Carmel-by-the-Sea City Council
June 7, 2022

 Approve a 2.14 percent rate increase to charges by the City’s franchised hauler, GreenWaste Recovery, for the collection of solid waste, recycling and organics, effective on July 1, 2022, as shown in the attached Exhibit A  Approve an amendment to the Memorandum of Understanding between the Monterey Regional Waste Management District and Member Agencies for Fiscal Year 2022/23 regional costs associated with SB 1383.

PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BYTHE-SEA this 7th day of June, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

APPROVED: ATTEST:
_________________________ _________________________
Dave Potter Yashin Abbas
Mayor Interim City Clerk
Attachment 1
Resolution No. 2022-050

EXHIBIT A
Franchise Agreement Exhibit G-3
Rates Effective July 1, 2022
(All rates are monthly unless stated otherwise)
Attachment 1
Rates Effective July 1, 2022
Service Level
20 Gal Back/Side
32 Gal Back/Side
64 Gal Back/Side
96 Gal Back/Side
Notes:

See Exhibit B1 for specific service availability
Service Level 1x/week 2x/week 3x/week 4x/week 5x/week 6x/week 32‐Gallon Cart 50.40 $           $        100.84 $        127.86 $         155.44 $         182.85 $        246.69 64‐Gallon Cart 97.08 $           $        158.00 $        219.17 $         280.36 $         413.36 $        524.87 96‐Gallon Cart 119.74 $         $        225.18 $        334.25 $         421.44 $         541.18 $        686.84 1‐Cubic Yard Bin 276.48 $         $        520.00 $        711.59 $         894.48 $      1,077.39 $    1,369.62 2‐Cubic Yard Bin 406.27 $         $        811.95 $    1,218.25 $      1,626.19 $      1,915.58 $    2,039.20 3‐Cubic Yard Bin 575.23 $         $    1,014.93 $    1,420.96 $      1,758.68 $      2,030.35 $    2,436.03 4‐Cubic Yard Bin 765.32 $         $    1,259.51 $    2,030.18 $      2,529.66 $      2,753.89 $    2,978.13 2‐Cubic Yard Compactor 444.42 $         $        888.25 $    1,332.68 n/a n/a n/a 3‐Cubic Yard Compactor 632.44 $         $    1,129.38 $    1,592.63 n/a n/a n/a 4‐Cubic Yard Compactor 841.61 $         $    1,412.09 $    2,259.06 n/a n/a n/a Service Level 1x/week 2x/week 3x/week 4x/week 5x/week 6x/week 64‐Gallon Cart 14.56 $           $          23.70 $          32.87 $           42.05 $           62.00 $          78.73 96‐Gallon Cart 17.97 $           $          33.78 $          50.14 $           63.22 $           81.19 $        103.02 1‐Cubic Yard Bin 41.47 $           $          78.00 $        106.74 $         134.16 $         161.61 $        205.44 2‐Cubic Yard Bin 60.94 $           $        121.79 $        182.74 $         243.93 $         287.34 $        305.89 3‐Cubic Yard Bin 86.29 $           $        152.24 $        213.15 $         263.80 $         304.56 $        365.40 2‐Cubic Yard Compactor 16.47 $           $          32.84 $          49.33 n/a n/a n/a 3‐Cubic Yard Compactor 19.57 $           $          18.83 $          13.02 n/a n/a n/a 4‐Cubic Yard Compactor n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
Service Level 1x/week 2x/week 3x/week 4x/week 5x/week 6x/week 64‐Gallon Cart 72.80 $           $        118.49 $        164.38 $         210.28 $         310.02 $        393.66 96‐Gallon Cart 89.80 $           $        168.88 $        250.69 $         316.09 $         405.90 $        515.13 1‐Cubic Yard Bin 207.36 $         $        390.01 $        533.69 $         670.85 $         808.05 $    1,027.22 2‐Cubic Yard Bin 304.70 $         $        608.96 $        913.69 $      1,219.64 $      1,436.69 $    1,529.39 $                                    45.05 Included Included Note: All rates are monthly unless stated otherwise.

Residential Solid Waste Collection Rates
Solid Waste Recycling Organics
Commercial/Multi‐Family Recycling Collection Rates
$                                    50.05 Included Included $                                    79.11 Included Included $                                  100.28 Included Included Commercial/Multi‐Family Solid Waste Collection Rates
Frequency
Frequency
Commercial/Multi‐Family Food Waste Collection Rates
Frequency
Attachment 1
Rates Effective July 1, 2022
Service Level 1x/week 2x/week 3x/week 4x/week 5x/week 6x/week 64‐Gallon Cart 72.80 $           $        118.49 $        164.38 $         210.28 $         310.02 $        393.66 96‐Gallon Cart 89.80 $           $        168.88 $        250.69 $         316.09 $         405.90 $        515.13 1‐Cubic Yard Bin 207.36 $         $        390.01 $        533.69 $         670.85 $         808.05 $    1,027.22 2‐Cubic Yard Bin 304.70 $         $        608.96 $        913.69 $      1,219.64 $      1,436.69 $    1,529.39 3‐Cubic Yard Bin 431.42 $         $        761.20 $    1,065.71 $      1,319.01 $      1,522.76 $    1,827.02 Service Level MSW REC FW YT C&D
10 YD 707.78 $         $        707.78 $        707.78 $         707.78 $         707.78 20 YD 778.10 $         $        778.10 $        778.10 $         778.10 $         778.10 30 YD 966.85 $         $        966.85 $        966.85 $         966.85 $         966.85 40 YD 1,155.61 $      $    1,155.61 $    1,155.61 $      1,155.61 $      1,155.61 Per Ton 80.46 $           $          49.43 $          70.11 $           51.72 $           80.46 Service Sector Charge Per Event*
Cart Rental ‐ All Sizes RES
Cart Replacement RES
Re‐Delivery or Re‐Start RES
Cart Cleaning RES
Non‐Scheduled Collection RES
Cardboard Sticker COM
Difficult to Service Cart COM
Difficult to Service Bin COM
Locking Bin COM
Cart Replacement COM
Cart Cleaning COM
Bin Swap‐ Cleaning or Repainting COM
Bulky ‐ Recyclable RES/COM
Bulky ‐ Non Recyclable RES/COM
Bulky ‐ Event RES/MFD
Covered Box RO
Driver Time per Hour RO
Dry Run or Relocation RO
Extra Days RO
*Note: Application of fees shall be as described in Franchise Agreement Commercial/Multi‐Family Yard Trimmings Collection Rates Frequency
$                                     39.93
$                                     47.91
$                                     30.35
$                                     14.85
$                                       1.60
$                                       4.79
$                                     79.85
$                                     95.83
$                                   119.78
$                                   175.68
$                                   119.78
$                                     39.93
Roll‐Off Collection Rates (Per Pull)
Material
$                                     39.93
$                                   119.78
$                                     31.94
Additional Service Rates
$                                       4.79
$                                     95.83
$                                     39.93
$                                     39.93
Attachment 1
Managing Tomorrow’s Resources Today
201 N. Civic Drive, Suite 230 Robert D. Hilton, Emeritus Walnut Creek, California 94596 John W. Farnkopf, PE
Telephone: 925/977-6950 Laith B. Ezzet, CMC
Fax: 925/977-6955 Richard J. Simonson, CMC
www.hfh-consultants.com Marva M. Sheehan, CPA
Robert C. Hilton, CMC
May 13, 2022
Ms. Agnes Martelet
Environmental Compliance Manager
City of Carmel-by-the-Sea
Sent via E-mail
Subject: Review of GreenWaste Recovery’s 2022/23 Rate Request – Draft Report Reference Number: S5065
Dear Ms. Martelet:

