 Is that Sydney over there? I can't see, I don't know, from here. Chair Weeks, it's 4.30 and we're ready to get started whenever you are. Thank you very much. With that, I will, since it is 4.30, I will call to order the December 14th, 2023 meeting of the Planning Commission and ask the recording secretary for roll call. Commissioner Carter. Here. Commissioner Cisco. Here. Commissioner Holton. Here. Commissioner Peterson is absent. Commissioner Sanders. Present. Vice Chair Duggan. Here. Chair Weeks. Here. Let the record reflect that all commissioners are present with the exception of Commissioner Peterson. Thank you. And before we start, I want to let everyone know that we are postponing item 9.1 to January 11th at the request of the applicant. If you are here to speak on that item, you may do so under our next item, or second to the next item, which is public comment. So with that, we will, we have no minutes for approval. So we'll move on to public comment. If you have a comment to make, please go to one of the podiums and state your name for the record and you'll have three minutes. And there is a button on the side of the podium if you want to either lower it or raise it. Can you hear me? Yes, please state your name for the record. Carmen Gonzalez. I'll be very brief. I thank the applicant actually for extending the hearing date to January 11th. I would ask that the same be done. I know you don't have authority for this, but there's an upcoming design review board meeting set for December 21st at 430 in these chambers. And I would hope that they'd do the same. Thank you. Thank you. Anybody else who wants to speak? And once again, this would be your chance to make comments on the item that is being postponed until January 11th. So you can make your way to either of the podiums, east, west, right, left, whichever. Yes, you can hear me? Okay. Yes. Good afternoon. My name is Richard Boyd. I'm a retired physics professor. There are many reasons to oppose the tower proposed by Verizon or at least to oppose the Colgan Avenue location for it. And other people I know will speak about that. But let me focus on just one particular aspect of that. Verizon happily provided plots of the radio frequency radiation expected from their proposed antennas. Yes, if you could get a little closer to the microphone, it might be easier for people to hear you. These plots show that the expected RFR levels in the region of the apartments across the street from Colgan is between five and 100% of the Federal Communications Commission limit. They also indicate that they need a three decibel reduction. That's a factor of two in the RFR to bring their levels down to the FCC limit. So I'll assume the RFR limit at the apartments is one-tenth of the FCC limit. The FCC limit assumes any RFR level that increases the temperature of flesh by less than 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit in 30 minutes is safe. But what if you're exposed to the RFR limit for more than 30 minutes? The FCC never bothered to consider that, apparently. Just to demonstrate how absurd this limit is, suppose you're there 24-7 at the assumed RFR level of one-tenth of the FCC limit. Each half hour increases your temperature by 0.18 degrees Fahrenheit. In one day, your temperature will increase by 8.64 degrees Fahrenheit. That will take your body temperature to 107 and two, and you will not be feeling very good. There are caveats, of course. If you rotate it slowly as if you were on a barbecue spit, you could cut the rate of increase considerably. But the body's cooling mechanisms would take over however they would quickly wear out as your temperature rose. The point is in a week you'd be dead, and you might even be a Verizon customer. The Building Biology Institute has suggested different RFR limits from those of the FCC taking into account the medical effects that result from RFR and considering that people live in their homes or work in their offices for more than 30 minutes. They characterize limits 10,000 times lower than the FCC limit, still to be so high as to be of extreme concern. Perhaps Verizon should consider a different location. I urge you on the commission to return the proposal with that suggestion. Perhaps they would decide on their own to switch to another site. Cooking your potential customers is not a good business strategy. Thank you. Can you hear me? Yes, my name is Paul Andre Shabrak. I'm here to speak in opposition to the cell tower. I just want to point out that zoning ordinance section 20404060F, commercial telecommunications facilities, states that all major commercial telecommunications for facilities, other than government-owned ones, shall be prohibited in our zoning districts. Unfortunately, right next to this project is a high-density housing. And it's the intent of the zoning ordinance to protect residential areas from the effects of cell towers. In this case, what we have is one that's right next door. There's a high-density, multifamily housing development there. And this is obviously contrary to the intent of this section of the ordinance