Tuesday, July 21, 2020 9:16 PM To: Mosher, Ana - Marin County

-----Original Message----- From: Ellen Arbit <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2020 9:16 PM To: Mosher, Ana Hilda <[email protected]> Subject: Please deny at&t petition Please keep our city safe for all people including those with electromagnetic sensitivities. This is a very real health condition with serious consequenced. Thank you. Ellen Arbit Baypoint Lagoon area Sent from my iPhone

mailto:[email protected]


1

Bereket, Immanuel

From: [email protected]: Sunday, July 19, 2020 7:39 PMTo: Mosher, Ana HildaCc: Bereket, Immanuel; [email protected]: Deny AT&T appeal

I support the Staff Report Recommendation to Deny the AT&T appeal of the DZA decision on the St. Luke Presbyterian Church project.

1

Bereket, Immanuel

From: Thomas Barrett <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2020 6:23 PMTo: Mosher, Ana Hilda; Bereket, Immanuel; Sackett, MarySubject: Objection to Presbytery Design Review / Use Permit (P2770)

To: Marin County Planning Commission

This objection is based on the likely loss of value of properties located near the cell tower. The record of the May 21 hearing contains 21 objections made on that basis. It appears that those objections were not considered in the DZA’s May 28 ruling to deny the permit. Loss of property value should be considered during the upcoming hearing on the appeal. The objection is submitted by the members of the Bayside Acres Action Committee, an informal committee organized for this purpose. All seven committee members are Bayside Acres residents:

1. Abbie and Stan Urban, 30 Bayview Dr. 2. John Purdue, 31. S. Bayview Dr. 3. Kristen Williams, 40 Bayview Dr. 4. Harriet Spiegel, 57 Bayview Dr. 5. Julia Glenister, 139 Bayview Dr. 6. Alan Schaevitz, 193 Bayview Dr. 7. Ogden and Jo Hamilton, 738 Point San Pedro Rd.

The objection is joined as cosponsors by these Bayside Acres residents who live in homes located within a 650-ft radius of the proposed cell tower. Of the combined members of the BAAC and the cosponsors only two live outside that radius. The projected loss of value for each address is found in Exhibit 2 of this objection. The email address for each cosponsor is in the CC field of this message:

1. Phong Nguyen, 23 Bayview Dr. 2. Laura Dasher, 23 Bayview Dr. 3. Shu Kaufmann and Gottfried Maier, 27 Bayview Dr. 4. Eli Froneberger, 50 Bayview Dr. 5. Gordon and Eileen Morris, 60 Bayview Dr. 6. Bob and Cathy Lenz, 2 Beach Dr. 7. Karen & Art Landesman, 106 Oak Dr 8. Bill Mandel and Cathy Jameson, 115 Oak Dr. 9. Elaine Goldman, 712 Point San Pedro Rd 10. Thomas Barrett, 724 Point San Pedro Rd.. 11. William Gates, 732 Point San Pedro Rd. 12. Sandy Mahoney, 736 Point San Pedro Rd. 13. Dan and Lynda Heller-Dunphy, 740 Point San Pedro Rd.

OBJECTION

First of two arguments: There is evidence that homebuyers will pay less for properties near a tower or not buy there at all.

2

An article in the July 25, 2014 Realtor Magazine indicates that a large percentage of potential homebuyers will pay less for homes near to cell towers or not buy one at all:

An overwhelming 94 percent of home buyers and renters surveyed by the National Institute for Science, Law & Public Policy (NISLAPP) say they are less interested and would pay less for a property located near a cell tower or antenna. What's more, of the 1,000 survey respondents, 79 percent said that under no circumstances would they ever purchase or rent a property within a few blocks of a cell tower or antennas, and almost 90 percent said they were concerned about the increasing number of cell towers and antennas in their residential neighborhood.

The concerns of many people about the health effects of EMFs may not be used to deny the permit. Indeed, in its appeal letter AT&T was scornful of the large number of objections filed for the May 28 meeting that naively focused on health concerns. However in view of those survey results buyers' health concerns become relevant. Those concerns certainly will shape the attitudes of homebuyers to property near the cell tower. Moreover, The California Association of Realtors’ Property Sellers Questionnaire specifically lists "neighborhood noise, nuisance or other problems from cell towers, (among other things,) on the disclosure form for sellers of real estate". See Exhibit 1. That form is designed to disclose "material defects" which may cause "economic obsolescence,” i.e. defects that cannot be remedied, that may affect a property's value. Failure of a seller to disclose the proximity of a cell tower can be the basis of a post-closing lawsuit by the buyer. Second of two arguments: There is published empirical evidence that the market values of homes near cell towers are nearly 10% below what they would have been but for the tower. A 2017 study by the Burgoyne Appraisal Company, Impact of Communication Towers and Equipment on Nearby Property values, discusses several published studies that have found that homes nears cell towers suffer losses in property value. The study most applicable to the permit application at issue is Wireless Towers and Home Values: An Alternative Valuation Approach Using a Spatial Econometric Analysis authored by Ermanno Affuso & J. Reid Cummings & Huubinh Le. The article was published in the The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, May 2020 Volume 56, Issue 4. This is the abstract:

This is the first study to use an hedonic spatial autoregressive model to assess the impact of wireless communication towers on the value of residential properties. Using quantile analyses based on minimum distances between sold properties and visible and non-visible towers, we examine the relationship between property values and wireless tower proximity and visibility within various specified radii for homes sold after tower construction. For properties located within 0.72 kilometers of the closest tower, results reveal significant social welfare costs with values declining 2.46% on average, and up to 9.78% for homes within tower visibility range compared to homes outside tower visibility range; in aggregate, properties within the 0.72-kilometer band lose over $24 million dollars.

When sending public notices to homeowners considered to be directly affected by the tower Marin County used a radius of 650 feet from the tower. The value-lost analysis in Exhibit 2 uses that radius as a reasonable proxy for the homes nearby homes referred to in the study. Therefore, although the study finds 2.46% average loss of property value within .72 km (2,360 ft) from a cell tower, the value-lost analysis in Exhibit 2 uses the 9.78% value-lost figure that applies to the closest homes. Exhibit 2 shows the market value and value lost for each of the 64 homes within the 650-ft radius. Those homes have a combined market value of more than $100 million and would suffer a combined loss in value of nearly $10 million. Marin County would lose more than $100 thousand in annual property tax revenue. Over the course of 20 years that would amount to more than $2 million in lost property tax revenue.

3

Note that the loss of value is based on Zillow value estimates, which tend to be low. Note also that the study underlying these data found that there was a lesser loss of value for additional properties out to 2,360 feet from the tower. Those losses likely comprise a halo effect of the more substantial losses or properties closer the cell tower.

From: Maureen BlockTo: Mosher, Ana Hilda; Sackett, Mary; Bereket, ImmanuelSubject: Thank you for your DENIAL of the St. Luke Presbyterian Church Cell Tower: RE: July 27th ATT AppealDate: Sunday, July 19, 2020 9:10:19 PM

Dear Planners:

Thank you for your initial denial of the ATT application for a cell tower at St. Luke’s. It is IMPERATIVE thatwe keep these cell towers and 4G small cell antennas OUT of our residential neighborhoods. No design concept willbe acceptable for this cell tower.

Furthermore, I would like the planning commission to review all AT&T’s insurance policies to guarantee thatthe neighborhood is covered by their insurance for any and all harm that could come to our neighborhood from thistechnology now or in the future, with no exception or carve out.

This technology economically benefits ATT but doesn’t necessarily benefit the neighbors near and far and maydisproportionately economically disadvantage neighbors who have no interest in this technology. This 24/7radiation, eye sore, reducer of economic value of property installation does NOT belong in our residential areas orsurrounding areas. We have fiber optics, which are far superior.

Again, we appreciate your support in denying these applications and have gratitude that you are watching outfor the best interest of the populous and not capitulating to heavy handed, multinational business interests.

Sincerely,

Maureen Block





1

Bereket, Immanuel

From: bonitamarmor <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2020 11:55 PMTo: Mosher, Ana HildaCc: Connolly, Damon; Bereket, ImmanuelSubject: Comments re Presbytery of the Redwood (AT&T) Use Permit

To the Marin County Planning Commission:

I am writing to you concerning the pending appeal for the Presbytery of the Redwood (AT&T) Use Permit. While the public would undoubtedly benefit from better cell coverage in the area of the proposed cell tower, there has been a high level of public concern about the location and design of the project. I share many of those concerns, but will focus these comments on public and private view issues.

The original notice of the application described a 30’ WCF tower. The tower was later described in the public notice regarding the hearing on the appeal as a 33’-5” tower. (The height discrepancy was unexplained.) The staff report for the hearing on the appeal makes clear that the alternative is 44’ tall. It was not originally clear whether the Planning Commission can or will consider both the original design and the proposed alternative. However, the staff report has helped to explain both the process to be used and the facts to be considered at the hearing, including that the Planning Commission is able to review de novo the evidence and findings. The evidence summarized in the staff report supports the conclusion that the project should be rejected. In particular, I agree that both the proposed 12 foot by 12 foot wide tower 33 feet tall, as shown in drawings and mocked up with story poles, and the alternative 44 feet tall tower, are inconsistent with policies in the Telecommunications Facilities Policy Plan (TFPP) because both alternatives result in significant visual impairments to scenic views, both public and private, and they are architecturally incompatible with surrounding buildings.

Substantial evidence to support this conclusion is contained in the “Photo-simulations report” prepared and submitted by the applicant and in photos submitted by neighbors. In an attempt to obfuscate, the applicant submitted photos in Exhibit B that were blatantly misleading. Those photos were taken from locations so far away from the facility that the Church itself is hardly visible. They failed to include the views from the public walkway along Pt. San Pedro Road below the proposed tower from which most pedestrians and bicyclists would view it. The story poles, clearly visible from that vantage point, portray a huge, dominating, block-like tower. The attached photos from this section of Pt. San Pedro Road, and one taken from the front of my home, show the commanding views of this undeniably massive and unattractive mock up of a “faux” bell tower.

Because the proposed Church site is in a residential zone, it is particularly important that the design be compatible with the surrounding residential community. These photos help to illustrate that it is not at all compatible, and that the proposed project is inconsistent with the goals and policies contained in the TFPP. Along this stretch of roadway where the public enjoys scenic views, this brutal monolith arrises out of nowhere and blocks the sky like a giant tombstone on the top of the hill. The 44’ alternative also promises to be a vastly inappropriately scaled tower. Without story poles to show just what a revised, taller version might actually look like, one can only imagine that it will still not be very bell-tower like and envision a taller thinner version—a dominating silhouette against the sky—looking like an upward pointing sore thumb emerging from a giant box.

I urge the Commission to uphold the DZA’s denial of the application and to adopt the conclusions set forth in the staff report. Thank you for giving these comments your consideration.

1.

2

1.

Bonita Marmor

732 Pt. San Pedro Road

In the aerial above, Applicant’s Attachment D, items 1, 2, and 3, show the locations where their photos were taken from. The black arrow shows where the photos below were taken from.

3

This is the view of the project site from directly below on Pt. San Pedro Road.

4

This photo was taken standing on the sidewalk on the eastbound side of Pt. San Pedro Road. (This is the view the public sees as it walks and bicycles along the road….The edge of the sidewalk is visible in the lower left of the photo.

5

Looking up to the proposed tower from Pt. San Pedro Road.

6

Here is the private view from our front yard.