HF&H Consultants, LLC (HF&H) was retained by the Monterey Regional Waste Management District (District) to assist with a review of GreenWaste Recovery’s (GWR) request for an adjustment to customer rates, effective July 1, 2022, submitted to the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea (City) on April 1, 2022. This report presents our findings and recommendations.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
HF&H’s review of GWR’s Rate Period 8 (RP8) rate request to the City and subsequent negotiations with GWR resulted in the following outcomes:

1. A 2.14% increase (the result of a $68,969 shortfall) to rates as calculated for RP8. Refer to Figure 1 for the impact to sample residential rates.

Figure 1 – Example Rate Impact of Adjustment

BACKGROUND
In 2012, the City, participating with other members of the District, issued a competitive request for proposals for collection services and entered into the new Agreement with GWR effective July 1, 2015.

The Agreement provides for the following, related to the adjustment of rates:

Current Rates
(RP7) RP8
Adjustment N/A 2.14%
Residential 32-
gallon rate $ 49.00 $ 50.05
Carmel Rate Adjustment
Attachment 2
Managing Tomorrow’s Resources Today
Ms. Agnes Martelet
May 13, 2022

• Rates are to be adjusted annually throughout the term of the Agreement, using various inflationary indices, actual tonnage, and changes in the tipping fees at the District, unless either the City or GWR request a Cost Based Rate Adjustment (CBRA). • The City and GWR may mutually agree upon alternative approaches to structuring rates without amendment to the Agreement (Section 8.2.D).
• During the CBRA review in RP5, a number of issues surrounding the process for setting rates and the resulting rate relationships amongst sectors and materials was identified. As such the City and GWR have negotiated an amendment to the prescribed methodology for the CBRA and index adjustments so as to not alter rate relationships between service sectors and material types. • Through negotiations of the amendment and as a result of the desire to maintain current rate relationships between sectors and service levels, the City and GWR have prescribed a uniform rate adjustment to be applied to all sectors.

RATE CALCULATION REVIEW
HF&H Scope of Work
HF&H performed this review of the rate request in accordance with Exhibit E1 (for the index based rate adjustment). These procedures included:

1. Review of the rate request for completeness and compliance with the procedures contained in Exhibit E1 of the Agreement.

2. Review for mathematical accuracy and logical consistency to determine that the rate request is mathematically correct, that the rows and columns of numbers add down and across as intended, and that the stated assumptions were, in fact, used. Also, to determine that the rate request is internally consistent and that any summary schedules agree to the supporting schedules and worksheets.

3. Verification of the inclusion of the franchise fee calculation in the adjustment.

4. Verification of contract compliance with regard to:

A) The indices used in the adjustment;
B) The tip fees reported for the disposal/processing components of the rates; C) The use of quarterly-reported tonnage data and allocations among agencies. A detailed audit of tonnage and allocations of tonnage reported by GWR was not a part of this scope of work. HF&H discussed GWR’s allocation methodology with them and the methodology appears reasonable and consistent with standard practices within the industry.

D) Any changes in governmental fees on the fee component of the rates; and, the accurate application of the resultant percentage changes in the various rate components to the rate schedule approved by the City through the Agreement.

Attachment 2
Managing Tomorrow’s Resources Today
Ms. Agnes Martelet
May 13, 2022

E) The addition of anticipated costs related to identified program changes resulting from SB 1383.

Review of Rate Request
Rate Period 8 Application
HF&H reviewed the rate application for RP8. The results of the calculation of RP8 per methodology of Exhibit E1 of the amendment can be seen in Figure 2 below.