that I just quoted. The second issue is a safety issue. There's no fall zone. Cell towers fall due to documented dangers of irresponsible placement of cell towers. Local governments across the US have entered, have enacted zoning ordinance provisions requiring that cell towers are installed with an area around them that ensures that it should they fall, that it does not affect the health and safety of people nearby. This is not the case here. What we've given staff is a list of over 30 cell tower structural failures that can be found. In addition, cell towers often have fires simply because they don't comply with the National Electrical Code. This application does not have enough information for the city's inspectors to determine whether or not it meets the National Electrical Code. The fall, oh yeah, one more point. The FHA regulations state that a loan cannot be approved for the purchase of a home which is situated within the fall zone of a cell tower. As a result, there are cases across the country where the homeowner buys a house, a cell tower gets installed, then they try to sell the house. They can't because a potential buyer cannot obtain an FHA loan. And the last point I think will be made by others is that the requirement to establish a gap in service has not been provided. What you have is a very cursory drive-by test. What you really need is test data combined with drop-drop calls. The only gap in service you have just recently. Your time is up. Thank you very much. My name is. Excuse me, if you want to lower the podium, there's a button right there that might be. My name is Nichelle Nassino DeLuca, and I live at Vintage Park. It's less than 500 feet. Where they want to build a cell tower is less than 500 feet from our apartments. There are 120 apartments, some are double occupancy. Some people, because it's 62 and up, some people don't even leave the property. They're there 24 hours a day except when they're off to the doctor. So they're going to be bombarded with whatever this cell tower puts out. And I want to acknowledge the previous speakers who asked for knowledge about this. I don't want to have knowledge about this. I want these cell towers far away where they don't affect anyone. There were four other neighbors who would have come to speak today, but they have COVID. We're a vulnerable community. And not just our community, there is a housing project next to us with probably somewhere around an equal number of apartments. And there's children there. And then up the block, there are homes where there's children that are going to be impacted by this. I can't wrap my mind around what a ridiculous idea this was. And I guess aligning with my political view of a lot of things, it's sound for the corporation economically, but it's not sound for the tenants. And those of us who can't move, I was shocked. When we got the notice, it was also printed so tiny that I had to use a magnifying glass. And my eyes aren't that bad. But it was hard to really read. And we were given, I received it with like five days to respond, which I don't think is adequate notice. I just want to urge you, please, you're here to protect us. You're here to make laws that certainly affect business in positive ways. But there are people who have COPD, who have all kinds of illnesses, brain tumors, cancer, or whatever, who are going to be impacted by this without even knowing how and certainly not knowing why. I hope I'm not one of them. But I'm speaking on the behalf of all my neighbors. And there are a couple more here. I would love to have you come up. And even if you just say, please don't do this. So on my behalf and on behalf of the rest of my neighbors, please don't allow Verizon to do this. Thank you. Is there anybody else who'd like to speak? I'd like to speak. Can you say your name for the record, please? My name is Melody Stewart. And I'm really pleased to be speaking with planners since I have a master's in urban planning from New York University. So this is something that's very dear and near to my heart. But that's not my reason for being here today. My reason for being here is that I'm 80. And I live in the community directly across the street from the proposed cell tower. I had the amazing experience of actually speaking to the owner at ground zero the other day when I was going around getting signatures from people who wanted a little more time to look into this. And with all the expertise and the data information that we were able to give him, he was incredulous at the impact that his decision was going to have. Not that he's going to change his mind. He's a businessman first. But I found it really disheartening that he'd not been given any of the information about the power of this cell on its impact on people, not only on the other side, which is Costco, and all those related stores, but on our side of the street, which is, as the previous speaker spoke, it's all kinds of wonderful communities, including different ages, some more able than others to actually move if this thing happens. So I'm really proposed to this