1

Bereket, Immanuel

From: Mary Beth Brangan <[email protected]>Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2020 8:04 PMTo: Bereket, ImmanuelSubject: Fwd: In support of staff report to deny AT&T appeal of the DZA decision on St. Luke project

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ From: Mary Beth Brangan <[email protected]> Date: Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 7:01 PM Subject: In support of staff report to deny AT&T appeal of the DZA decision on St. Luke project To: <[email protected]> Cc: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>

Dear Ms. Mosher, I'm writing to support the Staff Report Recommendation to deny the AT&T appeal of the DZA decision on the St. Luke Church project. Thanks for your important work! Mary Beth Brangan ‐‐ Mary Beth Brangan Co‐Director, EON Ecological Options Network Bolinas, CA 94924 415‐868‐1900 ‐ office 415‐246‐1054 ‐ cell www.eon3.net https://www.youtube.com/eon3 ‐‐ Mary Beth Brangan Co‐Director, EON Ecological Options Network Bolinas, CA 94924 415‐868‐1900 ‐ office 415‐246‐1054 ‐ cell

2

www.eon3.net https://www.youtube.com/eon3

1

Bereket, Immanuel

From: Mosher, Ana HildaSent: Monday, July 20, 2020 4:06 PMTo: Bereket, ImmanuelSubject: FW: AT& T Appeal

From: Linda Brauner <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, July 20, 2020 12:25 PM To: Mosher, Ana Hilda <[email protected]> Subject: AT& T Appeal I support your decision denying AT&T proposed installation at St Lukes Church, San Rafael. Linda Brauner, PhD

1

Bereket, Immanuel

From: Linda Brauner <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2020 3:47 PMTo: Bereket, ImmanuelSubject: Support your denial

Hi I am writing in support of your decision to deny installation of small cells in St Lukes Church. Thank you, Linda G. Brauner, PhD

1

Bereket, Immanuel

From: SANDRA CLANCY <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2020 11:57 PMTo: Bereket, Immanuel; Bereket, ImmanuelCc: Connolly, DamonSubject: Projet ID P2770

Homeowner Sandra Clancy 110 Oak Drive San Rafael, CA 94901 PLEASE DO NOT APPROVE THIS CELL TOWER INSTALLATION AT 10 Bayview Drive in San Rafael. This is an eyesore. I am sick and tired of looking at the story poles. It is big and ugly and can be seen from most places on my property. This is an invasion of my privacy having this thing looking down on us as we try to enjoy our garden. It is very upsetting to have our home violated in this way. The church is overstepping its status as a spiritual place of worship by becoming a commercial enterprise selling space for profit. The proposed erection of this cell tower is not in keeping with the scenic atmosphere of the community. PLEASE DO NOT APPROVE THE CELL TOWER Sincerely Sandra Clancy and B. Patrick Clancy

1

Bereket, Immanuel

From: Laura Closterhouse <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2020 10:09 PMTo: Bereket, ImmanuelSubject: AT&T Appeal

Dear Kett, I support the staff recommendation to deny the AT&T appeal of the DZA decision on the St. Luke Presbyterian Church project. Thank you, Laura Closterhouse

1

Bereket, Immanuel

From: Laura Closterhouse <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2020 9:49 PMTo: Bereket, ImmanuelSubject: AT@T Appeal

Dear Ianner, I am writing to let you know that I support the staff report recommendation to deny the AT@T appeal of the DZA decision on the St. Luke Presbyterian Church project. Thank you, Laura Closterhouse

1

Bereket, Immanuel

From: Mosher, Ana HildaSent: Wednesday, July 22, 2020 10:08 AMTo: Bereket, ImmanuelSubject: FW: Presbytery of the Redwoods Application -St Luke's

. . . . . . . . .

ANA HILDA MOSHER SENIOR SECRETARY/PLANNING COMMISSION SECRETARY

County of Marin Community Development Agency 3501 Civic Center Drive, Suite 308 San Rafael, CA 94903 415 473 6278T 415 473 7880 F 415 473 2255 TTY CRS Dial 711 [email protected]

STAY CONNECTED:

“Please consider the environment before printing this email or attachments”

From: Sackett, Mary <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2020 9:25 AM To: Mosher, Ana Hilda <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Presbytery of the Redwoods Application ‐St Luke's

From: D.Coughtry <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2020 7:58 AM To: Sackett, Mary <[email protected]> Subject: Presbytery of the Redwoods Application ‐St Luke's Dear Ms. Sackett:

2

I support the denial of this project. In assigning residential areas “least preferred” the County recognized the health dangers of placing WCI in residential areas where close proximity to 24/7 radiation exposure is inescapable.

I urge the County to adhere to the ordinance and protect its constituents’ health from radiation as it protects residents from living in close proximity to other toxic materials and enterprises.

Sincerely, Diane Coughtry

1

Bereket, Immanuel

From: D.Coughtry <[email protected]>Sent: Monday, July 20, 2020 1:58 PMTo: Mosher, Ana HildaCc: Bereket, Immanuel; [email protected]: Presbytery of the Redwoods App for St. Luke's

Dear Planners:

I support the denial of this project. In assigning residential areas “least preferred” the County recognized the health dangers of placing WCI in residential areas where close proximity to 24/7 radiation exposure is inescapable.

I urge the County to adhere to the ordinance and protect its constituents’ health from radiation as it protects residents from living in close proximity to other toxic materials and enterprises.

Sincerely, Diane Coughtry

From: Mosher, Ana HildaTo: Bereket, ImmanuelSubject: FW: I support the Staff Recommendation ReportDate: Monday, July 20, 2020 9:43:49 AM

From: Sackett, Mary <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, July 20, 2020 8:41 AMTo: Mosher, Ana Hilda <[email protected]>Subject: FW: I support the Staff Recommendation Report

From: E EYZATIA <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, July 19, 2020 3:19 PMTo: Sackett, Mary <[email protected]>Subject: I support the Staff Recommendation Report to deny AT&T appeal of the DZA decision on the St. Luke Presbyterian Church Project. Thank you Sincerely,EyzatiaMill Valley, CA





1

Bereket, Immanuel

From: Mosher, Ana HildaSent: Wednesday, July 22, 2020 4:34 PMTo: Bereket, ImmanuelSubject: FW: I support the Staff Report Recommendation

From: E EYZATIA <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2020 4:32 PM To: E EYZATIA <[email protected]> Subject: I support the Staff Report Recommendation

I support the Staff Report Recommendation to Deny the AT&T appeal of the DZA decision on the St. Luke Church project. Thank you Sincerely, Eyzatia Mill Valley, Ca. 94941.

1

Bereket, Immanuel

From: Mosher, Ana HildaSent: Tuesday, July 21, 2020 1:23 PMTo: Bereket, ImmanuelSubject: FW: St. Luke Church Cell Tower Proposal, July 27 Planning Commission Hearing

From: William Gates <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2020 12:56 PM To: Mosher, Ana Hilda <[email protected]> Cc: Bonita Marmor <[email protected]> Subject: St. Luke Church Cell Tower Proposal, July 27 Planning Commission Hearing Tuesday, July 21, 2020 Dear Ms. Mosher, Re: St. Luke Church Cell Tower Proposal I am forwarding you the email below to request that it be included in the record for the July 27 Planning Commission hearing regarding the appeal from the denial of the proposed cell tower at St. Luke Church. I sent that email on May 27 for consideration by the DZA at the May 28 hearing, but it was not posted anywhere online (we checked repeatedly and thoroughly), and my letter was not read aloud at the hearing. I want to be sure it is part of the record to be considered by the Planning Commission. Thank you for giving this your attention. Best regards, William Gates

From: wwgates <[email protected]> Subject: St. Luke Church Cell Tower Proposal Date: May 27, 2020 at 5:18:43 PM PDT To: [email protected] Cc: Bonita Marmor <[email protected]>, [email protected], [email protected]

William Gates 732 Point San Pedro Road

San Rafael, CA. 94901

415 215 5402 May 27, 2020 Email sent to: [email protected]., [email protected].

2

Dear Marin County Deputy Zoning Administrators, For more than 20 years, we have lived in Bayside Acres, within 200 feet of St. Luke Church at 10 Bayview Dr. I am writing regarding the proposal to locate a cell tower

at St. Luke. We recognize the need for good cell communication capabilities, along with many of my neighbors, we have a multitude of questions and concerns about this project.

Although the proposal is currently for a 4G installation, can the County ensure that it will not also be used for 5G technology? Clearly, the jury is out on the health safety of this technology. Can the community be assured that 5G will not be added at a future date before adequate scientific research is concluded on the health risks?

How can the County justify this installation in such close proximity to homes? Marin County has determined that non‐residential sites are preferred for such installations. A cell tower of this size simply does not belong in a residential neighborhood in close proximity to residences. It does not meet the County’s own standards as set forth in Marin County’s Telecommunications Facilities Policy Plan or Design Review Ordinances.

What were the alternative sites that were explored and rejected ‐ and why were other appropriate sites not explored? We are not at all convinced that sufficient alternatives to this site have been adequately explored.

How can this project proceed without undergoing environmental review?

Although our family can regularly hear noise from the Church when we are at home, we have never complained. However, we are concerned about the additional noise connected with this proposal. Given the findings in ATT’s noise study, the noise from the Church should certainly not be increased.

From the front of our home, we look directly toward the proposed tower. I am a licensed architect and have reviewed the plans: I agree with those who assert that it cannot meet Design Review requirements as it is readily visible from various public views and does not fit in with the aesthetic of our community. Although it does not block our water views, we do have empathy for those who will have their views affected and believe this another legitimate concern.

St. Luke has long been a wonderful gathering place for our community. Not only do parishioners enjoy the facility, but also many others who have no affiliation to the Church. Our neighborhood has no community center, so neighborhood organizations have for many years rented the lovely St. Luke facilities for community

3

meetings. Recently, the Church has offered the use of the facility for disaster preparedness meetings, free of charge. It is most regrettable that this cell tower proposal has ignited concern and controversy. The ire and resentment expressed by neighbors, some of whom have long been disturbed by noise from the Church, will only we exacerbated should the proposal be approved.

Even though the jury may still be out on the long term health effects of EMF exposure, residents do have significant and legitimate concerns. We understand that while you are not tasked with deciding the validity of stated health concerns associated with close proximity 4G and 5G EMF radiation exposure, we urge you to ensure that every reasonable effort be made to find an alternative site that is not in a residential area.

For all the reasons set forth above, we ask that this Application be DENIED.

Sincerely,

William Gates

732 Point San Pedro Rd. San Rafael, Ca. 94901

415 215 5402

CC: Supervisor Damon Connolly

1

Bereket, Immanuel

From: Rachel Gaunt <[email protected]>Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2020 4:49 PMTo: Mosher, Ana HildaCc: Bereket, Immanuel; Sackett, MarySubject: St Luke Church Project

Dear Ana I support the staff report recommendation to deny the AT&T appeal of the DZA decision on the St Luke Project. (I sent letter in May regarding this application and outlined reasons for denying the tower.) Thank you for your thoughtful attention in this matter. respectfully Rachel Gaunt

1

Bereket, Immanuel

From: Julia Glenister <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2020 11:03 PMTo: Mosher, Ana HildaCc: Connolly, Damon; Sackett, Mary; Goncalves, Gustavo; Bereket, Immanuel; Abbie Urban; Kristen

Williams; Ogden Hamilton; Alan Schaevitz; Harriet Spiegel; John PurdueSubject: Compilation of Opposition Letters Filed Publicly in May 2020 Against St Luke's Cell Tower ProposalAttachments: PUBLIC LETTERS OPPOSING CELL TOWER AT ST LUKE'S MAY 28.xlsx

Date: July 22, 2020 To: Ana Hilda Mosher, Secretary to Marin County Planning Commission

cc: Damon Connolly, Marin County District Supervisor; Mary Sackett; Gustavo Goncalves;, Immanuel Bereket; BAAC Re: Presbytery Design Review/Use Permit (P2770)

To document the many strong objections to AT&T’s proposed cell tower at St Luke’s Presbytery located within the residential community of Bayside Acres at 10 Bayview Drive, San Rafael, the Bayside Acres Action Committee (BAAC) has prepared this spreadsheet. We are aware of other comments that did not make it into the supplemental online record; these are only the comments that were recorded and posted publicly. More than 90 letters were submitted by concerned neighbors and county residents prior to the Marin County Planning Division’s DZA hearings on May 28, 2020. These letters can be found in various supplemental filings on the County of Marin’s website. Our spreadsheet is intended to be a Table of Contents for the May 2020 opposition letters that were recorded and are buried deep within six supplemental memos. The objections are cataloged by the following complaints:

1. Property Values Issue Raised 2. Procedural Questions Raised (County/Church Conditional Use) 3. Questions About Alternative Sites/Options 4. Health/EMF Concerns 5. Aesthetics/Blocks Views/Noise/Doesn’t Belong in a Residential Neighborhood 6. Special Requests/Questions/Comments

We are relieved that the Deputy Zoning Administrator denied AT&T’s application based on design issues during the May 28 hearing. These earlier objection letters bring up many other valid concerns that we urge the Planning Commission to consider during the July 27 appeal. Please note that at the time these objection letters were written, AT&T’s proposed cell tower design was 33 ft tall. The revised project that will be discussed on July 27 puts the tower’s heighth at 44 ft, — a good 11 ft taller than the earlier design that Michelle Levenson, the County’s Deputy Zoning Administrator, rejected because it blocked neighbors’ views. It exceeds the zoning ordinance for an R1‐B4 residential zone, yet no request has been made in the permit for a zoning variance. Also, it is doubtful there is any location on the church's property where such a tall structure would not block someone’s view. The BAAC has filed two earlier objections. One is related to the lack of alternative site research specifically related to licensing the Verizon tower, and the second is related to the debilitating property devaluation of our neighbors’ properties within a 650 ft radius of this proposed tower.

