La Mesa Resident Request Regarding Small Cell / Wireless Ordinance or policy

Your Name: _______________________________________________

Your Street Address: ________________________________________
City, state, zip: _____________________________________________
Your phone # _______________________________________________
Your email address: __________________________________________

___________ 2019
(Date)

La Mesa City Councilmembers and Mayor Arapostathis

La Mesa City Hall
8130 Allison Ave.
La Mesa, CA 91942
marapostathis@cityoflamesa.us, bbaber@cityoflamesa.us, kalessio@cityoflamesa.us,
aweber@cityoflamesa.us, cparent@cityoflamesa.us

Dear Mayor, Vice Mayor, and City Council Members,

This is a notice to inform you that I (and my family) do not agree to be irradiated with hazardous
microwave and millimeter microwave radiation, through close proximity to small cells in our community,
where we live, work, and attend school. I consider any plan to do so to be a form of assault, intent to
assault, and an intent to harm with rf radiation proven to be dangerous by thousands of independent
scientists in over ten thousand peer-reviewed studies and by independent physicians studying the impact of
wireless on health. These studies and physician statements about the dire hazards of the 5G infrastructure
and microwave and millimeter microwave radiation exposures even at low levels are available at
www.EMFPortal.org, www.electrosmogprevention.org, www.ehtrust.org, and www.mdsafetech.org (see
Letters https://mdsafetech.org/expert-letters-california-sb649-small-cell-antenna-deployment/ pertaining
to 5G sent to the governor), to name but a few, and also in a statement sent Aug. 6, 2019, to San Diego
County Board of Supervisors concerning their proposed 5G ordinance by Dr. Beatrice Golomb. MD, PhD,
EMF researcher at UCSD at http://www.electrosmogprevention.org/public-health-alert/health-alerts-5g-
small-wireless-cells/letter-dr-golomb-dangers-of-5g/, Dr. Martin Pall (PhD) at
http://www.electrosmogprevention.org/international-electrosmog-prevention-news/stop-5g/martin-pall-
phd-dangers-of-5g/, and Dr. Joel Moskowitz (PhD), Dept of Public Health, UC Berkeley, in a recently
published Scientific American article,”We have no reason to believe 5G is safe.”
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/we-have-no-reason-to-believe-5g-is-safe/. I have the
right to health, life, and peaceful enjoyment of my property, and safety. You have no right to take that from
me. Criminal and civil charges against the mayor, each of you on the city council, every one of the city staff
who participated in this plan, the permittees or applicants to install 5G infrastructure, and any consultants
who contributed to dangerous or threatening portions of this policy or any future policy or ordinance may
result from any attempt to do so. I notice that in your draft the section on (P.31) (10) Indemnification, which
shows that the city acknowledges the possibility of harm even unto death and wishes the permittees to
defend the city if the installation causes:
“other claims of any kind or form, whether for personal
injury, death or property damage, … in connection
with this encroachment permit or the small wireless facility or other
infrastructure deployment.

1
 La Mesa Resident Request Regarding Small Cell / Wireless Ordinance or policy

Further, I am writing to express my concern in general, about the development of any small cells wireless
resolution or policy that allows the potential installment of hazardous 4G/5G/small-cell antennas throughout
the City of La Mesa. The threats to public health, safety, privacy, security, property values, landscapes, and
more must be addressed in any small cell or other wireless policy, and protected against despite any illegal or
otherwise advice, orders, laws, or regulations to the contrary. Any interim resolution and policy and a more
permanent policy or ordinance or policy require built-in protections for the residents of our city from this
unprecedented dangerous technology. I do not feel that development of a small cell or any other wireless
policy or guidelines should be derived through consultation with an outside agent representing industry
interests and/or the FCC orders, rather than residents’ concerns. That would not be operating in good faith for
such an important and controversial decision, which can literally be a matter of life and death for many in our
community, including me and my loved ones and neighbors. Property values can be severely impacted, as can
the aesthetics and beauty of our City.
Therefore I request a well-advertised 5G Workshop be held to obtain residents input in a low-or-no-wifi
environment to accommodate those sensitive to rf radiation, who will be most interested in attending, for
the City to work directly with community groups to produce an updated and protective small cells wireless
policy, and that during this time period, until a permanent ordinance or policy is approved, no additional small
cells shall be permitted within the city limits.
The City has currently scheduled a resolution for an interim small cells policy for Oct. 22, 2019, starting at
6 pm and for agenda item 7, which could be heard very late in the evening. I request that you reschedule this
agenda item for two months from now, at the very least, after receiving residents’ input and that the agenda
item be first on the agenda, not near the last, which is often designed to discourage input and obtain a vote
for that which residents would not desire.
I notice that a Community Meeting can be voluntarily held prior to application (non-required) but it is also
prior to noticing of persons living up to 300 feet away from the designated site for a small cell. So people
attending the meeting would not know whether a small cell was to be placed in front of their home. Further,
the noticing occurs within the shot clock and allows 10 days to accomplish, thus reducing severely the time
for an appeal to the city council (and limited to city council meetings further reduces appeal opportunities).
The industry is favored in every way possible in this draft small cell policy. The residents receive absolutely
zero consideration.
Based on review of protective small cell wireless ordinance and policies being produced by cities and
counties all over California, there are a number of ways to ensure the best protections for the residents of the
City, which I trust is your primary goal.

