2022 Petaluma Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (WTF) Ordinance Revision

TL;DR Summary

TL;DR = Too Long; Didn’t Read

All of our hard work from 2018 to protect residential zones from the unnecessary and hazardous so-called “small” Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (sWTFs) that is plaguing Santa Rosa is now under attack by attorney Robert “Tripp” May from Telecom Law Firm — the outside advisor hired by Petaluma City Attorney, Eric Danly over strong objections from knowledgeable Petaluma residents.

As the City of Petaluma has refused to meet with, discuss or engage with knowledgeable residents of Petaluma (some of whom are subject matter experts in Telecom matters), we can assume that the City’s 2021 Proposed WTF Ordinance is going to be a real disaster and will trample Petaluma residents’ rights to public safety, privacy, property values and the quiet enjoyment of our streets (as well as our homes, yards, schools and parks).

We may only have 30 days to read/review/refute the City’s 2021 Proposed WTF Ordinance disaster before the planned Planning Commission Meeting (first proposed for Nov 30, 2021 and then for Jan 25, 2022 — both dates were postponed). The Planning Commissioners could vote this disaster through to the Petaluma City Council.

This is What Petalumans Need to Do In Jan/Feb 2022 . . .

https://youtu.be/wjsxQjUyuUY?t=5303

Correction: at 51:41 in the video, we started talking about magnetic fields and when David said 10 Gauss, he meant to say 10 milliGaus (which is ten one-thousandths of a Gauss). For accuracy, substitute milliGauss for every mention of Gauss in the ensuring conversation. The important thing to realize is that the following magnetic field ranges need to be enforced in the United States:

Magnetic Field Exposure Levels

3-axis Flux Density	No Hazard	Slight Hazard	Severe Hazard	Extreme Hazard
Milligauss (mG)	less than 0.2 mG	0.2 – 1 mG	1 – 5 mG	> 5 mG

Values apply to frequencies up to and around 50 (60) Hz, higher frequencies and predominant harmonics should be assessed more critically.
Line current (50-60 Hz) and railway track current (16.7 Hz) are recorded separately.
In the case of intense and frequent temporal fluctuations of the magnetic field, data logging needs to be carried out – especially where you sleep (recurring 6-8 hour/day exposures).

This is all happening because City Manager Peggy Flynn, City Attorney Eric Danly and m-Group Contract Planning Manager Heather Hines are conspiring against the public, playing cat and mouse with this ordinance, hiding it until the very last minute and then pretending they are doing everything correctly and by the book. We have the evidence to prove . . .

How City Attorney Danly hired a Telecom attorney/consultant that admits they are in the Wireless industry and
How the City Attorney Danly refused to talk to the top Telecom attorneys in the US, as recommended by Petaluma’s residents.

We, the people of Petaluma, are getting trampled by our own City employees and outside contactors (the m-Group) who insist on sending Wireless industry misinformation and shallow legal analysis to our elected and appointed representatives, who lack the time/will to do the necessary study in order to achieve expertise in Telecom matters.

The answer to this unnecessary, WTF Ordinance revision is to do the following

Give the public sufficient time to read review and have input into the proposed 2022 WTF Ordinance before sending it to the Planning Commission. The City of Petaluma can achieve this by planning, marketing and executing a full, formal public workshop to discuss and debate the relative merits of competing Petaluma Wireless Ordinance revisions . . . a workshop similar to the ones that occurred in many California cities from 2018 through the present, including but not limited to Nevada City, Santa Rosa, Sonoma, Napa, San Rafael, Mill Valley, Fairfax, Calabassas, South Lake Tahoe, Elk Grove, Santa Barbara, and Malibu.
Release the First Draft of 2022 WTF Ordinance only after incorporating Petaluma residents’ ideas to strengthen the Ordinance in order to protect residents’ public safety, privacy, property values and the quiet enjoyment of streets.
At the Planning Commission Hearing (to be scheduled for a future date in 2022), ensure that the City of Petaluma grants equal in-person presentation time and technology to both the proponents and the opponents of Wireless Ordinance Revision (separate from and in addition to any public comments)

2022 Public Comment re: Petaluma’s Unnecessary & Hazardous Wireless Ordinance Revision

2018 Petaluma Wireless Ordinance

This is the Ordinance We Achieved in 2018:

Search for “Wireless” at https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Petaluma/

The Petaluma Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 2674, passed November 19, 2018

14.44.020 Definitions.

9. “Telecommunications facility – small cell” means a telecommunications facility that is pole mounted to existing public utility infrastructure.

(Ord. 2662 NCS § 2 (part), 2018; Ord. NCS 2029 (part), 1996.)