Figure 2 – City of Carmel Application of Index Based Adjustments to RP8 Rate Period Seven SB 1383 Costs Rate Period
Seven
Adjustment
Factor Rate Period Eight
Annual Cost of Operations A B C = A + B D E = C x D
Labor-Related Costs $ 753,465 $ 87,058 $ 840,523 1.027 $ 867,420 Vehicle-Related Costs $ 111,575 $ 2,866 $ 114,441 1.017 $ 120,048 Fuel Costs $ 115,552 $ 10,748 $ 126,300 1.00 $ 126,300
Other Costs $ 210,242 $ 12,506 $ 222,748 1.017 $ 233,662 Direct Depreciation $ 128,295 $ 22,969 $ 151,264 N.A. $ 151,264 Total Allocated Costs - Labor, Vehicle, Fuel & Other $ 478,428 $ - $ 478,428 1.017 $ 501,871 Total Allocated Costs - Depreciation & Start-Up $ 25,726 $ - $ 25,726 N.A. $ 25,726 Total Annual Cost of Operations $ 1,823,283 $ 136,146 $ 1,959,429 N.A. $ 2,026,291 Profit $ 302,747 $ 22,606 $ 325,353 OR=85.76 $ 336,455
Pass-Through Costs
Disposal Costs $ 180,577 $ - $ 180,577 Tons*Tip Fee $ 211,442 Curbside Supplemental $ (7,152) $ - $ (7,152) 1.00 $ (7,152) Recycling Processing Costs $ 61,014 $ - $ 61,014 Tons*Tip Fee $ 75,031 Residue Processing Costs $ 13,980 $ - $ 13,980 Tons*Tip Fee $ 15,756 Yard Trimmings Processing Costs $ 85,919 $ - $ 85,919 Tons*Tip Fee $ 89,526 Food Waste Processing Costs $ 15,426 $ - $ 15,426 Tons*Tip Fee $ 19,789 C&D Processing Costs $ - $ - $ - Tons*Tip Fee $ 1,155
Interest Expense $ 40,815 $ 3,456 $ 44,270 N.A. $ 44,270 Direct Lease Costs $ - $ - $ - N.A. $ -
Total Allocated Costs - Lease $ 38,993 $ - $ 38,993 N.A. $ 38,993 Total Pass-Through Costs $ 429,571 $ 3,456 $ 433,027 N.A. $ 488,810 Total Costs before Agency Fees $ 2,555,601 $ 162,208 $ 2,717,809 N.A. $ 2,851,556 Agency Fees/Payments $ - $ - $ -
Franchise Fee $ 394,011 $ 24,238 $ 418,249 13.00% $ 427,215 AB 939 Fee $ 72,600 $ - $ 72,600 N.A. $ -
Rate Application Review and District Costs $ 8,259 $ - $ 8,259 Actual $ 7,500 Other Adjustments (as needed from time to time)
Residue Processing Costs (Back Pay for 2019-2020) $ - $ - N.A. $ - Adjustment from MRWMD Tip Fee Estimates 386 386 $ -
Total Calculated Costs $ 3,030,857 $ 186,445 $ 3,217,302 $ 3,286,271 Prior Year Revenue $ 3,217,302
Surplus/(Shortfall) $ (68,969)
Increase/Decrease 2.14%
Attachment 2
Managing Tomorrow’s Resources Today
Ms. Agnes Martelet
May 13, 2022

Review of GWR Costs
There are four major components to GWR’s rate application: 1) calculation and application of the inflationary indexes as prescribed in the Agreement; 2) the disposal and/or processing component; 3) the Agency Fees; and, 4) other one-time adjustments.

There are three indexes used in the index adjustment; CPI, fuel index, and labor index. The annual percent change in each of the indices is used to calculate the coming years projected cost for the line items to which these indexes are applied.

HF&H has reviewed and GWR has confirmed the accuracy of each of these indexes, and notes that the fuel index remains unchanged, as reported by management staff at the District.

Review of Disposal/Processing Component
Calendar Year 2021 collected tons were used for the RP8 review in accordance with the amendment. The disposal and processing components also consider the tipping fees charged by the District in order to project anticipated disposal and processing costs at the District. The following table describes the changes in the City’s disposal and processing costsfor each material type based on the tip fees at the District which have been incorporated into our RP8 review.

Figure 3 - Impact of District Tip Fee Changes
Review of Fee Component
HF&H ensured that the fee component of each rate matches the contractual percentage of 13% for franchise fees, remitted to the City by GWR.

Additionally, rate application review costs and other identified District costs totaling $7,500 were added as a one-time adjustment to cover the rate review, franchise management, and other identified District costs such as staff time, public education and outreach.

Review of Other One-Time Adjustments
There was no change in RP6 and RP7 actual tip fees. Therefore, no reconciliation of actual tip fee amounts was necessary for RP8.

Material 2021 Tons
Current Per
Ton Tip Fee
Rate Period 8
Costs
A B A x B
Solid Waste 3,021 $ 70.00 $ 211,442
Recycling 1,745 $ 43.00 $ 75,031
Yard Trimmings 1,989 $ 45.00 $ 89,526
Food Waste 324 $ 61.00 $ 19,789
C&D* 16.5 $ 70.00 $ 1,155
*The C&D per ton tip fee reflects an average weighted cost for multiple types of C&D materials
Attachment 2
Managing Tomorrow’s Resources Today
Ms. Agnes Martelet
May 13, 2022

New Rates
Attached hereto is a table of all new rates recommended for RP8 based on the adjustments described in this memo (Attachment B). HF&H recommends adopting these rates by resolution to be effective July 1, 2022.
* * * * *
We would like to express our appreciation to GWR staff for their assistance and cooperation in this process. Should you have any questions, please call me at 925/977-6959 or RCHilton@HFHConsultants.com.

Very truly yours,

HF&H CONSULTANTS, LLC
Rob Hilton, CMC
President
Attachment 2
1 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING

BETWEEN THE MONTEREY REGIONAL WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT AND ITS

MEMBER AGENCIES REGARDING ASSISTANCE WITH COMPLIANCE WITH CALIFORNIA SENATE BILL 1383
This Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) is made and entered into as of the date of the signatures set forth below by and between the MONTEREY REGIONAL WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT (“District”, “MRWMD”), a California Garbage and Refuse Disposal District, and its member agencies including the cities of CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA, DEL REY OAKS, MARINA, MONTEREY, PACIFIC GROVE, SAND CITY, and SEASIDE; THE PEBBLE BEACH COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT; and THE COUNTY OF MONTEREY (“Member Agencies”). Collectively these entities shall be known herein as “Parties” or individually as a “Party.”
Recitals
A. The State of California has passed legislation, known as Senate Bill 1383, California’s Short-Lived Climate Pollutants regulation. The regulation will have significant impact on each Member Agency, with the goal of reducing organic material being landfilled by 75% by 2025, compared to a 2014 basis. The legislation mandates that Member Agencies undertake certain activities around the handling of organic waste materials collected within their jurisdictions. The regulation also requires 20% recovery of edible food by 2025 to direct it to a beneficial use and thus prevent it from entering the waste stream. Regulations take effect, and local program implementation will begin, on January 1, 2022.