2

Regards, Julia Glenister on behalf of the Bayside Acres Action Committee (BAAC)

Last Name First Name Neighborhood Address Town Posted on Marin

County Website for

Administrative

Record and Deputy

Zoning

Administrator

Property Values

Issue Raised

Procedural

Questions Raised

(County/Church

Conditional Use)

Questions About

Alternative

Sites/Options

Health/EMF

Concerns

Aesthetics/Blocks

Views/Noise/Doesn

’t Belong in a

Residential

Neighborhood

Special

Requests/Question

s/Comments

Anahaar Letter 5/26/20: I am just moving to this area of San Rafael.

… I am EMF sensitive and know enough about the ill

√ Immanuel (County)…must ask ATT and the

Anthes Roberta 2 Snowden Lane, Fairfax

Fairfax Roberta Anthes letter (undated) Although I don’t live

…Similar correlations between cell towers

Arbit Ellen Letter 5/26/20: I urgently urge san rafael deny

EMF, 5G

Barrett Tom Bayside Acres 724 San Pedro Rd San Rafael 5/26/20 letter: As a neighbor living directly across

5/25/2020: Whether rea l or perceived

5/25/2020 Letter: This is not a hearing. An actual

Letter dated 5/25/2020: * I have seen no

Letter dated 5/26/2020: I know initially this is Only

Letter dated: 5/26/2020:…If this passes I want to

Bennett Nancy Lyle Letter dated sent 5/27/2020Please d o NOT

√

Block Maureen Country Club 105 Montecito Rd San Rafael 1) Too much density. Too much saturation. Benefit

2) this meeting can not be easily accessed by

Too much saturation…4G is causing health

Can switch from ATT to Verizon for good service.

Boggs Kathleen San Anselmo

Letter dated 5/28/20: I am deeply concerned

…home values will be detrimentally impacted…

I am also concerned that due to COVID this

…health and safety AT&T submitted applications last year for 3 small

Brauner Linda Letter dated 5/27/2020Dear Mr . Bereket

Brawner David Mill Valley Letter dated 5/27/2020 I am a concerned citizen

Epic Wireless applied for their use permit on 2-12 - 20 ,

√

Brown Stuart Bayside Acres 85 Main Ave San Rafael Letter dated 5/26/20: OBJECTION TO

OBJECTION BASED ON CHURCH’S

Neither ATT nor the County have shown that more

OBECTION TO CONSTANT NOISE: It is not

Campion Erin Letter 5/26/20: I OPPPOSE the building of 5 G cell

Cappin Charlotte Bayside Acres San Rafael Against a 5G tower.

Clancy Sandra Bayside Acres 110 Oak Drive San Rafael Letter dated 5/27/2020I am Sandra Clancy

It will effect my PROPERTY VALUE. Who wants

3 ) I f ind it offensive that this should be done during th e

I understand tha t AT@ T tried to put this tower in other

√ 2) My view wh ich I have enjoyed for 50 years will be ruined

Coleman Cayla Bayside Acres 205 Bayview Drive San Rafael We do not approve of a cell tower here nor do we need one

Crawshaw Todd Bayside Acres 120 Bayview Drive San Rafael Letter dated 5.27/2020I live at 120

Opposed to 30 ft tower. Concerned about constant

AT&T Cell Tower at St Lukes’ Presbytery

1

Danek Andrea Letter 5/27/20: Subject: Absolutely NO 5G towers in

Delmas Cinde Lou Bayside Acres 125 Bayview Drive San Rafael Letter dated 5/27/2020Rather than repeat

√ √ √ √ √

Diebel Eve Bayside Acres 50 Bayview Drive San Rafael Letter 5/27/20: 1) Failure to find more alternate sites -

Church’s misuse of a residential permit…Church’s

Failure to find more alternate sites - residential are

Digby Thomas get the sense you are willing to expose hispanic

Doherty Brucine and

Francis

Bayside Acres 136 Bayview Drive San Rafael 5/27/2020: We a re long - time residents and concerned

OBJECTION BASED ON DECREASED

OBJECTION TO LOCATION : The design and location

√ OBECTION TO CONSTANT NOISE : ATT ' s own

Dunn Joe Bayside Acres 80 Bayview Drive San Rafael Letter dated 5/26/20: We are concerned


OBJECTION TO LOCATION: The design and location


OBJECTION TO PROLONGED EXPOSURE TO

OBJECTION TO VIEW IMPEDIMENT:

Dunphy Daniel Bayside Acres 740 San Pedro Rd San Rafael Dunphy wrote 5/25/20...I am a physician associate

We are with in 600 feet ofthis proposed

Dunphy (Heller-Dunphy)

Lynda Bayside Acres 740 San Pedro Rd San Rafael Letter dated 5/27/20:I am writing in total

2.I OPPOSE THE CONSTRUCTION of the cell tower

…I note that like many other neighbors, I was

…1. I OPPOSE THE LOCATION of the cell tower

4. I OPPOSE THE HEALTH HAZARDS that the

3. I OPPOSE THE ASTHETICS/DESIGN of the cell

Ellis Michael Bayside Acres 33 Bayview Drive San Rafael Multiple letters regarding view and trees to be cut

Value of my property will be substantially

…view severely impacted.

Estes Mary Bayside Acres 4 Beach Drive San Rafael Letter dated 5/27/2020Dear Supervisor

“ a residential site the least desirable location for a cell

“…It seems to me other locations should be sought

√

Eyzatia Mill Valley Letter dated 5/27/20: Cell towers are not

√

Fischer Lavinia Loch Lomond 75 Dunfries Terrace San Rafael Letter dated 5/27/20: “If I walked through my

Doesn’t meet the Telecommunications Facilities Policy

Do you think there is a reason that AT&T was unable

I also worry that the WHO had a good reason to list

The sounds of outdoor activities at the church are

Fitzgerald Janet 56 Canyon Rd Fairfax Letter dated 5/28/20 I am writing to convince

I have to assume you've done your duty, and read the

Who will pay for damages? See Rippon California’s

Fleming Sophie Marin resident Letter dated 5/27/20: I am writing to inform

√

Fromberger (Froneber

Jacob applicant has not shown they have exhausted other

…applicant has not shown they have exhausted other

Froneberger

Liz Bayside Acres 50 Bayview Drive San Rafael RNBSNI have no idea if you are subject to the

… Means you approve of neighbors’ values

Froneberger (Fiery)

Eli Bayside Acres 50 Bayview Drive San Rafael Letter with photos dated 5/27/2020I am writing to

“…There are articles about cell phone towers

… appalling communication from the

“…I also know that the location does not meet the

Future Issue: So

even if you

approve a smallerGaunt Rachel I am writing to

protest the placement of a

…P.S. We miss our right to speak on the record

There are lower powered, less intrusive ways to fill

How arbitrary and unfair that certain residential homes

Setting a Precedent

We understand

that this new

2

Glenister Julia and Chri Bayside Acres 139 Bayview Drive San Rafael Letter dated 5/28/2020: The proposed project

OBJECTION TO VIEW IMPEDIMENT:

OBJECTION TO LOCATION: The design and location


Numerous studies cite health concerns

OBJECTION TO CONSTANT NOISE: ATT’s own

Goforth & Henderson

Ann and Jim Bayside Acres 225 Bayview Drive San Rafael Letter dated 5/27/2020W e are concerned


OBJECTIO N TO LOCATION : The design and location

√ OBECTION TO DESIGN : It cannot meet Design

Goldman Elaine Bayside Acres 712 Pt. San Pedro Rd. San Rafael Letter sent 5/27/20: Hi, We live at 712 Pt. San Pedro Rd.

√ I think more research is needed before the County

Griffith Julie Harvard/Oxford trained neurologist. Fellowship in

When is the meeting to be held — audio is not a

√

Hahn Kim San Rafael I write to you today as a Marin native, having grown up

√

Hamilton Ogden and

Jo

Bayside Acres 738 Point San Pedro Rd

San Rafael Letter sent 5/26/20:

Supervisor


Hamilton Sharon 18 Grove Lane San Anselmo

Letter dated 5/28/20, I am writing to express

√

Han Kim My students were exposed to wireless radiation

√

Harrison Benjamin San Geronimo Valley

Lagunitas-Forest Knolls

Letter 5/27/20: …father, software engineer…concern

Hellerd Lynda

Higgins Broker Associate/I

Katherine Loch Lomond 30 Bayharbor Way San Rafael Letter to Supvr Connolly and Manny 5/25/2020 I

A 30-foot structure “disguised” as a bell tower is a

I can see the St. Luke’s Church from the master

James Gianola Loch Lomond 30 Bayharbor Way San Rafael Sent a letter with

Katherine Higgins.

I can see the St. Luke’s Church from the master

Jamison Katherine Bayside Acres 115 Oak Drive San Rafael Letter dated 5/27/2020: As homeowners and

W e are also quite concerned about the very likely

I would question whether or not this proposed location

Surely there is a much more appropriate setting

√ Such a project has no place in a bucolic

Kaul Joan Letter dated 5/28/2020: I am writing to express

√

Lachman Christine Country Club AT&T, Sprint, T-Mobile and Verizon are rushing to

√

Lauritzen Hal Bayside Acres 54 Beach Drive San Rafael √ concerned about aesthetics

Leahy Frank Mill Valley PEOPLE ARE GETIING INJURED BY

I see a "Presbytery Noise Compliance Report" listed, but

Wants to see a report on whether the equipment will

…My reading of that FCC ruling is that there must be

Lenert Carolyn

3

Lerner Jess HUMAN EXPOSURE GUIDELINES

√

Long Joe and

Angela

Bayside Acres 175 Oak Drive San Rafael

Longnecker

Lisa Letter dated 5/27/2020:

√

M? Paul Bayside Acres The installation of these antennas w ill not benefit our

…learned that St Lukes’ operates on a non-conforming

Mandel Bill Bayside Acres 115 Oak Drive San Rafael Letter dated 5/27/2020My wife and I are

The notice , issued by your offic e , sa id the structure would

AT & T ( and the County , as far as I know ) has not

Mansfield (McCormick)

Jan (Letter says she lives near the church)

San Rafael Letter 5/27/20…”I used to be an epidemiologist…tho

√

Marmor Bonnie Bayside Acres 732 Pt San Pedro Rd San Rafael Letter 5/28/20: I wish to submit the following

1. The process used in this instance, although

3. The photos submitted by the applicant are

Concerns have been raised world wide about not only

Matross Susan Bayside Acres 51 Beach Drive San Rafael Letter to Rep. Connolly dated 5/24/20: susan

…inappropriateness of holding an online hearing

…The issues surrounding these cell towers are

McCann Madelene Letter dated 5/27/2020I ask that you

At this time our local leaders should not have to

√

McGraw Cecilia 65 Fairway San Rafael Letter dated 5/27/2020

√

McKee Dan Letter dated 5/27/2020 I am writing to add my

√

McQuown Dorothy Marin Letter dated 5/27/2020I am writing in

√ dangerous precedent in residential

McRae Maureen &

Colin

Letter dated 5/27/2020

√

Moran Melanie √

Morris Gordon Bayside Acres 60 Bayview Drive San Rafael This letter has an email intro and an attachment…There


...OBJECTION TO LOCATION: The design and location

√ 3. THE CHURCH no longer serves the neighborhood

Moskow Sa ng ita Letter dated 5/27/2020P leas e d o no t

“…I th i n k i t is v ery un fai r t o ta ke ad vantag e of t h e

√

Mukomela Paul Bayside Acres San Rafael Letter sent 5/27/2020 BINGO IS ONE

“Secondly , I have recently learned that St. Luke ' s

√

Nagle (Damazyn)

Michelle Canal 12 Amalfi Place San Rafael Letter dated 5/28/2020

√

4

Offering (Sounds like?)