14.44.095 Small cell facilities — Basic requirements.

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

A. The small cell antenna must connect to an already existing utility pole that can support its weight.

B. All new wires needed to service the small cell must be installed within the width of the existing utility pole so as to not exceed the diameter and height of the existing utility pole.

C. All ground-mounted equipment not installed inside the pole must be undergrounded, flush to the ground, within three feet of the utility pole.

D. Each small cell must be at least one thousand five hundred feet away from the nearest small cell facility.

E. Aside from the transmitter/antenna itself, no additional equipment may be visible.

F. Each small cell must be at least five hundred feet away from any existing or approved residence.

G. An encroachment permit must be obtained for any work in the public right-of-way.

(Ord. 2662 NCS § 2 (part), 2018)

2022 Record of Communications

Posted in reverse chronological order.

Date: January 13, 2022

To:
Ms. Peggy Flynn, City Manager
Mr. Eric Danly, City Attorney
Ms. Heather Hines, m-Group Planning Contractor
11 English Street
Petaluma, CA 94952

To: Petaluma City Council Members
Teresa Barrett tbarrett@cityofpetaluma.org
Dennis Pocekay dpocekay@cityofpetaluma.org
Brian Barnacle, bbarnacle@cityofpetaluma.org
D’Lynda Fischer dfischer@cityofpetaluma.org
Mike Healy mhealy@cityofpetaluma.org
Dave King dking@cityofpetaluma.org
Kevin McDonnell kmcdonnell@cityofpetaluma.org

To: Petaluma Planning Commissioners
Sandi Potter sandi.lee.potter@gmail.com
Heidi Bauer heidibauer2000@gmail.com
Blake Hooper bmhooper1@gmail.com
Scott Alonso alonsoplanningpet@gmail.com
Amy Rider arider@archamy.com
Rick Whisman rwhisman@yahoo.com

cc:
Petaluma City Clerk
Kendall Rose
Samantha Pascoe

Subject: Petaluma’s 2022 Unnecessary Telecommunications Ordinance Revision

[City Clerks Kendall Rose and Samantha Pascoe, will you please add this email/letter to the Petaluma Public record for the January 25, 2022 Tentative Agenda Item listed on the Jan 11, 2022 Petaluma Planning Commission Agenda regarding a “Telecommunications Ordinance Review”? Will you please also ensure that this email/letter gets printed and placed into the paper file for this project? We are requesting that this email/letter and all communications and other substantial written evidence that we place in the Public Record be added to the agenda packet that will be distributed to the Petaluma Planning Commission and Petaluma City Council. Thank you for doing so.]

Dear Ms. Flynn, Mr. Danly and Ms Hines et al.,

This is not a California Public Records Act request. In this email/letter I am requesting timely written answers to the following reasonable questions, listed below.

As we were assured by Ms. Hines’ Jan 11, 2022 comment in the Planning Commission hearing:

“the City has closed city facilities to the public for the month of January . . . we are doing our very best to continue to provide the service and not skip a beat, but we no longer have our counter hours in Planning and Building, our physical Counter Hours on Tuesdays and Thursdays . . .”

I am taking Ms. Hines at her word and expect that an m-Group employee will call me today — Thu Jan 13 during counter hours — so we can discuss the contents of this email and any question that can be preliminarily addressed over the phone. That is the least we can expect from a firm that has contractual obligations to staff these counter hours. There are no sufficient excuses based on actual substantial written evidence in the Petaluma public record that justifies the m-Group not providing this contractually-based service. If you have any such substantial written evidence, please send it by email. If I receive no such evidence, then my expectations are both valid and clear.

My public comment from the Jan 11, 2022 Planning Commission meeting is now posted online:

Ms. Hines’ comments about Petaluma’s 2022 Unnecessary Telecommunications Ordinance Revision at the Jan 11, 2022 Planning Commission meeting can be reviewed here: https://youtu.be/DRac0wao9hQ?t=293:

“There was mention [on the Jan 11, 2022 Planning Commission Meeting agenda] of the Telecommunications Ordinance coming on Jan 25th. That is not going to be coming. We are still working on that project and would like the opportunity to release a public review draft in response to inquiries we have had from members of the public. So, we are going to wait to schedule that until we have had an opportunity to release a public review draft and some time for feedback and comments. So that is still to come, so it will not be on the Jan 25th agenda.”

This, of course, leads to the obvious follow up question: on what date will the public review draft of Petaluma’s 2022 Unnecessary Telecommunications Ordinance Revision be available? Since this agenda item has now been scheduled and cancelled twice (Nov 30, 2021 and Jan 25, 2022), the public finally needs Flynn, Danly and Hines to put a stake in the ground and commit to a plan that is acceptable to the public — a plan that is different from their existing secretive, exclusionary process that has blocked all public participation to date. The public can cite significant evidence from Jan 1, 2019 to the present in the record which has convinced the public to be very wary of Flynn’s, Danly’s and Hines’ motives on this issue. There has been insufficient transparency on this entire project, which is wrong.