B. The Member Agencies have determined that it is in their best interest to coordinate their activities related to this legislation. This coordination is being facilitated by the District’s Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) comprised of staff from each Member Agency, the three Haulers in the District service area (Haulers), Salinas Valley Recycles (SVR) and MRWMD.

C. The Member Agencies have further determined that the District has the expertise and resources necessary to implement some of these activities on the Member Agencies’ behalf and have now requested that the District incur costs to provide these activities.

D. The Member Agencies have agreed to reimburse the District for proportionate shares of certain designated annual costs incurred by the District for these activities.

E. The form and content of this MOU have been presented to the TAC, and the TAC has recommended it for approval by the Parties
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual benefits to be derived by the District and the Member Agencies, and of the promises contained in this MOU, the Parties agree as follows:

Attachment 3
2 Section 1. Recitals: The recitals set forth above are incorporated into this MOU.

Section 2. Purpose: The purpose of this MOU is to provide a structure for the Member Agencies to reimburse the District for SB 1383 related activities it performs on behalf of the Member Agencies.

Section 3. Voluntary: This MOU is voluntarily entered into by the Parties for the purpose of facilitating the implementation of SB 1383.

Section 4. Term: This MOU shall become effective on the last day of its execution by a Party and shall remain in effect until terminated by the Parties.

Section 5. Scope of Work, Costs & Cost Sharing: The scope of work, and associated costs, are set out in Exhibit A, entitled Detailed Activities and Costs, attached hereto and incorporated herein. Allocation of such costs to the Member Agencies is set out in Exhibit B, entitled Member Agencies’ Annual Proportionate Shares and Costs, attached hereto and incorporated herein. Exhibit C outlines estimated individual Member Agencies’ allocations related to the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) SB 1383 Local Assistance Grant Program (OWR1: 2021-22), attached hereto and incorporated herein. Exhibit D defines the estimated annual procurement requirements of organic material and estimated cost per ton of compost for each Member Agency, attached hereto and incorporated herein.

No later than March 1 of each year, and at such other times as directed by the Parties, the TAC shall meet to consider and, if deemed necessary, modify Exhibits A, B, and/or C, and/or D subject to direction from the governing bodies of each Member Agency to its TAC representative.

Section 6. The District Agrees:
(a) District staff will manage activities as identified in Exhibit A, and C, and D which activities include contracting with third party vendors when reasonably necessary and paying those vendors for contracted costs.
(b) Two times per year, on dates to be determined by the TAC, District will invoice Member Agencies for each Member Agency’s proportionate share of costs as shown in Exhibit B with each invoice to be fifty percent (50%) of the Member Agency’s share of costs. (c) Upon award of CalRecycle SB 1383 Local Assistance Grant Program funds, the District will invoice Member Agencies for their full allocation of grant funds as shown in Exhibit C. Four times during the grant term, aligned with dates identified by CalRecycle grant Terms & Conditions, the District shall report to Member Agencies a summary of actual grant expenditures and progress toward grant tasks to date.
(dc) District will maintain an accounting of activities and expenses and provide reconciliation of payments annually. Material differences between estimated costs and actual Attachment 3
3 incurred costs will result in either: 1) an adjustment made to the final annual payment for each Member Agency, or 2) such cost difference shall be incorporated into the subsequent year cost allocation.
(ed) In year one only, in recognition of expected continuation of improved recycling revenues for the District from recyclable material sales, the District will off-set $140,000 of the costs identified in Exhibit A. This off-set is reflected in the cost allocations set out in Exhibit B for FY 2021-22.

Section 7. The Member Agencies Agree:
(a) To reimburse the District for all expenses incurred by the District under this MOU in accordance with each Member Agency’s proportionate share as shown on Exhibit B, and C, and D.
(b) To make a full-faith effort to cooperate with one another and with the District to achieve the purposes of this MOU by providing information, reviewing information in a timely manner, and informing their respective administration and governing bodies.

Section 8. Termination. Any Party may terminate its participation in this MOU upon giving written notice to the District no later than April 1 of any calendar year during the term of this MOU. Within ten days following a Party’s termination date, such party shall pay District all charges then due and payable and shall pay when determined any additional charges that shall later come due under the MOU, subject to the limits set out in Exhibits A, B, and C, and D.

Section 9. General Provisions.
(a) This MOU is binding and for the benefit of the respective successors, heirs, and assigns of each Party and the District; provided however, no Party may assign its respective rights or obligations under this MOU without the prior written consent of the District. (b) This MOU is governed by, interpreted under, and construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of California.
(c) If any provision of this MOU is determined by any court to be invalid, illegal, or unenforceable to any extent, then the remainder of this MOU will not be affected, and this MOU will be construed as if the invalid, illegal, or unenforceable provision had never been contained in this MOU.
(d) Waiver by the District or any Party to this MOU of any term, condition, or covenant of this MOU will not constitute a waiver of any other term, condition, or covenant.

Waiver by the District or any Party of any breach of the provisions of this MOU will not constitute a waiver of any other provision, nor a waiver of any subsequent breach or violation of any provision of this MOU.

Attachment 3
4 (e) This MOU may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which is an original but all of which taken together will constitute one and the same instrument, provided, however, that such counterparts have been delivered to all parties to this MOU. (ff) All parties acknowledge they have been represented, or have had the opportunity to be represented, by counsel in the preparation and negotiation of this MOU. Accordingly, this MOU will be construed according to its fair language. Any ambiguities will be resolved in a collaborative manner by the District and the Parties and must be rectified by amending this MOU.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the District and the Parties have caused this MOU to be executed by their duly authorized representatives as of the date of their respective signatures.