location. And I thought that it was required that there had to be some kind of a hole in coverage so your Ryzen phone didn't work very well before you could look at having a nearby tower and we've got great coverage with Ryzen. I also don't believe that Costco and the people in that neck of the woods had been given any information about this, either staff, management, or the customers who will be coming through there. I'm just shocked that this could be put in such a location. And finally, as a former planner myself, I really trust that you can look at this from a larger perspective and really see this is not the place for a tower like this. Nope, no fake pine tree will benefit this community. And I appreciate you're taking the time and the extended time I hear now to really explore this. And I thank everyone who's here for their interest in caring for themselves and our communities. Thanks. Thank you. Okay, just, you can hear me, yeah. Hi, good evening members of the Planning Commission. My name is Kim Schroeder and I'm a native resident of Santa Rosa. I'm here today to speak on behalf of the many residents who live close to the proposed cell tower at 244 Colgan Avenue and couldn't be here today, many of which are elderly. My dear friend, Mary Dahl, has spoken several times now at our city council meetings. She lives with a small cell tower close to her home in Rankin Valley. It's not even close to the magnitude of this proposed cell tower in power. But she actually had a Faraday cage installed in her bedroom by volunteers so she could sleep as the radio frequency radiation readings are extremely high throughout her home. How many decades did it take before the tobacco companies could no longer ignore the link between smoking and lung cancer? How many decades did it take before Monsanto was taken to court and lost due to roundups undeniable cancer causing chemicals? So much harm to thousands and thousands along the way due to no long-term testing. In August, 2021, the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit Court ruled that the Federal Communications Commission, the FCC's 2019 decision not to update the 1996 safety limits for human exposure to wireless radiation was arbitrary and capricious. The court found the FCC ignored numerous scientists and medical doctors who called on them to update limits and they failed to address impacts of long-term wireless exposure. The petitioners in the case filed 11,000 pages of evidence of harm from 5G and wireless. Why are they ignoring the court ruling and not taking precautions to protect public citizens? This proposed cell tower is 24 seven exposure to people's homes, they don't have a choice. There's no long-term safety testing but there's an undeniable risk to human health as evidenced by a voluminous body of sobering research. Most telecom companies warn their shareholders about potential legal liabilities due to alleged adverse health events from wireless devices and cell towers. Why don't they openly warn the public, including residents who live or work near proposed wireless facilities? As city planners, you can and must demand that Verizon demonstrate a service coverage gap as well as demonstrate that the proposed facility is the least intrusive means of addressing that gap if it exists. This facility will be too close to a location at which workers must put in daily hours and near people's homes. Verizon's coverage is likely very adequate already. Thank you. Thank you. Is there a next speaker? I wasn't sure that you were accepting the actually comments on the content of the matter so I'm gonna go ahead and give it a whirl. First off, to pair it with Ms. Schroeder indicated, there hasn't been established that there's a gap in coverage. If you look at attachment number four to this agenda that was going to be heard today, this proposed project would lie within a cluster of four other cells so there doesn't seem to be a need for that and by its placement, according to attachment number six, the safe emission standard is exceeded for the general population and mitigation is therefore required and that's what it says in attachment six. Well, you wouldn't need to have mitigation if you didn't place it there to begin with so that's probably the best response to cure that ill. Thirdly, the noise from a 30 kilowatt generator going 24 hours a day, seven days a week is not conducive to sleeping at night, just FYI. If we think about mitigation, we should think about places if there is a need for it where people aren't sleeping. Like a cemetery, a golf course, maybe even the county fairgrounds but I leave the imaginative solutions to yourselves. Then there's the question of appropriateness for the location. The height of 69 feet is indicated in the notification of a cell tower is out of character for the neighborhood and when we don't live in a forest of conifers, so even the design's off there as well and when the patina of the green fades we'll just have a shining Christmas tree, aluminum, shining 24 seven, again, it's just inappropriate and I would add a post script to my