As a result, no trust from City staff or m-Group employees/contractors to the public has been established and we are therefore seeking specific, timely written answers to the following reasonable questions:

Why is the City of Petaluma staff proposing changes to Petaluma’s 2018 Revision to its Wireless Telecommunications Facilities Ordinance?
Where in Petaluma’s public record can one find evidence of Petaluma City Council directing City Staff to make revisions to Petaluma’s 2018 Revision to its Wireless Telecommunications Facilities Ordinance? What was the Council’s specific direction? Was the Council’s intent to strengthen or weaken the protections in Petaluma’s 2018 Revision to its Wireless Telecommunications Facilities Ordinance?
From Jan 1, 2019 to the present, how much money has the City of Petaluma spent on outside consultants to assist City staff in make revisions Petaluma’s 2018 Revision to its Wireless Telecommunications Facilities Ordinance? Will you please provide me written evidence of each invoice paid to any outside consultant working on this project from Jan 1, 2019 to the present?
From Jan 1, 2019 to the present, how many City staff or m-Group employee/contractor hours have been spent on making revisions to Petaluma’s 2018 Wireless Telecommunications Facilities Ordinance? Will you please provide a full accounting of the taxpayer dollars spent from Jan 1, 2019 to the present on City staff or m-Group employees/contractors for the purpose of making revisions to Petaluma’s 2018 Wireless Telecommunications Facilities Ordinance?
Is the City of Petaluma currently employing Telecom Law Firm PC or any of its employees/contractors to assist the City of Petaluma? If so, please send me any evidence proves that Telecom Law Firm is not working on behalf of the interests of the Wireless industry. We can cite evidence in Petaluma’s record that shows that Telecom Law Firm and its owners is working on behalf of the Wireless industry.
Is the City of Petaluma currently employing Permit Team LLC — The Wireless Permit Team for Local Governments (Jonathon Kramer’s and Tripp Mays’ other company) — or any of its employees/contractors to assist the City of Petaluma? If so, please send me any evidence that proves that Permit Team, LLC is not working on behalf of the interests of the Wireless industry. We can cite evidence in Petaluma’s record that shows that Permit Team LLC and its owners is working on behalf of the Wireless industry.
Will the City of Petaluma give the public sufficient time to read review and have input into the proposed 2022 WTF Ordinance before sending the first draft to the Planning Commission? The public considers sufficient time to be a minimum of 60-days.
Will the City of Petaluma staff and m-Group employees/contractors plan, market and execute a full, formal public workshop to discuss and debate the relative merits of competing Petaluma Wireless Ordinance revisions . . . a workshop similar to the ones that occurred in many California cities from 2018 through the present, including but not limited to Nevada City, Santa Rosa, Sonoma, Napa, San Rafael, Mill Valley, Fairfax, Calabassas, South Lake Tahoe, Elk Grove, Santa Barbara, and Malibu — before releasing the first draft of the proposed changes to Petaluma’s 2018 Revision to its Wireless Telecommunications Facilities Ordinance? If not, why not?
Will the City of Petaluma staff and m-Group employees/contractors commit to not releasing the first draft of proposed changes to Petaluma’s 2018 Revision to its Wireless Telecommunications Facilities Ordinance until it incorporates Petaluma residents’ ideas to strengthen the Ordinance in order to protect residents’ public safety, privacy, property values and the quiet enjoyment of streets? If not, why not?
Will the City of Petaluma staff and m-Group employees/contractors commit to ensuring that the City of Petaluma will grant equal in-person presentation time and technology to both the proponents and the opponents of Wireless Ordinance Revision (separate from and in addition to any public comments)? If not, why not?

We are requesting written answers to these reasonable questions by no later than Thu Jan 20, 2022 at 5:00 pm.

The City of Petaluma local government exists to serve the needs of its residents. I am reminding everyone that our local government is of, by and for the people. We expect you to act accordingly.

Thank you.

January 11, 2022 at 3:20 pm

To:
Ms. Peggy Flynn, City Manager
Mr. Eric Danly, City Attorney
Ms. Heather Hines, m-Group Planning Contactor
11 English Street
Petaluma, CA 94952

cc:
Petaluma City Clerk
Kendall Rose
Samantha Pascoe

Questions re: Tentative Agenda Item for January 25, 2022 — Petaluma Telecommunications Ordinance Revision

[City Clerks Kendall Rose and Samantha Pascoe, this is a written public comment for the Jan 11, 2022 Petaluma Planning Commission. Will you please add this email/letter to the Petaluma Public record for the January 25, 2022 Tentative Agenda Item listed on the Jan 11, 2022 Petaluma Planning Commission Agenda regarding a “Telecommunications Ordinance Review”? Will you please also ensure that this email/letter gets printed and placed into the paper file for this project? We are requesting that this email/letter and all communications and other substantial written evidence that we place in the Public Record be added to the agenda packet that will be distributed to the Petaluma Planning Commission. Thank you for doing so.]