MONTEREY REGIONAL WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
By: ________________________ DATE: _______________
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_______________________
Attachment 3
5 CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
By: ________________________ DATE: _______________
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_______________________
Attachment 3
6 CITY OF DEL REY OAKS
By: ________________________ DATE: _______________
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_______________________
Attachment 3
7 CITY OF MARINA
By: ________________________ DATE: _______________
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_______________________
Attachment 3
8 CITY OF MONTEREY
By: ________________________ DATE: _______________
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_______________________
Attachment 3
9 CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
By: ________________________ DATE: _______________
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_______________________
Attachment 3
10 SAND CITY
By: ________________________ DATE: _______________
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_______________________
Attachment 3
11 CITY OF SEASIDE
By: ________________________ DATE: _______________
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_______________________
Attachment 3
12 PEBBLE BEACH COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
By: ________________________ DATE: _______________
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_______________________
Attachment 3
13 COUNTY OF MONTEREY
By: ________________________ DATE: _______________
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_______________________
Attachment 3
14 EXHIBIT A

DETAILED ACTIVITIES & COSTS
FY 2022-2023
Scope of Work
The activities related to the implementation of SB 1383 may include contracting and policy development; public education; materials purchasing and distribution; reporting; contamination monitoring; edible food recovery; enforcement; procurement; organics processing; rate setting; cost monitoring; and any other related activities the Parties choose to address.

The District will take the lead producing public education campaigns in concert with the alreadyprovided Hauler and/or Member Agency resources. The Member Agencies will be responsible for production and mailing fees associated with outreach. The District will also contract with a vendor to administer contamination monitoring in the form of curbside lid flipping within each Member Agency, except for the County of Monterey, where the County of Monterey will decide how to proceed. The District will also provide CalRecycle reporting services to the Member Agencies. In addition, funds will be allocated to edible food recovery support.

Costs
Attachment 3
15 EXHIBIT A
(Continued)
Attachment 3
16 EXHIBIT B
MEMBER AGENCIES’ ANNUAL PROPORTIONATE SHARES & COSTS*
FY 2022-2023
*Member Agencies’ proportionate costs subject to adjustment annually in accordance with any change in scope and total costs.

Attachment 3
17 EXHIBIT C
MEMBER AGENCIES’ ESTIMATED ALLOCATION OF CALRECYCLE LOCAL ASSISTANCE GRANT PROGRAM FUNDING (OWR1: 2021-22)**
The Member Agencies of Carmel, Del Rey Oaks, Marina, Monterey, Sand City, Seaside, Pacific Grove, and the Pebble Beach Community Services District (PBCSD) join the Local Assistance Grant Program as a regional collaborative project for the implementation of regulation requirements associated with SB 1383, in coordination with other jurisdictions of the Monterey County region to maximize project impact and cost-effectiveness across the countywide area.

This regional grant-funded project will be coordinated through the two local waste management governmental agencies within Monterey County, Monterey Regional Waste Management (MRWMD), and Salinas Valley Solid Waste Authority (SVSWA).

The Member Agencies, along with each of the MRWMD and SVSWA member agencies are applying individually to this grant program using a unified regional project design, budget and implementation approach. All participating jurisdictions’ individual grant funding will be pooled together and expended in a cooperative manner by their agencies’ respective waste districts, MRWMD and SVSWA. The County of Monterey is applying separately and will manage its budget and project implementation independently, in coordination with broader regional planning efforts.

Based on current regional needs and findings to date related to SB 1383 in Monterey County, the following four major components will comprise the principal focus areas of program expenditures under the proposed regional project approach:
1) Grant Management, Tracking & Reporting
2) Agency Procurement Support
3) Edible Food Recovery Implementation and Capacity Building 4) Organics & Edible Food Recovery Education, Outreach and Technical Assistance Each element will be informed by regional coordination through the established MRWMD and SVSWA Technical Advisory Committee forums, Capacity Planning Assessments and related studies completed or in process throughout the region, and new data and information obtained through program implementation trials, stakeholder feedback and best practices as identified.

All expenditures will be incurred jointly, facilitated through each respective waste agency, and tracked and reported by each jurisdiction, based on the percentage of grant funds received by each agency compared to the full funding received collectively by all participating member agencies. CalRecycle, based on per capita calculations, using the Department of Finance’s January 2021 population statistics, estimates jurisdictions’ proportionate grant allocations. A summary of individual and collective agency grant allocations is presented below as Table 1.

Attachment 3
18 EXHIBIT C
(Continued)
MEMBER AGENCIES’ ESTIMATED ALLOCATION OF CALRECYCLE LOCAL ASSISTANCE GRANT PROGRAM FUNDING (OWR1: 2021-22)**
Table 1. Thirteen Agency Collaborative Approach Budget Summary ** Working in coordination with the designated CalRecycle grant manager or other agency representatives as appropriate, the region may adjust these proposed expenditure areas, amounts, or priorities, consistent with grant expenditure eligibility requirements, as needed during the course of the grant term based on the needs of the region.

Agencies Estimated
Funding
% of District
Subtotal
% of Region
Total
Waste
District
Carmel-by-the-Sea $20,000 9% 4% MRWMD
Del Rey Oaks $20,000 9% 4% MRWMD
Marina $29,771 14% 6% MRWMD
Monterey $38,247 18% 7% MRWMD
Pacific Grove $21,398 10% 4% MRWMD
Sand City $20,000 9% 4% MRWMD
Seaside $43,151 20% 8% MRWMD
Pebble Beach Community
Services District
$20,000 9% 4% MRWMD
Subtotal (MRWMD): $212,566 100% 41%
Gonzales $20,000 6% 4% SVSWA
Greenfield $25,157 8% 5% SVSWA
King City $20,665 7% 4% SVSWA
Salinas $211,143 68% 40% SVSWA
Soledad $33,095 11% 6% SVSWA
Subtotal (SVSWA): $310,060 100% 59%
TOTAL (13 Agency Regional
Approach): $522,626 100%
Attachment 3
19 EXHIBIT D
MEMBER AGENCIES’ ESTIMATED PROCURMENT REQUIRMENTS

OF ORGANIC MATERIAL
The list below indicates the annual recovered organic waste product procurement targets for each jurisdiction (city, county, or city and county) that will be in effect from January 1, 2022 through December 31, 2026 per CalRecycle.