Sukanya Our main objection to the proposed "bell" cell tower is

√

Page Garril 70 Fa w n Drive San Anselmo

Letter dated 5/27/2020

I regret that this is a limited access hearing: those who

√

Peri Andy https://www.westonaprice.org/podcast/206-emfs-and-

During this time of Covid-19, it is impossible for the

The County responded to the public by updating

At the hearings that the County of Marin conducted

Pirrone Annette Letter dated 5/27/2020 I am writing to let you

Porter Tony Bayside Acres 100 Bayview Drive San Rafael Apart from the extremely serious health hazards, the

assuredly will depress home values in our area...

…I’m dismayed at how the county/city seems to be

I am completely perplexed that this location and

…unsightly, enormous and unreasonable

Prevost Lelani 765 Point San Pedro Rd

San Rafael Letter dated 5/27/2020: I would like to

Purdue John and

Regina

Nejmanowsk

Bayside Acres 31 Bayview Drive San Rafael This location is a residential neighborhood

We are opposed to this proposal as we feel the project will

the fact that it does not meet the County’s own

…appears to demonstrate neither AT&T or

…compromise our view.

Ross Sandy We strongly urge you to deny the building application

√

Rushton. Chairperson

Sharon Mill Valley Attached is a letter from Sustainable TamAimonte,

Moreover, the number of 4G LTE antennas have not

We understand the project has been modified so that

Schaevitz Alan and

Wendy

Bayside Acres 193 Bayview Drive San Rafael Letter dated 5/25/20: LOCATION: The

DESIGN: …will measurably decrease

LOCATION: The location does not meet the standards

…Neither ATT nor the County have shown that more

...clearly obstructs various public and private property

Shapira Susan Loch Lomond 70 Dunfries Terrace San Rafael Letter dated 5/27/2020I am a resident of

√

Sievers Marin Outreach

Vicki San Rafael Letter dated 5/27/2020: I am writing in

…Were co-location and clustering exhaustively

…Health issues especially for those within 1,000 ft

Spiegel Harriet Bayside Acres 57 Bayview Drive San Rafael Letter sent 5/24/20: Dear Marin County Deputy Zoning

…Many of our houses (mine included) have

Perhaps because of decreasing church

If there is no location available at any industrial,

As an individual with chronic health issues, I am

noise, design …First and foremost, a

Stack - See also Susan

Peter Bayside Acres 51 Beach Drive San Rafael Letter dated 5/27/2020We are among the

An Alternate site should be found that is not in a

√

Tattersall David and Na Bayside Acres 26 Beach Drive San Rafael Letter sent 5/26/20: 1) St Luke’s Church is located

1) St Luke’s Church is located on a single family

5) the applicant states various examples of

4) the aesthetic conditions of this project are simply

Tournis Monika Glenwood 24 Dellwood Ct San Rafael Letter send 5/26/20: I would not like to see the

√

Urban Abbie Bayside Acres 30 Bayview Drive San Rafael Letter dated 5/27/2020Dear Marin County

2 . The aesthetic of the proposed tower is too large and

…the property is no longer being operated as a

1 . The application does not ad equately demonst

Pl eas e see p hotographs

5 . The backup

generator and

associated largeUrban Stan Bayside Acres 30 Bayview Drive San Rafael 1) Block my water

view. Understand that the cell tower

…This impact, along with the noise issues, will

…at 30’ it appears to violate the zoning height

The application gives only passing reference to some

√ ...does not meet Design Review requirements as it

Co‐writer of email

to HOA Board

5

Weizman Ruth Letter dated 5/28/2020: I am writing to express

√

White Sandy Woodacre Letter dated 5/27/2020Something like this

Williams Kristen and RoBayside Acres 40 Bayview Drive San Rafael Letter dated 5/28/2020: Than k you in

5 . A pplication Should Be Denied Because It Harms

1. Application should be Denied Because

County Should Engage Further on Public Sites

√ 2 . Application Should Be Denied Because It Does

Additional

ques ons are as

follows:Wiseman Ruth Residential area -

radiation exposure from 9 antennas.

Yempolsky

Jim and

Michelle

Loch Lomond 36 Bonnie Banks Way San Rafael Letter dated 5/28/20

As an AT&T customer (my work provided mobile

√ ...This installation, besides ruining an historical view of

Spelled on the

record as

“Yempolski ” but

6

1

Bereket, Immanuel

From: James Haig <[email protected]>Sent: Monday, July 20, 2020 10:43 AMTo: Mosher, Ana HildaCc: Bereket, Immanuel; [email protected]: St. Luke Presbyterian Church project

Just a quick note to say I appreciate and approve of your denial of the AT&T proposal for an antennae site at St. Luke’s church. Thanks! James Haig

1

Bereket, Immanuel

From: Mosher, Ana HildaSent: Tuesday, July 21, 2020 3:10 PMTo: Bereket, ImmanuelSubject: FW: Presbytery Design Review / Use Permit (P2770)Attachments: Staff report Existing towers.pdf

From: J Hamilton <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2020 2:46 PM To: Mosher, Ana Hilda <[email protected]> Cc: Connolly, Damon <[email protected]>; Sackett, Mary <[email protected]>; Goncalves, Gustavo <[email protected]>; Alan Schaevitz <[email protected]>; Bonnie Marmor <[email protected]>; Julia Glenister <[email protected]>; Abbie Urban <[email protected]>; Harriet Spiegel <[email protected]>; Kristen Williams <[email protected]>; John Purdue <[email protected]>; Stan Urban <[email protected]> Subject: Presbytery Design Review / Use Permit (P2770) To: Marin County Planning Commission This objection is based on the failure of AT&T to satisfy the terms of Marin County’s Telecommunications Facilities Policy Plan 1998, specifically the requirements with respect to alternative sites. The record of the May 28 hearing contains 28 objections that include failure to meet those requirements. It appears that those objections were not considered in the DZA’s May 28 ruling to deny the permit. Objections to AT&T’s rejection of alternative sites should be considered during the upcoming hearing on the appeal. The objection is submitted by the members of the Bayside Acres Action Committee, an informal committee organized for this purpose. All seven committee members are Bayside Acres residents:


The objection was composed as a stand‐alone submission. However in view of the deep dive the Point San Pedro Road Coalition took into the failure of AT&T to justify its rejection of alternative sites, the objection now is most valuable to the Planning Commission as supporting detail for the Point San Pedro Road Coalition's submission.

OBJECTION

The Verizon cell tower located at 2000 Gold Hill Grade provides excellent service to customers in the dead zone identified by AT&T. Co‐location was not considered in AT&T’s proposal or appeal letter. Based on these sections of Telecommunications Facilities Policy Plan, if AT&T does not provide information on this alternative site the permit should be denied.

2

Program VIS 1.1.2: Wherever possible, new telecommunications devices should be co‐ located or clustered at existing facilities… Program VIS 1.1.4: To minimize visual effect, service providers should be encouraged to share facilities to the greatest extent possible.

The Verizon cell tower located at 2000 Gold Hill Grade is located in an area preferable to “residential sites.” Based on these sections of Telecommunications Facilities Policy Plan the permit for a tower at the residential site named in the permit application and appeal letter should be denied.

Program LU 1.4.2: New commercial wireless systems and other minor facilities should be co‐located or clustered...and adhere to the preferred locations, as generally prioritized below… The two lowest‐priority locations are these:

• 6) Open space and recreational sites

• 7) Residential sites

AT&T’s application does not meet requirements of Program LU 1.4.3 (b) with respect to the Verizon cell tower site. Based on these sections of Telecommunications Facilities Policy Plan the permit should be denied unless AT&T provides the required information.

Program LU 1.4.3: To evaluate whether a proposed facility conforms to the location standards contained in this Telecommunications Plan, service providers shall submit with their development applications an updated network facilities plan consisting of the following: This is Program LU 1.4.3 (b). A list enumerating the service providers' facilities sites, including existing sites (operative and abandoned), approved sites, proposed sites (i.e., applications pending), and planned site (i.e., sites that can be reasonably predicted but have not been formally proposed by the filing of development applications);

AT&T’s application does not provide the map required by Program LU 1.4.3(c). It does not identify any site other than the site of he proposed cell tower. The application also fails to reference the map in its written material in a way that would put it into context.

This is Program LU 1.4.3(c). A map depicting the geographic location and boundaries of all coverage areas or search rings existing or planned by the service provider and the approximate location of service providers' facility sites within each coverage area;

This is the map AT&T submitted in DZA Attachment #6 in the Staff Report with Attachments 1‐11 on the County website:

This is what the map should have looked like:

3

This is what the Verizon tower looks like from the Loch Lomond Marina:

4

The “Existing Site” in the AT&T map is the KTID FM tower located at 2000 Gold Hill Grade. When you click https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=KTID+FM+radio&ie=UTF‐8&oe=UTF‐8 the location is the same and the photo above matches the photo above.

5

Verizon is identified as the license‐holder. Click on: http://www.city‐data.com/towers/cell‐San‐Rafael‐California.html#mapFCC_CellPhone_towers

1

Bereket, Immanuel

From: J Hamilton <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2020 4:24 PMTo: Mosher, Ana HildaCc: Washington, Brian; Connolly, Damon; Sackett, Mary; Goncalves, Gustavo; Bereket, ImmanuelSubject: Presbytery Design Review / Use Permit (P2770)

To: Marin County Planning Commission CC: Brian E. Washington, Esq., County Counsel :‐) "CC: Brian E. Washington, Esq., County Counsel" is how AT&T signaled that its appeal was not about substance. Rather it was a thinly veiled threat of legal action if AT&T doesn't get what it wants. This is not an objection to the cell tower. It’s merely some observations that we hope will be useful to the Planning Commission, the Board of Supervisors, and in particular Brian E. Washington, Esq., County Counsel. We’re Jo and Ogden Hamilton. We composed the two detailed objections on behalf of the Bayside Acres Action Coalition (BAAC). This submission is over our byline alone.

OBSERVATIONS The PSPR Coalition board’s deep dive into AT&T’s failures to conform to County rules in its permit application and appeal has laid bare the fact that AT&T has paid little attention to the substance of its submissions. Of course the technical specs, all verified by outside firms, probably are perfect. However, the submissions on the location of the tower were not perfect. In fact they didn’t even try to conform to County rules. We believe that AT&T’s real argument—threat of litigation—is every bit as flawed as it’s submission on tower location. Demeaning the DZA’s decision The first indication of that appears in the section of the appeal letter demeaning the DZA’s decision to deny the permit because the proposed tower would significantly detract from the views of folks uphill on Bayview drive. The first move was to frame the matter in a way that is best for AT&T. They seem to have expected that the County would accept its authoritative‐sounding recitation of the law and the Ninth Circuit rulings at face value. “Trust us. We’re a Fortune 500 Company. Don’t try to play in our league.” The second move was to frame the DZA’s decision as "The Deputy Zoning Administrator and one resident also raised concerns

about aesthetics,” That’s flat out false on two fronts. First, a database of objections in the record of the May 28 hearing contains 25—Count them: TWENTY‐FIVE—objections like the one AT&T has chosen to focus on, not one. Second, the objections were not about “aesthetics;” they were about obstruction of the view and consequent loss of property values—and of course, enjoyment of the property. It seems to us that if the objection was not, in fact, about aesthetics, AT&T’s enter argument is moot. A third move was to flog the requirement for “Substantial Evidence.” AT&T's interpretation of "Substantial Evidence" is that "a local government must have specific reasons that are both consistent with the applicable regulations and supported by substantial evidence in the record to deny a permit.” We think that definition—which probably appears nowhere except in AT&T’s writing—actually inures to the benefit of the DZA who denied the permit, not to the benefit of AT&T.

