Telecom sites were approved decades ago under restricted-access assumptions. Today, people live and work next to them while technology has significantly increased. No independent review is currently required. 

 

FULL PETITION
People are living and working next to telecom sites that were never approved for the current conditions and most occupants have no idea.

Many telecom sites were originally approved as “unmanned facilities.”
That means they were evaluated under the assumption that:

access would be restricted
only trained personnel would be nearby
and surrounding areas would not be regularly occupied
That is no longer true.

Today, people are living and working directly next to — and in some cases beneath — these same sites, without restricted access, without training, without being informed, and without any expectation that they should be responsible for managing these conditions themselves.

 
At the same time, the technology has changed.
These systems are no longer operating at the levels they were when originally approved.

They have been upgraded into:

multi-antenna
high-capacity
modern network systems
Each upgrade increases cumulative RF output.

But the original approval assumptions were never meaningfully revisited.

 
Here’s the part most people don’t know:
Compliance is conditional.

Telecom sites are only considered compliant if certain conditions are met, including:

restricted access
controlled environments
limited occupancy
If those conditions change, the classification should change.

And when the classification changes, the allowable exposure limits become stricter.

 
So the real question is:

If a site was approved under restricted access assumptions,
if occupancy and use have changed,
and if equipment has been upgraded over time,

Has anyone actually verified that it is still compliant under current, real-world conditions, rather than relying solely on carrier generated modeling?

Another key issue:

Current RF evaluations typically model exposure levels at rooftop or exterior locations. While people live and work inside the buildings directly adjacent to these installations.

They do not consistently evaluate conditions inside the buildings where people actually live and work.

There is no clear, transparent process verifying whether interior spaces adjacent to these installations meet general population exposure limits.

Instead, approvals are often renewed based on past assumptions, without a clear, independent reassessment tied to current conditions.

 
This is not about changing federal safety limits.
It is about something simpler:

Are the correct rules being applied to the conditions that exist today?

 
What we are asking for
We are calling on Contra Costa County and the State of California to:

Require reevaluation when conditions change
When buildings become occupied or access changes, sites must be reassessed based on actual use.

Ensure accurate land use classification

Any area accessible to tenants, employees, or the public must be evaluated as a general population (uncontrolled) environment where applicable, rather than under occupational (controlled) exposure assumptions.

Occupational exposure limits are five times higher than general population limits and are only appropriate where access is restricted to trained personnel. Applying those assumptions to publicly accessible or occupied spaces results in evaluations that do not reflect real world conditions.

Require updated evaluations after equipment upgrades
Any modification, addition, or replacement of antennas must trigger a current, site-specific assessment.

Require independent or third-party verification
Compliance should not rely solely on internal or carrier-generated modeling.

Enforce existing permit conditions
Ongoing certification and compliance requirements must be actively verified, not assumed.

Require disclosure to occupants
Property owners and operators should disclose the presence of telecom equipment and any associated conditions to tenants and occupants.

Require action where assumptions no longer match reality
If original approval conditions are no longer valid, appropriate mitigation or operational changes must be required.

Responsibility for mitigation must not fall on occupants
Under no circumstance should tenants, employees, or occupants be responsible for mitigating exposure conditions created by a permitted telecom facility.
Any required mitigation must be the responsibility of the telecom operator and/or property owner.

 
Why this matters
People have the right to:

know what environment they are in
understand the assumptions that were used to approve it
know whether those assumptions are still valid
No system should rely on outdated conditions to justify modern operations.

 
This is about accountability.
Technology changed.
Usage changed.
The review process didn’t.

 
Closing
This petition does not seek to regulate RF exposure standards, which are governed at the federal level.

It seeks to ensure that local land use decisions reflect real-world conditions, and that compliance is verified, not assumed, as technology and occupancy evolve.

If approvals are not updated as conditions change, the responsibility falls on the public to question them.

We are asking local and state authorities to close this gap.

No occupant should be placed in a position where they must identify, question, or attempt to mitigate exposure conditions themselves.
That responsibility belongs with those who designed, installed, and profit from these systems.

 
Call to Action
Sign this petition to require independent review of telecom sites operating under outdated assumptions.

Help ensure that:

evaluations reflect current conditions
compliance is verified, not assumed
oversight includes transparency and accountability
Add your name. Share it. Help force a second look.

 
Supporting Note
Detailed documentation, technical findings, and supporting materials are available upon request.