Attachment 3

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA

CITY COUNCIL
Staff Report
June 7, 2022

ORDERS OF BUSINESS
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
SUBMITTED BY: Yashin Abbas, Interim City Clerk
APPROVED BY: Chip Rerig, City Administrator
SUBJECT:

Resolution 2022-036 ratifying appointments to the Harrison Memorial Library Board of Trustees, Historic Resources Board, and Planning Commission RECOMMENDATION:
1) Adopt Resolution 2022-036 ratifying appointments to the Harrison Memorial Library Board of Trustees, Historic Resources Board, and Planning Commission.
2) Re-open the recruitment process for the Forest and Beach Commission.

BACKGROUND/SUMMARY:

City Boards and Commissions perform a valuable service to the City by providing means by which the City Council can obtain advice, opinions, and recommendations of City residents and other members of the community. The Boards and Commissions terms that were originally expiring on October 30 were extended to May 30 at the December 6, 2021 City Council Special Meeting, and the new term expiration date will be May 30 of each year going forward. Per the City's Municipal Code regarding Boards and Commissions appointment process, "In the event an appointment cannot be made in a timely manner, the incumbent may continue to serve until a new member is appointed."
The City Council will be filling seven (6) anticipated vacancies for seven (6) terms expiring May 30, 2022:
two full-term seats on the Harrison Memorial Library Board of Trustees, two full-term seats on the Historic Resources Board, and two full-term seats on the Planning Commission. The recruitment period opened on February 14, 2022 and ended on April 11, 2022. A total of thirteen applications were received.

Community Outreach during the recruitment period
The Pine Cone published the recruitment on February 11, March 18, and April 8 The City's website has a dedicated page regarding the recruitment and application to the Boards and Commissions
Regular publication in the City Administrator’s Friday Letter Regular announcement during the Friday Vlogs
Commission staff notified current members of Boards and Commissions Mayor Potter and Mayor Pro Tem Richards comprised the Ad Hoc Committee and interviewed the applicants for the Boards and Commissions vacancies. The following individuals have been identified as qualified to fill the vacancies and are being recommended for appointment effective June 7, 2022:

Harrison Memorial Library Board of Trustees for a three-year term ending May 30, 2025:
1) John Krisher
2) Phil Pardue
Historic Resources Board for a four-year term ending May 30, 2026:
1) Jordan Chroman
2) Erik Dyar
Planning Commission for a four-year term ending May 30, 2026:
1) Michael LePage
2) Erin Allen
FISCAL IMPACT:

None.

PRIOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION:

The City Council periodically ratifies appointments to vacancies of Boards and Commissions.

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment 1: Resolution 2022-036
Attachment 2: Recommended Applicants
Attachment 3: Applications

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA

CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-036

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA

RATIFYING APPOINTMENTS TO THE HARRISON MEMORIAL LIBRARY BOARD OF

TRUSTEES, HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD, AND PLANNING COMMISSION WHEREAS, City Boards and Commissions perform a valuable service to the City by providing means by which the City Council can obtain advice, opinions, and recommendations of City residents and other members of the community; and WHEREAS, seven (6) vacancies exist on City Boards and Commissions for seven (6) extended terms ending May 30, 2022, and per the City’s Municipal Code regarding the Appointment Process, “in the event an appointment cannot be made in a timely manner, the incumbent may continue to serve until a new member is appointed; and WHEREAS, the Mayor and Mayor Pro Tempore comprised the Ad Hoc Committee and interviewed the applicants for the Board and Commission vacancies; and WHEREAS, the applicants demonstrated a strong commitment to service and a desire to serve the Carmel-by-the-Sea community; and
WHEREAS, the Ad Hoc Committee is appreciative of all community members who filled out an application and participated in the interview process.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA DOES HEREBY:

Appoint the following individuals to fill seven (7) vacancies on the following City Boards and Commissions effective June 7, 2022:

Harrison Memorial Library Board of Trustees for a three-year term ending May 30, 2025:
1) John Krisher
2) Phil Padue
Historic Resources Board for a four-year term ending May 30, 2026:
1) Jordan Chroman
2) Erik Dyar
Planning Commission for a four-year term ending May 30, 2026:
1) Michael LePage
2) Erin Allen
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BYTHE-SEA this 7th day of June, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Attachment 1
APPROVED: ATTEST:

Dave Potter Yashin Abbas
Mayor Interim City Clerk
Attachment 1
Attachment 2
Attachment 2
Attachment 2
Attachment 2
Attachment 2
Attachment 2
Attachment 2
Attachment 2
Attachment 2
Attachment 2
Attachment 2
Attachment 2
Attachment 2
Attachment 2
Attachment 2
Attachment 2
Attachment 2
Attachment 2
Attachment 2
Attachment 2
o
$'(-Tflf
APPLICATION TO SERVE ON A CARMEL.BY-THE-SEACITY

BOARD OR COMMISSION
ln accordance with the Public Records Act, submitted applications and attachments are considered public records and will be disclosed upon receipt of a public records request. Applications may also be published (with signatures and personal contact information redactedlin the agendas of relevant meetings ofthe City Cou ncil, boards and commissions.

NAME DATE
RESIDENCE ADDRESS CITY Carmel 9392L
Carmel 9392L
sa me
z.t

MAILING ADDRESS
-
CITY ztP
RESIDENCE PHOl\I E INESS PHO]\ E
E MAIL
HOW LONG HAVE YOU LIVED IN CARM EL_BY-TH E-SEA? 8 months- Ju ne 2021 Board or Commission Selection:
you may applyfor more than one Board or Commission. Please note, however, that members shall not serve simultaneously on more than one Council-appointed Board or Commission.

Cornmunity Activities & Cultural Commission (meets the sec$d Tuesdav of lhe month at 9.30 e.m.) Harrison Memorial Library Board of Trustees (meets the fourth wcdnesday ofthe mmlh 6t 9:oo a-m.) Planning Commission (meets the s€cond wcdncsday orlhe month at 4:oo p m.. tour ofinspsction at 2:oO p m ) Forest & Beaoh Commiasion (me.ts thc second Thursdav orthe month at 3:30 p m., tcur oflnspectlon at 3 P m.) Historic Resources Board {meets the third Moday of the m-lh at 4:oO p.m., loor of inspection at 3:'15 p.m ) Will you Yes be available to attend board/commission meetiEs regu I a rly? l'm happy to sit on any of the Commissions. l'd like to help where l'm needed. My top 3 preferences are identified above.