2

AT&T framed the DZA’s denial in terms of the difference in two photos showing the view from a resident’s house. The resident’s photo was zoomed; the Presbytery’s photo was not. AT&T’s conclusion? " (The resident’s..) complaints about the bell tower are too general to amount to substantial evidence and are contradicted by the non‐zoomed photograph of his view with the mock‐up in place.” In fact, as we understand it, the DZA’s decision did not rely on photos. The DZA personally walked Bayview Drive and determined that the cell tower would, indeed, be too intrusive on residents’ views. We think that using AT&T’s own definition of “Specific Evidence” the DZA’s personal observation qualifies as a "specific reason supported by substantial evidence in the record to deny a permit.” Even AT&T’s position that a specific reason must be "consistent with the applicable regulations” is self‐defeating. We and the other members of BAAC collectively have combed every page of the Telecommunications Facilities Policy Plan. It’s overstating to say “pick a page,” but when it comes to “applicable regulations” that support requiring, directly or indirectly, that views may not be obstructed, the Policy Plan contains an embarrassment of riches. The FCC mandate On its face, the FCC regulations seem to give AT&T something close to carte blanche in locating a cell tower. We have experience that suggests that may not be the case. We think that the apparent mandate dates back to Newman v. Motorola. That’s the 2001 case in which a federal judge ruled in a Daubert Hearing that the plaintiff’s evidence of a relationship between cell‐related radiation and cancer was not scientifically credible. Our involvement in that was as a behind‐the scenes expert that evaluated the research for Kirkland and Ellis, Motorola’s attorney. At that time the national interest lay in extending cell service but the cell phone industry was under constant fire over widespread fears of health effects of cell phones and towers. That was impeding the growth of the industry. We believe that the FCC used Newman v. Motorola to justify its position that health concerns could not be used to deny a cell‐related permit and otherwise to protect carriers from being blocked from extending service. That policy was a success Today almost every populated part of the country has adequate cell service. To us it’s an empirical question as to whether the FCC mandate was intended not just to foster the expansion of cell service but also to protect each individual carrier from the consequences of having been beat out by a competitor in providing service to specify areas. The permit in question here would allow AT&T to compete on an equal footing with Verizon, which has excellent service in AT&T’s dead zone. But inasmuch as any AT&T customer is free to switch to Verizon, the national interest in extending cell service is no longer relevant. It’s entirely possible that a new administration will make changes in FCC policy—certainly Internet Neutrality will be restored. Perhaps the mandate AT&T relies on will be modified to reflect current market conditions. Bottom line As we see it, AT&T modeled its approach to the County on The Godfather: "This is an offer you can’t refuse.” After assessing AT&T’s arguments we think their approach is more like King George’s patter song in LinManual Miranda’s Hamilton. If you know the song, sing along and you’ll understand what we mean:

Remember that I’ve served you well. Please don’t throw away the things we have. Now you’re making me mad! And if push comes to shove, I’ll send a fully armed battalion to remind you of my love. Now EVERYONE! “Da‐da‐da‐dit‐da. Da‐da‐da‐dit da‐a‐a‐a‐a‐ya‐a‐a...” :‐)

Jo and Ogden Hamilton

3

728 Point San Pedro Rd.

1

Bereket, Immanuel

From: J Hamilton <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2020 5:07 PMTo: Mosher, Ana HildaCc: Connolly, Damon; Sackett, Mary; Goncalves, Gustavo; Bereket, Immanuel; Alan Schaevitz; Julia

Glenister; Abbie Urban; Harriet Spiegel; Kristen Williams; John Purdue; Stan Urban; Thomas Barrett; Elaine Goldman; [email protected]; Bill Gates; Bill Mandel; Cathy Jameson; [email protected]; [email protected]; Sandy Mahoney; [email protected]; Lynda Dunphy; Dan Dunphy; [email protected]; [email protected]; Bob Lenz; Cathy Lenz; Jo Hamilton

Subject: Presbytery Design Review / Use Permit (P2770)Attachments: Real-Estate-Seller-Property-Questionaire-reduced-12-17-1 Pg3.pdf; Real-Estate-Seller-Property-

Questionaire-reduced-12-17-1 pg4.pdf; Property Values Pg 1.pdf; Property Values Exhibit 2 pg 2.pdf; Property Values Exhibit 2 pg 3.pdf

To: Marin County Planning Commission

This objection is based on the likely loss of value of properties located near the cell tower. The record of the May 21 hearing contains 21 objections made on that basis. It appears that those objections were not considered in the DZA’s May 28 ruling to deny the permit. Loss of property value should be considered during the upcoming hearing on the appeal. The objection is submitted by the members of the Bayside Acres Action Committee, an informal committee organized for this purpose. All seven committee members are Bayside Acres residents:


The objection is joined as cosponsors by these Bayside Acres residents who live in homes located within a 650‐ft radius of the proposed cell tower. Of the combined members of the BAAC and the cosponsors only two live outside that radius. The projected loss of value for each address is found in Exhibit 2 of this objection. The email address for each cosponsor is in the CC field of this message:

1. Phong Nguyen, 23 Bayview Dr. 2. Laura Dasher, 23 Bayview Dr. 3. Shu Kaufmann and Gottfried Maier, 27 Bayview Dr. 4. Eli Froneberger, 50 Bayview Dr. 5. Gordon and Eileen Morris, 60 Bayview Dr. 6. Bob and Cathy Lenz, 2 Beach Dr. 7. Karen & Art Landesman, 106 Oak Dr 8. Bill Mandel and Cathy Jameson, 115 Oak Dr. 9. Elaine Goldman, 712 Point San Pedro Rd

2

10. Thomas Barrett, 724 Point San Pedro Rd.. 11. William Gates, 732 Point San Pedro Rd. 12. Sandy Mahoney, 736 Point San Pedro Rd. 13. Dan and Lynda Heller‐Dunphy, 740 Point San Pedro Rd.

OBJECTION

First of two arguments: There is evidence that homebuyers will pay less for properties near a tower or not buy there at all. An article in the July 25, 2014 Realtor Magazine indicates that a large percentage of potential homebuyers will pay less for homes near to cell towers or not buy one at all:

An overwhelming 94 percent of home buyers and renters surveyed by the National Institute for Science, Law & Public Policy (NISLAPP) say they are less interested and would pay less for a property located near a cell tower or antenna. What's more, of the 1,000 survey respondents, 79 percent said that under no circumstances would they ever purchase or rent a property within a few blocks of a cell tower or antennas, and almost 90 percent said they were concerned about the increasing number of cell towers and antennas in their residential neighborhood.

The concerns of many people about the health effects of EMFs may not be used to deny the permit. Indeed, in its appeal letter AT&T was scornful of the large number of objections filed for the May 28 meeting that naively focused on health concerns. However in view of those survey results buyers' health concerns become relevant. Those concerns certainly will shape the attitudes of homebuyers to property near the cell tower. Moreover, The California Association of Realtors’ Property Sellers Questionnaire specifically lists "neighborhood noise, nuisance or other problems from cell towers, (among other things,) on the disclosure form for sellers of real estate". See Exhibit 1. That form is designed to disclose "material defects" which may cause "economic obsolescence,” i.e. defects that cannot be remedied, that may affect a property's value. Failure of a seller to disclose the proximity of a cell tower can be the basis of a post‐closing lawsuit by the buyer. Second of two arguments: There is published empirical evidence that the market values of homes near cell towers are nearly 10% below what they would have been but for the tower. A 2017 study by the Burgoyne Appraisal Company, Impact of Communication Towers and Equipment on Nearby Property values, discusses several published studies that have found that homes nears cell towers suffer losses in property value. The study most applicable to the permit application at issue is Wireless Towers and Home Values: An Alternative Valuation Approach Using a Spatial Econometric Analysis authored by Ermanno Affuso & J. Reid Cummings & Huubinh Le. The article was published in the The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, May 2020 Volume 56, Issue 4. This is the abstract:

This is the first study to use an hedonic spatial autoregressive model to assess the impact of wireless communication towers on the value of residential properties. Using quantile analyses based on minimum distances between sold properties and visible and non‐visible towers, we examine the relationship between property values and wireless tower proximity and visibility within various specified radii for homes sold after tower construction. For properties located within 0.72 kilometers of the closest tower, results reveal significant social welfare costs with values declining

3

2.46% on average, and up to 9.78% for homes within tower visibility range compared to homes outside tower visibility range; in aggregate, properties within the 0.72‐kilometer band lose over $24 million dollars.

When sending public notices to homeowners considered to be directly affected by the tower Marin County used a radius of 650 feet from the tower. The value‐lost analysis in Exhibit 2 uses that radius as a reasonable proxy for the homes nearby homes referred to in the study. Therefore, although the study finds 2.46% average loss of property value within .72 km (2,360 ft) from a cell tower, the value‐lost analysis in Exhibit 2 uses the 9.78% value‐lost figure that applies to the closest homes. Exhibit 2 shows the market value and value lost for each of the 64 homes within the 650‐ft radius. Those homes have a combined market value of more than $100 million and would suffer a combined loss in value of nearly $10 million. Marin County would lose more than $100 thousand in annual property tax revenue. Over the course of 20 years that would amount to more than $2 million in lost property tax revenue. Note that the loss of value is based on Zillow value estimates, which tend to be low. Note also that the study underlying these data found that there was a lesser loss of value for additional properties out to 2,360 feet from the tower. Those losses likely comprise a halo effect of the more substantial losses or properties closer the cell tower.

ohamilto

Stamp

of 3

Neighborhoods Number of Properties Market Value

Market Value less 9.78% loss factor

Reduction in Property Values at 1.08%

Bayside Acres 30 $46,266,808 $4,524,894 $50,136

Loch Lomond 14 $22,854,549 $2,235,175 $24,766

The Strand 20 $30,900,000 $3,022,020 $33,484

Totals 64 $100,021,357 $9,782,089 $108,386

$2,167,711

LOSS OF PROPERTY VALUEEXHIBIT 2 OF 2

PROPERTIES WITHIN 650 FEET OF THE CELL TOWER

20-year reduction in property tax revenue assuming the annual increase in the property tax rate is the same as the discount rate

MAP OF PROPERTIES WITHIN 650 FEET OF THE CELL TOWER

of 3

Number Street Annual Tax Revenue Lost

Bayside Acres23 Bayview Dr. $1,585,281 $155,04027 Bayview Dr. $1,714,101 $167,63930 Bayview Dr. $4,476,533 $437,80531 Bayview Dr. $1,306,453 $127,77133 Bayview Dr. $820,308 $80,22640 Bayview Dr. $1,898,367 $185,66050 Bayview Dr. $835,987 $81,76057 Bayview Dr. $2,377,341 $232,50460 Bayview Dr. $1,619,396 $158,377

155 Bayview Dr. $982,528 $96,091157 Bayview Dr. $2,960,606 $289,547

2 Beach Dr. $943,383 $92,2634 Beach Dr. $825,923 $80,7756 Beach Dr. $1,012,997 $99,071

106 Oak Dr. $1,641,859 $160,574108 Oak Dr. $1,562,407 $152,803700 Pt. San Pedro $873,431 $85,422704 Pt. San Pedro $1,455,903 $142,387708 Pt. San Pedro $922,990 $90,268712 Pt. San Pedro $970,624 $94,927724 Pt. San Pedro $808,140 $79,036732 Pt. San Pedro $1,433,651 $140,211736 Pt. San Pedro $831,800 $81,350738 Pt. San Pedro $1,499,362 $146,638740 Pt. San Pedro $1,644,224 $160,805745 Pt. San Pedro $2,399,242 $234,646748 Pt. San Pedro $1,367,207 $133,713755 Pt. San Pedro $1,608,790 $157,340756 Pt. San Pedro $964,259 $94,305761 Pt. San Pedro $2,923,715 $285,939

Totals 30 $46,266,808 $4,524,894 $50,136

Loss of value Zillow (6/29/2020)

of 3


Loch Lomond15 Bonnie Banks Way28 Bonnie Banks Way $1,475,871 $144,34029 Bonnie Banks Way $1,894,391 $185,27132 Bonnie Banks Way $1,644,021 $160,78533 Bonnie Banks Way $1,824,086 $178,39635 Bonnie Banks Way $1,530,721 $149,70536 Bonnie Banks Way $1,618,519 $158,29137 Bonnie Banks Way $2,402,882 $235,00241 Bonnie Banks Way $2,061,387 $201,60444 Bonnie Banks Way $1,416,532 $138,53766 Dunfries Ter $1,241,580 $121,42769 Dunfries Ter $1,648,463 $161,22070 Dunfries Ter $2,187,137 $213,90275 Dunfries Ter $1,908,959 $186,696

Totals 14 $22,854,549 $2,235,175 $24,766


The Strand48 Bayharbor TH $1,300,000 $127,14050 Bayharbor TH $1,300,000 $127,14052 Bayharbor TH $1,300,000 $127,14054 Bayharbor TH $1,300,000 $127,14056 Bayharbor TH $1,300,000 $127,14058 Bayharbor 1S $1,450,000 $141,81060 Bayharbor 1S $1,450,000 $141,81062 Bayharbor TH $1,300,000 $127,14064 Bayharbor TH $1,300,000 $127,14066 Bayharbor TH $1,300,000 $127,14068 Bayharbor TH $1,300,000 $127,14070 Bayharbor TH $1,300,000 $127,14072 Bayharbor 2S $1,700,000 $166,26074 Bayharbor 2S $1,700,000 $166,26076 Bayharbor 2S $1,700,000 $166,26078 Bayharbor 2S $1,700,000 $166,26080 Bayharbor 2S $1,700,000 $166,26082 Bayharbor 2S $1,700,000 $166,260

