation guidelines are nonsense and are not protective, so they can never be accurately referred to as safety guidelines.

The National Toxicology Program’s 16-year $25 million study on the subject released its results in 2016: significantly higher levels of brain cancer, heart cancer, DNA damage and pre-tumors for test animals exposed to RF/MW radiation at power levels far below that which would cause tissue heating; see Findings from the National Toxicology Program Carcinogenesis Studies of Cell Phone Radiofrequency Radiation (2016-0623-NTP-RFR-Carciogenesis-055699.pdf — forwarded in a separate email). Control animals had no brain or heart tumors.

The lack of mention of any of this substantial information in Jonathon Kramer’s presentation belies its real purpose — to mislead the City Council and the residents of Piedmont.

12. SN: (325 words in 2:00)

My name is _________, and I live at _____________. I am not going to talk to you about any worry, risk, or concern. I am going to talk to you about substantial evidence of harm and legal principle. I’ve lived in Piedmont for over 20 years. I used Wi-Fi in my home for many years, but suddenly about three years ago, I couldn’t tolerate it anymore. What I have is an environmentrally-induced illness called Electromagnetic Sensitivity, or EMS. This can happen to anyone, and has, in fact, happened to millions of children and adults. I’m a happy, successful person, but I can’t tolerate Wireless microwave radiation. The way I survive is that my home is free of this radiation.

The cell antenna at 314 Wildwood Ave. would injure me because it would Wireless microwave radiation 24/7, in your own words, about 1/3 of a mile, much farther than where my home is. Having Wireless microwave radiation emissions from a cell antenna in my home would be devastating to me and would create an access barrier to my home. It’s like force feeding peanuts to someone with a peanut allergy.

The California Constitution, which you have taken an oath to protect and support, says in Article I Section I, “all people have inalienable rights. Among these rights are enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring, possessing, and protecting property; and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.”

For an EMS-disabled person whose condition is recognized by the Federal Access Board as a disabled characteristic, installing this cell antenna will ruin my safety, happiness, and privacy that you have taken an oath to uphold. I have rights guaranteed by the Americans with Disabilities Act. It is illegal to create an access barrier to my home. The reasonable accommodation is not to install these unnecessary cell phone antennas, because we have entered into the public record substantial evidence that there is no significant gap in Verizon coverage. Thank you.

Group C:

13. Jonathon B: (440 words in 3:00)

The United States National Toxicology Program (NTP), part of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), released substantial scientific proof of its a 15+ year, $25 million investigation, the largest and most complete toxicology study ever completed. The study proved significant increases in brain tumors (gliblastoma), heart cancer (schwannoma), DNA damage and pre-tumors (hyperplasias) in test rats vs. control rats.

Dr. Ronald L. Melnick, the lead designer of the NTP study stated on 6/1/16:

So, what’s the message from all of this? We tested the hypothesis that [radio-frequency] radiation could not cause health effects and we feel that the hypothesis has now been disproved because these results clearly show that that [radio-frequency] radiation can cause adverse health effects. . .

The finding of increases of gliomas and schwannomas of the heart in rats exposed to the radio-frequency radiation provides consistency with the epidemiological reports of increases of gliomas and acoustic neuromas, which are tumors of Shwann cells among humans exposed to [radio-frequency] radiation. Those were the findings that provided the basis for the IARC evaluation of 2011, because the same cells that became cancerous in rats are the cells that have been reported to develop into tumors in [human] epidemiological studies . . .

The incidence of tumors is not the measurement of risk alone. Risk is determined from both the dosimetry, which is the absorbed power [multiplied by] time [of exposure], versus the tumor response . . . because of the large number of [exposed human] users worldwide, even a small increase in risk at exposure propensities that may be close to what humans experience, could result in a large number of people developing a RF-radiation-induced tumor with long-term exposure.

Otis W. Brawley, MD, Chief Medical Officer, American Cancer Society
also commented on the release of this study: NTP Carcinogenesis Studies of Radiofrequency Radiation

This [5/25/16] report from the National Toxicology Program (NTP) is good science. The NTP report linking radiofrequency radiation (RFR) to two types of cancer marks a paradigm shift in our understanding of [wireless] radiation and cancer risk. The findings are unexpected; we wouldn’t reasonably expect non-ionizing RFR to cause these tumors: [gliomas and schwannomas]. This is a striking example of why serious study is so important in evaluating cancer risk. It’s interesting to note that early studies on the link between lung cancer and smoking had similar resistance, since theoretical arguments at the time suggested that there could not be a link . . . the association with gliomas and acoustic neuromas had been suspected from human epidemiology studies. The second cancer, called a schwannoma, is an extremely rare tumor in humans and animals, reducing the possibility that this is a chance finding . . . importantly, the study found a ‘dose/response’ effect: the higher the dose, the larger the effect, [which is] a key sign.