Erin Allen February 74,2022
RevisedJuly 15, 2019
Board of Appeals (oce annually and on 6n seneeded basis) E Attachment 2
All members of boards and commissions are subject to the Conflict of lnterest Laws of the State of California and are required to submit Form 700, "Statement of Economic Interest," within 30 days of assuming office. Form 700 must be filed annually thereafter, and within 30 days of leaving office as well. ln accordance with Assembly Bill (AB) 1234 appointed members are required to attend Public Service Ethics Education upon appointment and every two years thereafter.

Do you atree to file all required statements in a timely manner as prescribed by law or the city's conflict of lnterest Code? YES NO
Reason for lnterest in the Position
Please list any relevant qualifications or experience you possess that would enhance the of the board(s) or for which ou are a
Please list any local area associations, boards, commissions, foundations, or companies in which you have an investment, or serve as an officer or director:
x
I really want to be a part of this community- that means being involved. VSP encourages their executives to participate in their community and allows us the flexibility to do so. These commissions are extremely important to our city and will define our future so I believe its my responsibility to be a part of that.

See attached resume
Board Member of Boys and Giris Club, Sacramento: l'm experienced in networking and execution of Board initiatives
At VSP- l'm known for being an agile leader with the ability to quickly understand complex situations and execute collaborative solutions.

No local participation
Education:
e ear s
1987 Cal state- Fresno Bs lndustrial Tech nology
Revised Julv 16, 2019
sole Proprietor- retail establishment: I understand what challenges small business owner face.

Executive Rotation: l'm currently tasked with helping to develop and implement DE&l initiatives at VSP in conjunction with our Chief Diversity Officer. lnstitutidr
Attachment 2
Emplovment Experience Start with Most Recent): See attached resume Organization VSP
Position Vice President Year: Present
Organization
Position Year
Organization
Position Year:

Signature Date
Citizen knowledge, interest and participation are vital ingredients to the delivery of high-quality public services. The richness that comes from citizens serving in advisory roles to the City Council contributes to making Carmel by the Sea the special place it iifhe City of Carmel-by-the Sea thanks you for your interest in serving on a City board or commission.

Return application to the City Clerk's Office, East side of Monte Verde Street, between Ocean and Seventh Avenues or mail to PO Box CC, Carmel-by-the-Sea, 93921, attention: City Clerk's Office.

Organization Board Member Boys and Girls Club, Sacramento Position Fundraising Cha irman Year: 20t3-201,5
Position Year
Sacramento Fire Department
Volunteer Coordinator Position: Year: 2000-2004
Revisedruly 16, 2019
Prior oublic service. civic or volunteer activities:

Organization:

Orga nization:

Attachment 2

ERIN ANNE ALLEN
Resultsdriven professional with extensive experience inteam leadership and execution. Proven track record in strategy creation, program development, exceeding forecasts, leading strong team performance and delivering results. Highly adept in building strong cross functional teams.

PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE:
@ia 2020- Present
Vice President Business Enablement and lntegration
Executive Rotation
Responsib/e for business enablement and analytics with 1 Sr. Director, 6 managers and 64 team members
Lead BEI team in the development of solutions to maximization operational efficiencies to achieve company and enterprise goals. Ensure close strategic alignment with Customer Experience Center to improve member retention and decrease OON claims. Deliver sales and service platform stability at 95% system up time. Align BEI team and activities with all other enterprise analytics business units. Ensure analytic applications are aligned with business need and strategy. Direct all Vision Care Analytics and Reporting activities to grow and evolve capabilities resulting in 95% satisfaction rating within business stakeholder surveys. lmplement new soflware within department to improve compliance repoding and reduce client data inquiries by 25% each quarter. Consult with lnsurance Business Transformation project Executive Sponsorteam lo meet and exceed scheduled deliverables. Lead special projects and strategic initiatives as assig ned. Responsible f or the creation of Vision Care's D E&l strategy in alignment with VSP'S g lobal strategy. Coordinate and align DE&l strategy with other pillar lead efforts across enterprise. lnitiate and oversee all VC DE&l workstream efforts to increase communication, improve RFP information, provide resources and training, align team AAP to achieve VC diverse representation and create leadership development program in conjunction with HR.
ia
Vice President of Business Oevelopment 2018-2020
Responsibre for business develoryent and sales enablement with 1 Director, 1 managers and 35 team membefs
Reorganized and structured GBDM team to meet business needs and ensured Premier successwithin the m arket.

Coordinated all CLOB activities and targeting for Premiergrowth and retention. Developed Prem iersales strategy.

Responsible for enterprise Premiersales training. Coordinated and conducted m onthly sales leadership strategy meetings and comm unicatiom. Managed Sales Collaboration Project. Directed POC in Florida and Ohio to ensure successfu I Ja nuary rollout. lnitiated and conducted sales methodology search in orderto propose and secure enterprise solution. Developed Pathways Expansion Program. lnitiated successful POC in orderto refine program for October launch. Responsible for annual CLOB SEE meetings. (See attached page for additional responsibilities.) ia
Director of Sales 2016-2017
Responsible for over 80 million in sales with 4 managers and 41 team members Exceeded 2016 and 2017 sales goalto achieve over 80 m illion in revenue. Responsible forstrategy in all areas of business including core independent ECPs and Key Accounts. Developed and implemented key strateg ic sales business initiatives to elevate team. Oversaw all strategic business relationships with Altair customers. Developed sales strategy that addresses the changing marketplace. lnitiated collaborative programs to engage allareas of the business unit. Worked across key business areas to leverage resources and supportglobal initiatives. Worked closely with Fina nce tea m to develop yea rly budget and forecasting. lm proved com m u nication s within business unit to build cohesive, efficient processes. Launched data driven initiative utilizing claims to provide fram e board inventory insights to our doctors.