146 Loch Lomond $2,400,000 $234,720148 Loch Lomond $2,400,000 $234,720

Totals 20 $30,900,000 $3,022,020 $33,484

Loss of value Zillow (6/30/2020)

Loss of value (The Strand asking price)

1

Bereket, Immanuel

From: KK <[email protected]>Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2020 5:24 PMTo: Mosher, Ana HildaCc: Sackett, Mary; Bereket, ImmanuelSubject: Cell tower application

Dear Commissioners - I support the Staff Report Recommendation to deny the AT&T appeal of the DZA decision on the St. Luke Church project. Towers for small cell technology have no place in residential neighborhoods. Thank you, Kay Karchevski 42 Hillcrest Dr. San Rafael CA 94901 415-457-3627

1

Bereket, Immanuel

From: Mosher, Ana HildaSent: Thursday, July 23, 2020 8:35 AMTo: Bereket, ImmanuelSubject: FW: Objection to Presbytery of the Redwood (AT&T) Use Permit (P2770and Design Review

Application/Appeal

From: Kristen L. Williams <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2020 7:54 AM To: Mosher, Ana Hilda <[email protected]> Cc: Connolly, Damon <[email protected]>; Sackett, Mary <[email protected]>; Goncalves, Gustavo <[email protected]> Subject: Objection to Presbytery of the Redwood (AT&T) Use Permit (P2770and Design Review Application/Appeal

Date: July 23, 2020

To: Ana Hilda Mosher, Secretary to Marin County Planning Commission

cc: Damon Connolly, Marin County District Supervisor; Mary Sackett; Gustavo Goncalves Re: Presbytery Design Review/Use Permit (P2770)

Please accept the following objections to Epic Wireless, LLC ‘s (on behalf of ATT and hereinafter referred to as “ATT”) Application for a Cell Tower at the residential location of 10 Bayview Drive. We urge the Planning Commission to deny the appeal and sustain the Deputy Zoning Administrator’s Decision to deny the Presbytery of the Redwood (AT&T) Use Permit and Design Review for the reasons set forth in the Staff Report as well as the reasons set forth here.

At the outset, it is unclear what plans ATT is setting forth in its application/appeal. As the DZA Staff Report and Recommendation to the Planning Commission note, the original plan is clearly outside County requirements for view impediment and overall neighborhood and property aesthetic. As part of the original application heard by the DZA on May 28, 2020, however, ATT also suggested an eleventh‐hour modification of a tower that would be eleven feet higher than the one currently story‐poled. The amended version should no

2

doubt be denied for the same reasons as the original tower but must also be rejected outright as it is not submitted as part of a proper application which would require story‐poles (and likely a request for variance given the amended tower’s significantly taller stature). Regardless, and for the reasons set forth below, ATT’s application should be rejected in either form.

ATT’s Claims in the Original Application – And the Appeal – Are Purposefully Misleading and Inaccurate – Calling Into Question All Representations Made by ATT.

Documents submitted by ATT as to the view impact were purposefully misleading – both taken from too far away and omitting certain vantage points altogether. Now in the appeal, it again skirts the issue of views obstructed and attempts to re‐write the public record of objections raised by residents. Health concern, while raised by neighbors, was not the only concern raised. In fact, numerous neighbors raised the following issues:

o Concern regarding negative impact on property value o More appropriate sites not being explored o Views Being Blocked o Safety Concerns Related to Storage of Generator Gas in a Residential Neighborhood o Aesthetics of proposed tower not fitting with property site or surrounding neighborhood o Concerns regarding misuse of Church’s Conditional Use Permit

See attachment to Julia Glenister’s email submitted as part of this appeal on July 22, 2020 at 11:04pm for more detailed information.

ATT’s representation that the concerns were all related to health with only minimal objections to views is patently false and in direct contradiction of the public record. Their failure to accurately represent that which is easily verifiable per review of the public comments submitted should make the County weary to accept any representations by ATT at face value, including their analysis of alternative sites.

Not only were multiple public and industrial sites not mentioned (e.g, the rock quarry, Peacock Golf Course, China Camp, etc.) and co‐location with the Verizon site not explored, but at least one owner of the commercial properties that were supposedly considered and rejected has no recollection of ever being asked about a cell tower lease.

The need for adequate cell service is understood, however, ATT cannot simply place a cell tower wherever is most convenient for them in contravention of the County’s own standards. As set forth in the

3

TFPP, residential sites are least preferred. ATT has not established that locations deemed more appropriate by the County’s TFPP are not viable. Indeed, by ATT’s own papers many more preferable sites were not considered and there is reason to believe that the alternative sites it identified were not explored at all – or certainly not in good faith.

ATT should be required to prove that it explored all available public, industrial and commercial options, and then engaged in good faith exploratory negotiations with all more preferable, non‐residential alternative sites. Moreover, the County should demand substantial evidence of these efforts and also require ATT to engage a neutral third party to evaluate the efficacy of alternative sites and co‐location.

***

A cell tower does not belong in a residential neighborhood. More appropriate locations, or co‐locations, are available – and ATT has not offered, and the County has not met its obligation to require – sufficient proof that these alternatives are not viable. Placement of the cell tower as proposed would obstruct views from both private and public vantage points. The proposed tower (as well as the amended design) do not fit with the aesthetic of the residential neighborhood or even the property itself. The cell tower – in any form – would significantly reduce property values. For all of these reasons, the Planning Commission should deny the appeal and sustain the Deputy Zoning Administrator’s Decision to deny the Presbytery of the Redwood (AT&T) Use Permit and Design Review.

Respectfully submitted,

Kristen & Rob Williams

40 Bayview Drive

From: Linda BraunerTo: Bereket, ImmanuelDate: Monday, July 20, 2020 12:25:51 PM

Dear Senior Planner Bereket

I support your decision in denying AT &Ts proposed cell installation in St Lukes Church.

Linda Brauner, PhD



1

Bereket, Immanuel

From: Carolyn Lenert <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2020 5:02 PMTo: Mosher, Ana HildaCc: Sackett, Mary; Bereket, ImmanuelSubject: DZA decision on St. Luke Church Telcomm proposal in a residential neighborhood

Marin County Staff:

I whole‐heartedly support the Staff Report Recommendation to Deny the AT&T appeal of the DZA decision on the St. Luke Church project in San Rafael. I believe you already have my letter written in May 2020. Thank you for your attention to this. Stay safe‐‐‐in ALL ways. Carolyn Lenert

Carolyn S. Lenert C 415.250.2393 [email protected] Sent from my safer, wired computer CONFIDENTIALITY AND SECURITY NOTICE The contents of this message and any attachments may be privileged, confidential and proprietary and also may be covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. If you are not an intended recipient, please inform the sender of the transmission error and delete this message immediately without reading, disseminating, distributing or copying the contents. Additionally, unauthorized interception, review, dissemination, downloading, or disclosure is strictly prohibited and may violate applicable law, including the Electronic Communications Privacy Act.

We offer no assurances that this e-mail and any attachments are free of viruses and other harmful code. I have not verified or investigated, nor will I verify or investigate, information supplied by third parties. Please Note: We care about your about your security and privacy. Please don’t include identifying information like account numbers, birth dates and social security numbers in emails to us. Call us instead for secure email options or send the information by fax or regular US mail. *Wire Fraud is Real*. Before wiring any money, call the intended recipient at a number you know is valid to confirm the instructions. Additionally, please note that the sender does not have authority to bind a party to a real estate contract via written or verbal communication.

1

Bereket, Immanuel

From: Martin <[email protected]>Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2020 4:55 PMTo: Mosher, Ana HildaCc: Bereket, Immanuel; Sackett, MarySubject: DENY AT&T APPEAL RE: ST. LUKE CHURCH TOWER

Dear Secretary Mosher, et al, I am writing you today to affirm that I support the staff report recommendation to deny the AT&T appeal of the DZA decision on the St. Luke Church project. Thank you for your time and service to the well-being of everyone concerned. Sincerely, Martin Bernbaum

1

Bereket, Immanuel

From: mary <[email protected]>Sent: Monday, July 20, 2020 12:53 PMTo: Mosher, Ana HildaCc: Bereket, Immanuel; [email protected]: Please DENY the AT&T appeal of the DZA decision on the St. Luke Presbyterian Church project

Please support the Staff Report Recommendation to DENY the AT&T appeal of the DZA decision on the St. Luke Presbyterian Church project.

Thank you!

Mary Larkin San Rafael, CA

Carlene McCart

147 El Condor Ct.

San Rafael, CA 94903

July 19, 2020

Re: Presbytery of the Redwoods Use Permit and Design Review Application, P2770.

Dear Mr. Bereket,

I am writing in support of the Presbytery of the Redwoods Use Permit and Design Review Application,

P2770.

I am a resident of Marin County and East San Rafael. It is in the interest of public safety that the above

referenced project be approved and implemented as proposed. East Marin County is in need of improved

and reliable cell coverage. Our community was greatly impacted by the power outages in 2019 when cell

coverage was interrupted and often unavailable. Planned and unforeseen power outages will certainly

occur again, likely more frequently, and we have the opportunity to be pro-active now to insure cell

coverage is consistent in our area.

This project benefits our community in a number of ways to support public safety. It will expand the

cellular footprint in the immediate neighborhood, increase network capacity, provide battery backup in

times of power outages and reserve capacity for first responders.

I urge the Planning Commission to approve the application, P2770.

Sincerely,

Carlene McCart

1

Bereket, Immanuel

From: dan mckee <[email protected]>Sent: Sunday, July 19, 2020 2:21 PMTo: Mosher, Ana HildaCc: Bereket, Immanuel; [email protected]: Please Deny the AT&T appeal

To whom it may concern: I previously wrote to the planning commission regarding my non‐support of AT&T’s cell tower expansion at St. Luke Presbyterian Church. I am writing again to say that I support the Staff Report Recommendation to Deny the AT&T appeal of the DZA decision on the St. Luke Presbyterian Church Project. I can’t add or say anything better than the letters previously provided by Dr. Perro and Roberta and Rachel and would ask you to revisit those letters on my behalf for reinforcement of my position. Thank You for your service to the community, dan ____________________ dan mckee [email protected] www.dmdesignsf.com

1

Bereket, Immanuel

From: Lisa Moskow <[email protected]>Sent: Sunday, July 19, 2020 12:29 PMTo: Mosher, Ana Hilda; Bereket, Immanuel; [email protected]: Antennas at St. Lukes

I support the Staff Report recommendation to deny the AT&T appeal of the DZA decision on the St. Luke Presbyterian Church project.

Please note my previous email about this.

Lisa Moskow, Sun Valley resident since 1973

1

Bereket, Immanuel

From: Ocean Michelle Nagle <[email protected]>Sent: Monday, July 20, 2020 2:02 PMTo: Mosher, Ana HildaCc: Bereket, Immanuel; [email protected]: Please deny the At&T appeal

Hello, I am writing today to support the Staff Report Recommendation to Deny the AT&T appeal of the Deputy Zoning Administrator decision on the St. Luke presbyterian Church project.

This technology is dangerous. The FCC has not done any studies on the health effects of this technology, and it is already installed along all of our local highways, many shopping areas, etc. The telecom industry is not a utility company. Their technology consumes a large amount of energy from our already taxed energy grid. It is difficult to fathom how thie technology is allowed at all, given it uses microwave radiation, which has been proven hazardous to humans, animals, plants and the atmosphere. Thank you for your consideration. Michelle Nagle 12 Amalfi Place San Rafael, CA 94901 415-209-4168

From: Andy PeriTo: Mosher, Ana Hilda; Bereket, Immanuel; [email protected]: St Luke TowerDate: Sunday, July 19, 2020 6:54:26 PM

Dear Supervisor Connolly, Mr. Bereket and Ms. Mosher,

I am writing to express my support for the County’s denial of ATT’s application (and denial of theATT's appeal) for a cell tower on the property of St. Luke church. While I am opposed to theinstallation of this tower for health reasons, I appreciate you denial just the same. Thank you forholding fast to your denial!