14. Stan S : (430 words in 3:00)

For 25 years, starting in 1953, the Russians used RF Microwave Radiation (RF/MW radiation) to covertly attack the U. S. embassy staff in Moscow, Russia. The ongoing irradiation campaign affected about 1,800 employees and 3,000 dependents housed at the embassy during this period. The Russians targeted the U.S. embassy with RF microwave weapons from 2400 to 4100 MegaHertz (MHz), frequencies with wavelengths around 3 to 5 inches that are very similar to the wavelengths and power levels saturating us today where we live, work, go to school, commute and play.

The very same adverse health outcomes inflicted on U. S. embassy personnel (cardiac problems, neurological damages altered blood cell counts, increased chromosome aberrations, elevated cancer in children and adults, and illnesses increasing in a dose-response manner with cumulative time of exposure) are being caused today by the use of and exposure to ubiquitous Wireless mobile devices and infrastructure.

DR. NEIL CHERRY REPORTED IN 2000:

"The Soviets irradiated the U.S. Embassy in Moscow between 1953 and 1978 . . . the dominant [resulting] cancers [for Embassy personnel] were brain tumor and leukemia and reproductive organ cancer. This study confirms that extremely low-level chronic microwave exposure is associated which very significant increases in illness and mortality in organs across the whole body, consistent with widespread cellular chromosome damage. Significantly elevated chromosome aberrations were measured, as well as significant alterations in white and red blood cell counts, Jacobson (1969), which would also be the expected result from reduced melatonin . . .

A highly remarkable result is the dose-response relationship for a range of sicknesses. Despite the small numbers, the lack of long latency period and dilutionary factors, the data shows significant increases in:

• Cardiac problems
• Neurological and psychological symptoms
• Altered blood cell counts
• Increased chromosome aberrations, and
• Elevated cancer in children and adults
• Sickness increasing in a dose-response manner with years of residence.
• As with Robinette et al. (1980), the data presented in the Lilienfeld contract report is contrary to that stated in the report’s (altered) conclusions. These symptoms are associated with chronic exposure to very low-intensity pulsed microwaves . . .

The fact that the State Department case officer, Dr Herbert Pollack, altered the conclusions, attests to the significance of this study, the results of which would be embarrassing to the U.S. Government, both in terms of compensation and in terms of the validity of the U.S. exposure standard.”

In 1964, the US Government started paying its Embassy personnel stationed in Moscow "hazard pay" in recognition of the statistcally higher incidences in cancer and other illnesses for those living and working at that Embassy.

15. Kim K (300 words in 2:00)

The proposed nine cell sites will have profound impact on Piedmont’s trees.

We have scientific evidence detailing the harm cell towers inflict on trees. Dr. Waldmann-Selham recently published the results from a detailed 10 year field monitoring study in the cities of Bamberg and Hallstadt, Germany. During monitoring, observations and photographic recordings of unusual or unexplainable tree damage were taken, alongside the measurement of electromagnetic radiation.

At the end of the study, measurements of RF-EMF (Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields) were carried out. A polygon spanning both cities was chosen as the study site, where 144 measurements of the radiofrequency of electromagnetic fields were taken at a height of 1.5 meter in streets and parks at different locations. By interpolation, they compiled an electromagnetic map of the power flux density in Bamberg and Hallstadt.

They selected 60 damaged trees, in addition to 30 randomly selected trees and 30 trees in low radiation areas.
The measurements of all 120 trees revealed significant differences between the damaged side facing a cell tower and the opposite side, as well as differences between the exposed side of damaged trees and all other groups of trees in both sides.
They found a direct correlation between side differences in measured values of power flux density corresponded to side differences in damage.

The 30 selected trees in low radiation areas (no visual contact to any cell tower and power flux density under 50 µW/m2) showed no damage.

Statistical analysis demonstrated that electromagnetic radiation from cell towers is harmful for trees. These results are consistent with the fact that damage afflicted on trees by cell towers usually start on one side, extending to the whole tree over time.

We cannot let this happen to Piedmont.

[1] Cornelia Waldmann-Selsam, Science of The Total Environment, Volume 572, 1 December 2016, Pages 554-569,"Radiofrequency radiation injures trees around mobile phone base stations"