I ENCOURAGE YOU NOT TO VOTE IN FAVOR OF ANY CURRENT OR FUTURE SMALL CELLS DRAFT ORDINANCE
OR POLICY UNTIL IT CONTAINS THE FOLLOWING:

 Restrict small cells in residential areas, and sensitive zones where children, elderly and those with
special/medical needs will be. No small cell should be allowed within (a minimum) of 1000 feet from a
residential property line, in any direction. Or within 1500 – 3,000 ft of civic areas, including schools,
hospitals, libraries, churches, daycares, community centers, senior facilities, police and fire stations, parks,
and sports fields - to the property lines. Verizon has a commercial on YouTube where they measured the
distance of a 5G signal (through hills and obstacles) at a distance of greater than 3,000 feet, so there
should be zero issue with these setbacks, they are a necessity. This will also reduce the ugly clutter that
results from unrestricted small cell installations.
 Restrict proximity of small cells in business areas. No small cell should be allowed within (a minimum) of
500 feet from a business, in any direction.
 Strong language. Use words which are definitive, instead of suggestions which can be ignored.

2
 La Mesa Resident Request Regarding Small Cell / Wireless Ordinance or policy

 Small cells and their related equipment weigh 90 lbs each according to industry sources. These can lead
to top-heavy, dangerous poles. Require all certifications by an independent engineer hired by City and
paid for by permit applicants, to assure that the pole can handle this additional weight.
 Permit approvals must be made to be discretionary rather than ministerial, with the entire shot clock
used, so the public can provide input that can be acted on, with a new streamlined system to
accommodate objections and ADA Accommodations Requests.
 ADA language and provisions. The ordinance or policy lacks language that protects Americans with
disabilities, and their use of these rights-of-way and travel paths, where the small cells structures will be
deployed. Small cells may make it impossible to occupy one’s home or yard, as well, if sensitive to rf
radiation. ADA protection must those who have physical mobility disabilities, and this is also not
mentioned. What about citizens with EHS, pacemakers, ADD/ADHD, autoimmune, etc? Also, provide a set
of directions for these requests with a timeline for granting them and incorporate into the shot clocks and
beyond (which can then hold up the shot clock). These rights-of-way and public streets belong to us too,
and this liability belongs to the City.
 Require a Master Plan. The master plan needs to be coordinated across all carriers, and provide
information for each antenna project like RF exposure levels, power levels, frequencies, and location
address. The master plan should also be published online with ample notice, such that citizens can provide
input BEFORE the antenna is installed. REQUIRE that these companies have a plan and strategy for where
they place the antennas,and enforce their compliance. This will minimize excessive, haphazard
installments. If there is no plan, require it as part of permit application.
 Require undergrounding of all equipment except antennas, with supportive independent documentation
explaining how each component works, under penalty of perjury, if challenged.
 No Collocation! Collocation means multiple antennas to a single pole. And despite the thinking, it does
not reduce clutter. Actually, it produces a huge eyesore of a pole will multiple projections hanging off of
it. It DRAWS more attention because of the extra hardware. Collocation allows poles to become scarily
top-heavy, and also exposes citizens to higher doses of radiation since multiple antennas will emit from a
single location. One antenna per pole. No additions to equipment on a pole.
 Distance between poles: no small cells or antennas shall be permitted within 1500 feet of ANY other
antenna, even from other providers, whether on new or existing street poles.
 No cutting or disturbance of trees and landscaping – at all. This must be forbidden! There are other
towns and cities with gorgeous, old trees being chopped down or excessively trimmed to allow for small
cell deployment. Not going to happen in City!
 Provide clear-easy-to-reach City support for citizens. We need to have a dedicated hotline/service to
contact the City when issues with the small cells arise, such as noise, safety, health problems, or other
complaints need to be reported. This service can be funded by the wireless providers as a part of their
application/bond/yearly renewal fees.
 Insurance for rf radiation and other injuries, and Bonds. Require proof that the companies, annually,
have adequate liability insurance ($2 million dollars each small cell) and bonds of $500,000 per small cell
to protect against malfunction, accidents, damages, and injuries, including from exposure to nonionizing
radiation for the entire year. These provide protection for the City too. Indemnification is not enough!
 RF emissions third-party testing. Independent third party inspections, by companies contracting with
the City, must be required at least once annually, or upon request, at the expense of the telecom company
owning the small cells, to ensure compliance with FCC guidelines for each pole (in total) and for each small
cell on the pole, and for any collective antennas within 100 feet of each other. NO SELF-CERTIFICATIONS
BY INDUSTRY.
 Require notice for any residence within a mile within two days of application for permit, and hold a
Community Meeting for those residents and any other interested residents within a mile within 5 days
of a proposed small cell site or application, to provide ample time for residents to come forward and

3
 La Mesa Resident Request Regarding Small Cell / Wireless Ordinance or policy

provide input, particularly those with medical reasons to avoid rf radiation. During noticing, large signage
noticing must also be placed on prospective poles with full details of application plans in large print,
including frequencies and power, size of small cell.
 Approvals for permits may only be reissued yearly with new re-application, with proof of having met all
criteria including noticing, liability insurance as above, and bonds. Small cells may not be upgraded without
a full new application process.
 Require safety signage on all poles. All poles must have necessary warning signs and RF safety information
as well as company and City contact names and phone numbers. Include total rf emission levels near
bottom ten feet of poles or general area if more than one pole.

Thank you for taking the time to consider and apply these suggestions. I would like to discuss these further,
or have a representative community group discuss them, and look forward to seeing these changes
in any future ordinance or policy draft before it is voted on.

Sincerely,

________________________________________________________________________________________
Signature Printed name