Sincerely,

Andy Peri10 Cypress Dr.Fairfax, CA 94930415.457.2434





1

Bereket, Immanuel

From: Michelle Perro <[email protected]>Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2020 4:48 PMTo: [email protected]: Bereket, Immanuel; Sackett, MarySubject: St. Luke Church Tower

Dear Ms. Mosher; I am writing to inform you that I support the Staff Report Recommendation to deny the AT&T appeal of the DZA decision on the St. Luke Church project. I have reviewed the application and the Design Review found on the Agenda dated July 27, 2020. Thank you for your public service and please know that the community recognizes and supports the hard work of our public officials. Respectfully, Michelle Perro, MD [email protected] Executive Director, GMOScience.org https://www.gordonmedical.com/team/michelle‐perro‐m‐d/ Co‐Author, What’s Making our Children Sick?

“Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.” ~ Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

1

Bereket, Immanuel

From: Victoria Sievers <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2020 6:56 PMTo: [email protected]: Bereket, Immanuel; Sackett, MarySubject: Support DENIAL of AT&T-Presbytery appealAttachments: AT&T-St. Luke opposition letter.docx

Hello Good People, I am sending my support for the Staff Recommendation re this project. I submitted a letter prior to the DZA hearing, which should be one of many in your pre‐meeting packet. (Attached here if necessary.) Thank you for doing your utmost to make the challenging adjustments to serve your public in these times. Vicki Sievers San Rafael EMF Safety Network, Education/Outreach

May 27, 2020 Dear Mr. Bereket and Supervisors, I am writing in opposition to the Presbytery-AT&T proposal. While the redesign alternatives do address objectionable obstruction of views from nearby homes, nothing short of re-locating the facility or co-locating with another facility will prevent unacceptable chronic, close-proximity human exposure to non-ionizing radio-frequency radiation. No one should ever be subjected to a known toxin without informed consent. In the Marin County Telecommunications Facilities Policy Plan, seven sites for facility location are listed, ordered from most to least preferred (Land Use section p. IV-12). A residential zone such as Bayside Acres is #7, the least preferred. It is difficult to understand or accept that no siting location could be identified in any of six other zones. Were co-location and clustering exhaustively explored for this facility? The Policy specifically recommends co-location and clustering antennas: “This Telecommunications Plan encourages colocation and clustering over development of new telecommunications facility sites.” (Section IV-6) The Policy does acknowledge human health effects. “The County should regularly advise service providers that it is prudent to avoid siting new transmitting facilities where prolonged EMF exposure will be experienced in residential neighborhoods and other locations where persons may be immunologically compromised such as elementary schools, pre-schools, senior facilities, and hospitals.” (Section 1.1, p. IV-35). While the Policy recognizes that prolonged exposure is unwise, at the same time it contradictorily maintains that a “project would not result in any significant public health risks concerning human exposure to radio-frequency because the facility will operate well below the exposure limits of ANSI and IEEE” (Attachment 2, 6-D). All of us know, from our experience with public testimony and volumes of science submitted in the period leading to the passage of the County Small-Cell

Urgency Ordinance, that ANSI/IEEE levels are heavily influenced by industry, and that serious adverse health effects occur at levels far below those outdated and inadequate limits. Have County personnel set forth here a kind of promise that cannot be kept—one that dismisses known scientific evidence with which County personnel are familiar and which is recognized elsewhere in the Policy? (Electromagnetic Fields, IV-4) May I submit that this AT&T proposal imprudently and counter to the Telecommunications Policy (Section 1.1 p. IV-35), sites a new facility where prolonged EMF exposure will be experienced in a residential neighborhood. Almost all of the residents with whom I have spoken in the last several days are seniors. The project should not be approved. I would like to add that while County effort to accommodate the public online during these times is evident, public access to officials and to democratic assembly and democratic process is seriously compromised. Decisions on issues of critical importance to many citizens should not be made under current conditions. Thank you. Vicki Sievers San Rafael EMF Safety Network, Education/Outreach

1

Bereket, Immanuel

From: PlanningCommissionSent: Tuesday, July 21, 2020 8:13 AMTo: Bereket, ImmanuelSubject: FW: Presbytery Design Review/Use Permit (P2770) Hearing July 27, 2020Attachments: 200720-1 Coalition Letter re Cell Tower.pdf

From: SPRC Webmaster <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, July 20, 2020 2:16 PM To: PlanningCommission <[email protected]> Cc: Mosher, Ana Hilda <[email protected]>; Connolly, Damon <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Presbytery Design Review/Use Permit (P2770) Hearing July 27, 2020 To: The Marin County Planning Commission There was a missing word in the first sentence of the next‐to‐last paragraph on page 2, which changes the intent of the sentence (a missing “not”). That has been corrected in this version. Please substitute this one for the previous one sent. I would appreciate confirmation of receipt. Thank you, ____________ Alan Schaevitz Director & Webmaster Pt. San Pedro Road Coalition [email protected] www.sprcoalition.org

On Jul 20, 2020, at 12:58 PM, SPRC Webmaster <[email protected]> wrote: To: The Marin County Planning Commission Attached is the Pt. San Pedro Road Coalition’s submission regarding a permit for a cell tower at St. Luke Church, 10 Bayview Drive, San Rafael. That permit was denied by the DZA on May 28, 2020 and it is being appealed to the full Planning Commission on July 27, 2020. At our letter states, we are opposed to this permit on specific grounds and request that the Planning Commission deny the appeal. ____________ Alan Schaevitz Director & Webmaster Pt. San Pedro Road Coalition [email protected] www.sprcoalition.org <200720 Coalition Letter re Cell Tower.pdf>

POINT SAN PEDRO ROAD COALITION

“Promoting Quality of Life in our Community”

Box 449 369B Third Street San Rafael, CA 94901 www.sprcoalition.org [email protected]

July20,2020

To:MarinCountyPlanningCommission

Re:PresbyteryDesignReview/UsePermit(P2770)

WearewritingonbehalfofthePt.SanPedroRoadCoalition(Coalition),anon-profitorganization,representingtheinterestsofresidentsandhomeowners’associationsalongthePt.SanPedroRoadcorridor.Whilewerecognizethecriticalimportanceofreliablecellreceptioninourarea,wehaveconcernsregardingthepermitproposalbeingconsideredintheupcomingJuly27hearingbeforetheCountyPlanningCommission.

WebelievethattheDeputyZoningAdministrator’sMay28denialoftheapplicationondesignissueswassoundandweurgethePlanningCommissiontoadoptthestaffrecommendationtodenytheappealfromthatdecision.InadditiontothegroundsexpressedbytheDZAandthosesetforthinthestaffreporttothePlanningCommission,theapplicationisdeficientinseveralrespects,andapprovalwouldconflictwithexistingCountypoliciesandregulations.

TheapplicanthasfailedtomeettherequirementintheMarinCountyTelecommunicationsFacilitiesPolicyPlan(TFPP)VIS1.1.1whichrequiresnewsitesto“bepermittedonlyuponcleardemonstrationofneed,theimpracticalityofupgradingorexpandinganexistingsiteorco-locatingonanexistingtelecommunicationsstructure,andsubjecttoconditionstoensurethenewfacilityminimizesadversevisualeffects.”

AlthoughtheneedforimprovedAT&Tcellcoverageintheareaisnotindispute,andwhilethestaffreportthoroughlydocumentstheapplicant’sfailuretoinvestigatepotentialalternativesontheSt.Lukesite,theapplicantalsofailedtoprovidetherequisite“cleardemonstrationofneed”fortheinstallationtobeatthissite.Whileclaimingtobe“usingtheleastintrusivemeansunderthevaluesexpressed”intheTFPPtocloseasignificantgapinservicecoverage,itproposestodosobyplacingthefacilityinaR1-B4Residentialzone.Countypolicy,asexpressedinTFPPLU1.4.2,makesitclearthatplacingacelltoweronresidentialpropertyshouldbetheleastdesirablechoiceamongsevenoptionslisted.

Theapplicationlacksanydocumentaryevidenceofmeaningfuleffortstoidentifyandsecurealternativesites,includingco-locationsites.Furthermore,therationaleforrejectionofidentifiedalternativesitesraisesmorequestionsthanitanswers.The“AlternativeSitesAnalysis”postedontheCounty’swebsitedescribestwoalternativesitesand“AttachmentB:AlternativeSiteAnalysis”apparentlypostedlateronthewebsite,identifiesfouradditionalalternativelocations.Theyrejectedthealternatives,purportingtohaveinvestigatedeachofthem.Bothofthesedocumentsareperfunctoryatbestandwhollyincomplete.

Coalition Directors

Co-Presidents Denise Lucy Bonnie Marmor Secretary Kati Miller Treasurer Dave Crutcher Directors Kevin Hagerty Alan Schaevitz Standing Committee Chairs

Disaster Preparedness

John Lenser Loch Lomond Marina Alan Schaevitz

Pt. San Pedro Roadway

Kevin Hagerty S.R. Rock Quarry

Dave Crutcher Wetlands

Bonnie Marmor

2

1. TheFireStationwasnotameaningfulalternative.Theapplicant’sinclusionoftheFireStationasoneofthe“alternatives”isdisingenuous.Bytheapplicant’sownadmission,theFireStationwasnotfeasiblebecause“aWCFherewouldnotcloseAT&T’ssignificantservicecoveragegap.”Clearly,itwasnotanalternativeseriouslyproposedorconsideredbytheapplicant.ItshouldnotbeconsideredbytheCountyassatisfyingtheapplicant’sobligationunderCountyregulationstomakeeffortstofindalternatives.

2. Thetwoschoollocationswerenotmeaningfulalternatives.Withallthediscussionsaboutpotentialharmfuleffectsofcelltowerradiation,especiallyonyoungerchildren,thereislittlelikelihoodthatelementaryschoolswouldagreetotheplacementofsuchcellfacilitiesontheircampuses.Theselocationscouldnotbeconsideredseriouscontenders.Inaddition,GlenwoodElementarySchoolwasalsorejectedbecause“aWCFherewouldnotcloseAT&T’ssignificantservicecoveragegap”andthereforeshouldnotbeconsideredbytheCountyaspartofitsrequiredeffortstofindalternatives.

3. NoevidencewassubmittedofthepurportedoffersmadetoAndy’sMarketorMarinaVillageAssociates.Thereisnodocumentedevidenceofanyefforttoensurethatanofferwasactuallyreceivedandconsideredbytheowners.The“AlternativeSitesAnalysis”concludedAndy’sMarketwasnot“viableduetoelevation,availableleasespace,andvisualimpact…”while“AttachmentB:AlternativeSiteAnalysis”rejectedAndy’sMarketbecause“[theowner]wasnotinterestedinleasingspaceaswellasvisualimpact.”Also,ifAndy’sMarketwouldhaveelevationandvisualimpactissues,whywouldtheapplicantselecttheadjacent,similarlysitedpropertiesaspotentialalternativeswithoutidentifyingthesamedeficiencies?

4. Theapplicantfailedtoincludeanyidentificationofexistingcelltowersforco-location.Asmentionedabove,cellprovidersareurgedtosharetheirsites,andco-locationofthesecellfacilitiesisstronglypreferred.Theapplicantclaimsthat“AT&Tsearchedfor,butdidnotfind,feasibleco-locationopportunitiesinandaroundthecoverageobjective.”However,noinformationwasprovidedconcerningco-locationsitesthatwereconsidered.ThecelltoweronGoldHillGradeusedbyVerizon(seeattachedphoto)providesexcellentcoverageinthissameareabutwasnotmentionedineitheralternativesiteanalyses.

Theapplicationdoesnotpresentareasonableamountofevidenceofeffortstofindalternativesites,thereforeitdoesnotmeetthesubstantialevidencerequirement.Giventheinadequaciesofthisapplication,iftheapplicantseekstocurethesedeficiencieswerequestanindependentpeerreviewasperProgramRP1.4.1.“TheCountymayrequirepeerreviewortheindependentpreparationofanytechnicalinformationsubmittedwithpermitapplicationsfortelecommunicationsfacilities,suchasthefeasibilityofalternativefacilitysitesand/orfacilitydesigns,…”

Inaddition,weurgethePlanningCommissiontobemindfulthat,pursuanttosection22.70.060,changestothearchitectureornatureoftheapproveduseofapropertyoperatingunderaconditionalusepermitareauthorizedonlyifthechanges“Donotresultinasignificantexpansionoftheuse.”ThechangeherewouldallowforanewandcompletelydifferentcommercialuseofSt.LukeChurchwhichisasignificantexpansionoftheuse.Simplyput,thepreferredsiteofthetowershouldnotbeinaresidentialareaandshouldnotrequireexpansionofanexistingnon-conforminguse.ThisconclusionissupportedbythepolicyprohibitingtheexpansionofconditionalusesandtheCountypolicydiscouragingWCFinstallationsinresidentialareas.Approvalofthisapplicationwouldbeinconflictwithbothpoliciesandshouldbegivenonlyinextraordinarycircumstancesandafterarigorousattempttofindanappropriatealternativesite.