comments. Notification concerning this project was given during the week of Thanksgiving when people are either preoccupied with family festivities or they're out of town and this meeting as well as the next one that's slated for the design planning commission on this very project is during the week of Christmas. In my view, that strikes as a cynical gesture designed to avoid public scrutiny and it also smacks a bullying and I don't like bullies because the people who live on my street they're low and middle income. So I don't appreciate that. I think it's shameful and it flies in the face of the spirit of the sunshine acts. Thank you for your time. Next speaker. Hi, my name is Sydney Cox. I'm co-director of the EMF safety network and the steering committee of Safe Tech for Santa Rosa. There's a freight train heading directly towards us at 100 miles per hour. Verizon is saying, get out of the way or we'll run you over. We're getting faster and bigger and you can't stop us. I submitted an eight page report which was emailed to you. In it I included personal testimony of human harm from radio frequency radiation. I included evidence of microplastic toxins from fake pine tree needles that are gonna be used for the cell tower that will undoubtedly leech into the nearby Colgan Creek. I included the levels of RFR exposure that will exceed the maximum permissible exposure levels. They will be at multiple heights. So mitigation is required. But even with the 3 dB reduction in power the RF levels will still be too high to ensure public safety. Where is proof of safety beyond 30 minutes? There's a lack of ongoing monitoring for the MPE and will the city provide this? There is no detailed fire safety report. And future co-location, which means more wireless companies sharing the tower will be assured and encouraged. And the MPE, the maximum permissible exposure of RFR will obviously increase. And this is from your own staff report. Granting the permit will certainly constitute a nuisance. Well, you actually say it will not because if you approve it it will not. But I claim it will. Granting the permit will certainly constitute a nuisance or be injurious or detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience or welfare or materially injurious to persons, property or improvements in the vicinity and zoning district in which the property is located. As of yesterday there were no Verizon coverage maps but by the evening they were posted by Verizon. And I'm here to say, cell companies are entitled to good coverage but not perfect coverage. There is legal precedent for this. Sometimes a more appropriate location may provide slightly less coverage but nonetheless, average coverage. In conclusion, my question is this. Verizon has over 20 macro towers in Santa Rosa and 20 small cell facilities. That's 40 telecom sites. How can they claim to have a gap in service? Thank you. Thank you. Is there anybody else who'd like to speak on this item? I have a question. I'm sorry. It's Melody Stewart again. I have a question. I'm sorry you've already had your three minutes. I'm asking if I can read the letter from my friend. No, I'm sorry. You could submit that letter for the record. It's been submitted. Thanks. Thank you. Then if you could go to the podiums, whoever is, we'll start with this gentleman up here. Is the microphone on? Is the microphone on? Yes. Hi, my name is Ed Nestinger. I'm the property owner at 244 Colgan Avenue. I am concerned in regards to the safety of the public. By no means do I want to create a problem for anybody in my community. But at the same time, we have to ask ourselves, are we willing to give up, thank you, are we willing to give up our Bluetooth, our Wi-Fi, our AirPods, our TVs, our OnStar, our microwave ovens, our remote controls, our fall alerts, our cameras, and our cell phones. So the funny thing is, I'm sitting here watching everybody complain about the potential issues. And here, to my right, is a lady holding her cell phone, right at her chest, without any regards to her own safety. The hypocrisy in this is pretty comical. All you folks in here have cell phones and all you folks have AirPods and all you folks have all these items that you live with daily, okay? So what I'm trying to say is, if you guys are all willing to take your cell phones and permanently shut them off and put them in this hat, I'll be willing to pull my approval for this project. Anybody? Let's not have the theatrics. What I'm getting at is, everybody's here to complain, but nobody wants to give up any of their privileges or any of their conveniences. Can you please, we have one speaker at a time. What I'm getting at is, I don't believe these people are properly informed on their day-to-day use and the consumption of what happens in their day-to-day lives. I think they're focused on one item and one item only. This is a great report. There's a lot of color in it. There's a lot of glamor in it, but I don't really realize, I don't think they really realize on the day-to-day use and what the impact is on their normal lives with every instrument and everything that they use all day long. Outside of that, I'm not sure what I can do for anybody. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Next speaker. Hi, my name is Jennifer Laporta with SafeTech for Santa Rosa. Shout out to Dylan Black Project. All right, so regarding Wi-Fi and cell phones, there's such a thing as cumulative exposure. The FCC guidelines are based on a mere 30 minutes of exposure to a cell phone. That's it folks, 30 minutes, not the exposures we're getting all day long. And by the way, most of us on SafeTech for Santa Rosa do not use Wi-Fi, we simply use an ethernet cable. There are alternatives to Wi-Fi and cell phones, such as landlines. All right, so I'm gonna talk about who I am. I'm a retired registered environmental health specialist with a Bachelor's of Science in Environmental Health. The main issue here is there is no gap in service for verizing, okay? The reason they're putting up these macro towers is for streaming. People are getting addicted to streaming. However, that is not a service that's essential, like cell phone and text in case of emergency. Our firefighters here know all about this. Also, our firefighters in the room might also know that there is a state law that exempts fire stations from having cell phone towers on top of them. Why is that? Because they were finding that firefighters were getting cognitively impaired from having those cell phone towers at their fire stations. You might see some at some fire stations, however, they are actually exempt from having them. Think about it, okay? This issue is like tobacco was in the 50s and 60s where smokers did not realize that in 20 or 30 years they would be dying from lung diseases like emphysema, okay? This is the same thing here, and big telecom, just like big tobacco, is preying on our doubts. Oh, they're trying to muddy the science when in fact there are thousands of peer-reviewed scientific studies that prove biological harm from EMFs or electromagnetic frequencies. If anybody's interested, I have my safe and sound pro meter right here showing that you have extremely high levels of EMFs in this room because yes, we are bathed in a toxic soup of EMFs. EMFs is our, it's pollution, okay? And we don't want this tower. We have, like Sydney said, we have 40 odd Verizon towers, and that's only Verizon. There's AT&T and everybody else who wants to piggyback and co-locate their antennas on the same pole once you get one pole up. And it's about to push me out of town, folks, because I'm picking up EMFs of my property from a half mile away. Thank you. You're welcome. Is there anybody else who'd like to speak on this item or speak in public comments? Okay, case, seeing no one. If you could please go to the podium, that would be great. Thank you for helping with that. Hi, my name's Marty Granucci. I can't read. Okay, we strongly object to propose location for the placement of Verizon Tower on 244 Colgate Avenue of Santa Rosa, California. Verizon is planning on placing the proposed tower in the dense area of the population and right across the street, about 50 feet from our apartment complex. My apartment complex is directly across the street from the proposed Verizon Tower, a living, vintage park senior apartment. Our complex is less than 50 feet from the proposed tower. There are many seniors there with poor health and radius and waves travel at 993.6 feet. The proposed site located at 244 Colgate, Santa Rosa has many nearby apartment buildings, including ours directly across the street. Residents, businesses, stores as well as entire shopping center just a few feet away. On the other side, okay, this means thousands and thousands of people will be affected by the additional electromagnetic field. Radiation from the proposed Verizon cell tower, which they're advertising 10 Gs on there now, on their commercials, not five Gs. Not only that, the towers are going to increase potentially unless we stop the runaway train. I assume they are installing five G cell tower. So five G needs more Jagger Hertz and therefore so much more stronger as well as having more complex EMF and RF radiation, which can be more harmful to dense urban areas. It's not possible to, to those of previous generations because of their complex, I can't right now. Yeah, okay, transmissions in highly focused by being, they very rapidly with time and movement. And so are unpredictable as the signals, levels and patterns interact as to closed loop system. Dr. Martin-Paul has much more to say about the damage caused to our bodies from EMF radiation, please look at this article. Okay, let's say, yeah, but like I said, I they're advertising 10 Gs now, not five Verizon is. So that's worse. Thank you. Are there any other speakers? Okay, then with that, I will go ahead and close the public comment portion on this item and bring it back to staff. And I have one question and that had to do with the design review board meeting and my assumption is that is being postponed also. Yes, Chair Weeks, the design review board item has already been noticed, so it will be on the agenda, but just