Dear Ms. Flynn, Mr. Danly and Ms. Hines et al,

I left voicemail messages for each of you before noon today, requesting your responses to the following questions, prior to tonight’s scheduled Planning Commission meeting.

As one can read at https://petaluma.granicus.com/GeneratedAgendaViewer.php?view_id=31&event_id=45780

Petaluma Planning Commission AGENDA

Tuesday, January 11, 2022 at 7:00 P.M.

Tentative Agenda Items:

January 25, 2022 — Telecommunications Ordinance Review

. . . I request accurate and thorough answers to the following questions:

On what date may the public finally read/evaluate the City staff-prepared Wireless Ordinance Revision (written by Eric Danly/Telecom Law Firm on behalf of the Wireless Industry), which is an unnecessary Wireless Ordinance revision that has been developed in total secrecy with no public involvement requested, invited or allowed?
May we please have the City of Petaluma’s agreement to NOT SCHEDULE this item to be heard at the Planning Commission until, the City of Petaluma plans, markets and executes a full, formal public workshop in February/March 2022 to discuss and debate the relative merits of three Petaluma Wireless Ordinance revisions . . . a workshop similar to the ones that occurred in many California cities from 2018 through the present, including but not limited to Nevada City, Santa Rosa, Sonoma, Napa, San Rafael, Mill Valley, Fairfax, Calabassas, South Lake Tahoe, Elk Grove, Santa Barbara, and Malibu. May we also have the assurance that the City of Petaluma will grant equal in-person presentation time and technology to both the proponents and the opponents of Wireless Ordinance Revision Version 3, listed below (separate from and in addition to any public comments):
- Version 1: the existing Petaluma Wireless Ordinance (voted through in Aug/Sept 2018)
- Version 2: the Petaluman’s Wireless Ordinance Revision (written by Telecom subject matter experts, based on the extensive work of top-Telecom attorney Andrew Campanelli, Esq.)
- Version 3: the City staff-prepared Wireless Ordinance Revision (written by Eric Danly/Telecom Law Firm on behalf of the Wireless Industry)

Finally, as one can learn at this link and in Appendix A, below, the City of Petaluma is, once again, following an unsubstantiated narrative to wrongly limit the public’s ability to fully engage with its local government and in doing so, is acting to illegally block the public from exercising its rights to redress its grievances to its local government, face-to-face.

If our local government is closing City Hall, then it should not continue executing non-essential city business, such as considering an unnecessary Wireless Ordinance revision that weakens the residents’ current protections in the existing Wireless Ordinance from 2018 — an Ordinance that provides substantial protections of public safety, privacy and property values by not allowing Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (WTFs) of any size or any “G” in residential zones.

By closing City Hall through January 2022 . . . City Manager Flynn, City Attorney Danly and the m-Group are exhibiting the following attitude . . . (paraphrased)

“Oh boy, let’s take advantage of the convenient Omicron narrative. You know the drill . . . no evidence required, just repeat a bunch of unsubstantiated Barnum Statements because no one will take the time to check the evidence . . . and then we can jam this unpopular Wireless Ordinance revision through. We will grab every advantage we can take to pave the way for industry and screw the residents of Petaluma in the process.”

This, the public will not tolerate.

The evidence justifying the shut down of our local government can be presented in a quasi-judicial proceeding in City Hall chambers. The City would have the opportunity to present only substantial written evidence that would stand up to the scrutiny of sworn testimony and cross-examination allowed by the public’s selected attorney. Only people swearing in and facing the penalties of perjury would be allowed to present evidence. This would provide a level of certainty that should be required for such draconian actions as those described in Appendix A, below. No one should “just go along with a story”.

As of 3:20 pm, I have heard no response from any of you. Will you please respond in writing by 5:00 pm today?

Thank you.

Appendix A: News from the City of Petaluma’s Web Site

City Hall Services

Due to the rapid spread of COVID/Omicron variant and out of an abundance of caution, the City of Petaluma is taking steps to protect the health and safety of staff and our community. City facilities will be temporarily closed to the public effective Monday, January 10 through Monday, January 31, 2022. Despite the closure of our buildings to the public, our City staff continue to provide the important services that our community relies upon, as we have throughout the pandemic.

We plan to reopen facilities on February 1, 2022 if it is deemed safe to do so based upon COVID-19 case data. Please visit cityofpetaluma.org/subscribe to sign up to receive updates from the City of Petaluma.