3

Forthesereasons,thisapplicationisflawed,inconsistentwithcountypolicies,andespeciallyproblematicbecauseofthecloseproximityofresidencesadverselyaffectedbythisproposedinstallation.Giventhemanydefectsintheirapplication,theapplicant’sappealshouldbedeniedand,shouldtheapplicantfilearevisedapplication,anyreconsiderationbepostponeduntilsuchtimeasthesedeficitsarecorrectedandtheissueswehaveraisedhavebeenproperlyaddressedbytheapplicantandpeerreviewed.Regards,

Bonnie Marmor Denise Lucy Co-Chair Co-Chair Pt. San Pedro Road Coalition Pt. San Pedro Road Coalition cc: DamonConnolly,MarinCountyDistrict1Supervisor

Ana Hilda Mosher, SecretarytoMarinCountyPlanningCommission Attachment:CellTowerPhoto

1

Bereket, Immanuel

From: Mosher, Ana HildaSent: Wednesday, July 22, 2020 9:58 AMTo: Harriet SpiegelCc: Bereket, ImmanuelSubject: RE: Letter re ATT/St Luke's Presbytery Appeal, July 27, 2020

We have received your letter and it will be forwarded to the Planning Commissione and the project planner. Best regards, Ana Hilda Mosher

. . . . . . . . .

ANA HILDA MOSHER SENIOR SECRETARY/PLANNING COMMISSION SECRETARY

County of Marin Community Development Agency 3501 Civic Center Drive, Suite 308 San Rafael, CA 94903 415 473 6278T 415 473 7880 F 415 473 2255 TTY CRS Dial 711 [email protected]

STAY CONNECTED:

“Please consider the environment before printing this email or attachments”

From: Harriet Spiegel <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2020 8:55 AM To: Mosher, Ana Hilda <[email protected]> Subject: Fw: Letter re ATT/St Luke's Presbytery Appeal, July 27, 2020

Good morning, Secretary Mosher,

2

I would appreciate if you could acknowledge receipt of the attached letter which is intended for Monday’s St Luke’s cell tower appeal. Thanks very much. Harriet Spiegel

From: Harriet Spiegel Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2020 9:23 AM To: AMosher@marincountyorg <AMosher@marincountyorg> Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>; Harriet Spiegel <[email protected]> Subject: Letter re ATT/St Luke's Presbytery Appeal, July 27, 2020

To: Ana Hilda Mosher, Secretary for the Marin Planning Commission

[email protected]

From: Harriet Spiegel

[email protected]

Date: July 22, 2020

Re: AT&T/StLuke’sChurchCellPhoneTowerAppeal

I live at 57 Bayview Drive, within 600 feet of St Luke’s Church, and I write to state my continued opposition to the proposed St Luke’s cell phone tower. I urge the Commission to deny the appeal scheduled to be heard on July 27, 2020.

It is fitting that the County denied ATT’s previous proposal because of its unsuitable design. And yet there is an even more fundamental reason for denying this proposal: TheCellPhoneTowershouldnotbesituatedinaresidentialareaunlessthereisdocumentedevidencethatthereisnositeinapreferredlocation.Neither ATT nor the Church has provided this documentation.

The County guidelines make clear that a residential area is the least desirable of seven options for placement of a cell tower. Accordingly, one of the required components of an

3

application for a new cell site is “alternative sites analysis, including co-location and shared-location.”(MarinCountyGeneralStandards‐ApplicationRequirements)

There is at least one cell tower in our area; it is used by Verizon and possibly others. Where is the discussion of this cell tower as an option for co-location or shared location?

The proposal’s references to alternative sites are misleading and insufficient. All but two of the sites were “considered” only after the proposal had been submitted in February. These minimal reports include no factual information, no evidence of consideration by those responsible for these sites, no dates, no names of persons consulted. Indeed the owner of one of the businesses mentioned as a possible location never had any discussion or received any information about the possibility of a cell tower on his property. So the representation that this person was not interested is not accurate.

In fact, there was no serious search for an appropriate site; the Church location was a foregone conclusion. By fall, 2019, the Church had been working on their proposal for several months. In December, 2019, Michael Antieri, an elder in the Church, was ready to present the proposal to the Church. Here is the announcement from the Church’s December newsletter: On January 5th after worship, Michael Antieri, Elder serving Session, will hold an informational meeting after worship. For some months there has been developments around hosting a cell tower on St. Luke’s property. Michael will fill in all interested on the process, where we’ve been and where it stands as of now. Michael Antieri also has ATT connections, having served ATT for many years as a Senior Vice President.

If AT&T wants to find an appropriate site to improve their coverage in this area, the County should seek an independent peer review, as listed on their Application Requirements. The Church has demonstrated that it is not to be trusted: its proposal failed to note the impact of the tower on views from the north, where many homes would look directly at the tower. The Church and ATT failed to perform a sincere search for alternate sites. The Church has failed to respond to, or even acknowledge, numerous communications from concerned neighbors.

The County should deny this proposal. It should insist that, if ATT truly seeks coverage in this area, ATT should follow County guidelines. The tower should not be in a residential area unless other sites in preferable locations are considered and found to be unviable. Alternative sites must be fully explored and documented. Since ATT and the

4

Church have not been forthcoming, all further studies should be conducted by an outside consultant.

Thank you.

Harriet Spiegel

57 Bayview Drive

1

Bereket, Immanuel

From: Harriet Spiegel <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2020 4:36 PMTo: J Hamilton; Mosher, Ana HildaCc: Washington, Brian; Connolly, Damon; Sackett, Mary; Goncalves, Gustavo; Bereket, ImmanuelSubject: Re: Presbytery Design Review / Use Permit (P2770)

Spot on and delightful! Empowering and entertaining. Many thanks. Harriet

From: J Hamilton <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2020 4:24 PM To: Ana Hilda Mosher <[email protected]> Cc: Brian Washington <[email protected]>; Damon Connolly <[email protected]>; Mary Sackett <[email protected]>; Gustavo Goncalves <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: Presbytery Design Review / Use Permit (P2770) To: Marin County Planning Commission CC: Brian E. Washington, Esq., County Counsel :‐) "CC: Brian E. Washington, Esq., County Counsel" is how AT&T signaled that its appeal was not about substance. Rather it was a thinly veiled threat of legal action if AT&T doesn't get what it wants. This is not an objection to the cell tower. It’s merely some observations that we hope will be useful to the Planning Commission, the Board of Supervisors, and in particular Brian E. Washington, Esq., County Counsel. We’re Jo and Ogden Hamilton. We composed the two detailed objections on behalf of the Bayside Acres Action Coalition (BAAC). This submission is over our byline alone.

OBSERVATIONS The PSPR Coalition board’s deep dive into AT&T’s failures to conform to County rules in its permit application and appeal has laid bare the fact that AT&T has paid little attention to the substance of its submissions. Of course the technical specs, all verified by outside firms, probably are perfect. However, the submissions on the location of the tower were not perfect. In fact they didn’t even try to conform to County rules. We believe that AT&T’s real argument—threat of litigation—is every bit as flawed as it’s submission on tower location. Demeaning the DZA’s decision The first indication of that appears in the section of the appeal letter demeaning the DZA’s decision to deny the permit because the proposed tower would significantly detract from the views of folks uphill on Bayview drive. The first move was to frame the matter in a way that is best for AT&T. They seem to have expected that the County would accept its authoritative‐sounding recitation of the law and the Ninth Circuit rulings at face value. “Trust us. We’re a Fortune 500 Company. Don’t try to play in our league.” The second move was to frame the DZA’s decision as "The Deputy Zoning Administrator and one resident also raised concerns

about aesthetics,” That’s flat out false on two fronts. First, a database of objections in the record of the May 28 hearing contains 25—Count them: TWENTY‐FIVE—objections like the one AT&T has chosen to focus on, not one. Second, the

2

objections were not about “aesthetics;” they were about obstruction of the view and consequent loss of property values—and of course, enjoyment of the property. It seems to us that if the objection was not, in fact, about aesthetics, AT&T’s enter argument is moot. A third move was to flog the requirement for “Substantial Evidence.” AT&T's interpretation of "Substantial Evidence" is that "a local government must have specific reasons that are both consistent with the applicable regulations and supported by substantial evidence in the record to deny a permit.” We think that definition—which probably appears nowhere except in AT&T’s writing—actually inures to the benefit of the DZA who denied the permit, not to the benefit of AT&T. AT&T framed the DZA’s denial in terms of the difference in two photos showing the view from a resident’s house. The resident’s photo was zoomed; the Presbytery’s photo was not. AT&T’s conclusion? " (The resident’s..) complaints about the bell tower are too general to amount to substantial evidence and are contradicted by the non‐zoomed photograph of his view with the mock‐up in place.” In fact, as we understand it, the DZA’s decision did not rely on photos. The DZA personally walked Bayview Drive and determined that the cell tower would, indeed, be too intrusive on residents’ views. We think that using AT&T’s own definition of “Specific Evidence” the DZA’s personal observation qualifies as a "specific reason supported by substantial evidence in the record to deny a permit.” Even AT&T’s position that a specific reason must be "consistent with the applicable regulations” is self‐defeating. We and the other members of BAAC collectively have combed every page of the Telecommunications Facilities Policy Plan. It’s overstating to say “pick a page,” but when it comes to “applicable regulations” that support requiring, directly or indirectly, that views may not be obstructed, the Policy Plan contains an embarrassment of riches. The FCC mandate On its face, the FCC regulations seem to give AT&T something close to carte blanche in locating a cell tower. We have experience that suggests that may not be the case. We think that the apparent mandate dates back to Newman v. Motorola. That’s the 2001 case in which a federal judge ruled in a Daubert Hearing that the plaintiff’s evidence of a relationship between cell‐related radiation and cancer was not scientifically credible. Our involvement in that was as a behind‐the scenes expert that evaluated the research for Kirkland and Ellis, Motorola’s attorney. At that time the national interest lay in extending cell service but the cell phone industry was under constant fire over widespread fears of health effects of cell phones and towers. That was impeding the growth of the industry. We believe that the FCC used Newman v. Motorola to justify its position that health concerns could not be used to deny a cell‐related permit and otherwise to protect carriers from being blocked from extending service. That policy was a success Today almost every populated part of the country has adequate cell service. To us it’s an empirical question as to whether the FCC mandate was intended not just to foster the expansion of cell service but also to protect each individual carrier from the consequences of having been beat out by a competitor in providing service to specify areas. The permit in question here would allow AT&T to compete on an equal footing with Verizon, which has excellent service in AT&T’s dead zone. But inasmuch as any AT&T customer is free to switch to Verizon, the national interest in extending cell service is no longer relevant. It’s entirely possible that a new administration will make changes in FCC policy—certainly Internet Neutrality will be restored. Perhaps the mandate AT&T relies on will be modified to reflect current market conditions. Bottom line As we see it, AT&T modeled its approach to the County on The Godfather: "This is an offer you can’t refuse.”

3

After assessing AT&T’s arguments we think their approach is more like King George’s patter song in LinManual Miranda’s Hamilton. If you know the song, sing along and you’ll understand what we mean:

Remember that I’ve served you well. Please don’t throw away the things we have. Now you’re making me mad! And if push comes to shove, I’ll send a fully armed battalion to remind you of my love. Now EVERYONE! “Da‐da‐da‐dit‐da. Da‐da‐da‐dit da‐a‐a‐a‐a‐ya‐a‐a...” :‐)

Jo and Ogden Hamilton 728 Point San Pedro Rd.

Tuesday, July 21, 2020 9:16 PM To: Mosher, Ana - Marin County

Documents

Transcript of Tuesday, July 21, 2020 9:16 PM To: Mosher, Ana - Marin County