like with tonight, the recommendation will be for continuance to a date certain after the Planning Commission takes action. Great, thank you. Okay, so it will be like we did today where it will be, the meeting will be called to order and the item would be postponed to a date later on. Can staff help me with this? Hold on a second, so would the recommendation be that they do the same type of? Yeah, if there are people there who are there to speak on the item, they could do the same as they are today and speak on non-agenda items. Otherwise, the meeting will be postponed to a future date and they would have an opportunity to speak at that date as well. Okay, so that's it, no more public comments, thank you. So the meeting will occur next week as scheduled and then it will operate like we did tonight if there are people in the public who wish to speak on the item, they will speak under the public comment, non-agenda matters. So you would have an opportunity to speak, but the item would not be acted upon and nothing would be decided at that meeting. It would be at a later meeting. So yeah, Chair Weeks, if I may. Yes. So with both of these items, they will be continued to date certain. So for this item, the recommendation for the commission is to continue it to a date certain of January 11th. And then for the design review board, it would be continued to a date certain of January 18th. So there will be no additional notices that go out because it is continued to a date certain, but I would recommend that if anybody here has any questions beyond this, they are more than welcome to reach out to Suzanne Hartman, who is the planner for this project. Her contact information was on the mailing, but for anybody in here, it's, I'm gonna give your phone number if that's okay. 707-543-4299. And she can also be emailed at shartman at srcity.org. And her contact information was on the notice that was sent out and is also on the sign that is outside the site. Great, thank you very much. So with that, and thank you, I appreciate all your help in this. We'll move on to commission business. So our statement of purpose, the planning commission is charged with carrying out California planning and zoning laws in the city of Santa Rosa. Duties include implementing of plans, ordinances and policies relating to land use matters, assisting in writing and implementing the general plan and area plans, holding public hearings and acting on proposed changes to the zoning code, zoning map, general plan, tentative subdivision maps and undertaking special planning studies as needed. So with that, we'll move on to commissioner reports. Do we have any reports? Seeing none, do we have any public, are there any public comments on the non-existent commissioner reports? Okay, seeing none, we'll move on to department report. Ms. Jones. Yes, thank you, chair weeks, members of the commission. I will be brief, just a quick note that we do not have any items for the December 28th meeting, which is also right in between the holidays. So you guys will get a break for the holiday. So your next meeting will be the January 11th and we will be holding that meeting. And then my final note for tonight, just a quick note. I think most of the commission is aware that we had two members of our team move on. Recently, Amy Lyle, who is our supervising planner for advanced planning, left the city for another opportunity and Beatriz Guerrero-Ana also left for another opportunity. And unfortunately, we have had yet another person moving on from the city. So Sherri Meads, who's a senior planner here, has resigned and she's moving to a great opportunity at the city of Yuccaia. So we're super excited for her in that opportunity, but very sad to see her go. So we will be doing a recruitment for a planner coming up here shortly. So hopefully you'll be seeing a new face here soon. So are there any public comments on the primary report? Probably not. Statements of abstentions, are there any abstentions? Okay, then we have no consent items. We have no report items. Our one scheduled item is the scheduled, this is 9.1, public hearing Verizon Wireless Telecommunication Tower Conditional Use Permit 244 Colgan Avenue, PRJ 23-009. As previously stated, the applicant has requested that we continue this item to a date certain of January 11th, 2024. Is there anything else from staff? So could I ask one of my fellow commissioners to make a motion to continue this item to the date certain of January 11th, 2024? I'll make such a motion to continue the item to a date certain of January 11th, 2024. Thank you, and is there a second? Second. Thank you. So that was moved by Commissioner Duggan, seconded by Commissioner Sisko. If we could have a roll call vote, please. Commissioner Carter. Aye. Commissioner Sisko. Aye. Commissioner Holton. Aye. Commissioner Sanders. Aye. Vice Chair Duggan. Aye. Chair Weeks. Aye. So that passes with six ayes, one absence, and that's Commissioner Peterson. So with that, unless there's anything else from staff tonight, we will go ahead and adjourn this meeting until 2024. Thank you.