Attachment 2
VSP Global Obtics Group- Rancho Cordova- California
Director of Sales, West Zone 2012- 2016
Responsrbre for over 125 million in lab sales with 3 managers and 21 team members Achieved 27.5% growth in 2013 with EBITDA of 4.7 m illion. Achieved 28% growth in sales of over 125 m illion in 2014 to a goalof '108 m illion with 3 m illion in EBITDA. Responsible for all sales and marketing implementation within West Zone to ensu re successfu I Optics Grou p initiatives a nd prog ram s. Dem onstrated strong personal leadersh ip a nd process m anagement skills to rectify situation d u ring d iff icu lt tim e with opening of new la b. Contin ued to delive r strong sales to im pact and regain market position. Responsible for im plementation of Optics Group Recognition Program in conjunction with Global HR program. Represented Optics Group on Global Recognition Team to evaluate and reward outstanding perform ance throughoutthe com pany West District Sales Manager 2007 -2012
Responsible for 32 million in Brand sales with nine Sares Consurfanfs in seyen srales.

Grew District sales by 10% with a 5% sales goaland a 2.5% lndustry growth average. Planned and directed all stralegies to achieve sales obiectives. Analyzed m arket potential and trends within West District. Led national competitive intelligence team to create extensive strategy to combat industry com pelitors- lmplemented company strategic business sales and marketing plans and programs while maintaining appropriate levels of sales coverage and properadherence to budget projections. Assessed performance and development needs. Managed and built effective development plans for individuals with varying levels of skills, potential and motivation. @ia
Sole Proprietor 2007 -2010
Responsible for all sales, marketing and opetational activities necessary for the introduction of a new retail location,
Achieved sales of over $100,000 in first year.

Awarded Best in Sacramento from KCRAA List 2010
@ia
Western Regional Sales Manager 2004 -2007
Responsible for 12 mi ion dollars in sales with ten Accounl Executives in eleven statesCreated sales team to introduce newtechnology into the indusiry.

Trained a nd d eveloped Account Executives to create and im plement strategic business plans for each of the Weste rn territories. Developed and trained Account Executives on callcycle creation and im plementation. Trained Account Executives to develop and m aintain strong business relationsh ips with independent laboratories a nd EC Ps with in each territory and in Central and Western regions. Trained Account Executives to educate and develop staffwithin territory accountbase. Responsible for special projects including nalional Sandler Sales Training and targeted Key Account activities. lm plemented Nlarketing programs within the region. Secured lab representation in allwestern states. Exceeded allsales, revenues and m arket penetration goals. @ia
Sales and Marketing Manager 2001-2004
Responsible f 12mi ion do ars in sares with Sares Consultants and Marketing Planned and directed all sales and marketing strategaes. ldentified target market development within region and prod uced incentive programs to su pport growth. lnitiated and im plem ented m arketing programs to obtain di stribution objectives. Developed creative new produ ct m arketing to ensure successful launchof new materials and designs in he N orthern California m arket. Exceeded com pany goal of 50% Hoya prod uct penetration in all assigned tenilories. @Essilor Laboratories of America Sales Representative
Silor Sales Representative
r996-2001
1990-1993
Attachment 2
EDUCATION:

Bachelor of Arts- lndustrial Technology
Minor in Eusiness Administration
Calif omia State University, Fresno
June '1987
AWARDS & RECOGNITION:

Most lnf luential Women in Optical2018
Zone Director of theYear 2015
Zone Director of the Year 2013
Zone Director of theYeat 2012
Recognized for Outstanding Sales and Marketing Performance 2002 Sales Consultant of the Year 1999
ACCOMPLISHMENTS:

Boys and Girls Club of Greater Sacramento Board Member
Member of Optical Women's Association
Volunteer Coordinator for the Sacramento City Fire Department Calif omia lntemational Marathon
2013- 2015
2007- Present
2000- 2004
1998
Attachment 2

APPLICATION TO SERVE ON A CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA CITY

BOARD OR COMMISSION
In accordance with the Public Records Act, submitted applications and attachments are considered public records and will be disclosed upon receipt of a public records request. Applications may also be published (with signatures and personal contact information redacted) in the agendas of relevant meetings of the City Council, boards and commissions.

RESIDENCE ADDRESS _ _____ ZIP __ _
MAILING ADDRESS ------ CITY _____ ZIP __ _

RESIDENCE PHONE -- BUSINESS PHONE--------
EMAIL _____ _
HOW LONG HAVE YOU LIVED IN CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA? ____ _
Board or Commission Selection:

You may apply for more than one Board or Commission. Please note, however, that members shall not serve simultaneously on more than one Council-appointed Board or Commission. -
Will you be available to attend board/commission meetings regularly? ____ _ Revised July 16, 2019
Attachment 3
All members of boards and commissions are subject to the Conflict of Interest Laws of the State of California and are required to submit Form 700, "Statement of Economic Interest," within 30 days of assuming office. Form 700 must be filed annually thereafter, and within 30 days of leaving office as well.

In accordance with Assembly Bill (AB) 1234 appointed members are required to attend Public Service Ethics Education upon appointment and every two years thereafter.

Do you agree to file all required statements in a timely manner as prescribed by law or the City's Conflict of Interest Code? YESD NCQ
Reason for Interest in the Position:

Please list any relevant qualifications or experience you possess that would enhance the mission and goals of the board(s) or commission(s) for which you are applying:

Please list any local area associations, boards, commissions, foundations, or companies in which you have an investment, or serve as an officer or director:

Education:

Institution Course of Study Degree Year (s)
Revised July 16, 2019
Attachment 3
Employment Experience (Start with Most Recent):

Organization:

Position: Year:

Organization:

Position: Year:

Organization:

Position: Year:

Prior public service, civic or volunteer activities:

Organization:

Position: Year:

Organization:

Position: Year:

Organization:

Position: Year:

Signature Date
Citizen knowledge, interest and participation are vital ingredients to the delivery of high-quality public services. The richness that comes from citizens serving in advisory roles to the City Council contributes to making Carmel by the Sea the special place it is. The City of Carmel-by-the Sea thanks you for your interest in serving on a City board or commission.

Return application to the City Clerk's Office, East side of Monte Verde Street, between Ocean and Seventh Avenues or mail to PO Box CC, Carmel-by-the-Sea, 93921, attention: City Clerk's Office.

Revised July 16, 2019
Attachment 3
APPLICATION TO SERVE ON A CARMEL.BY.THE.SEA CITY

BOARD OR COMMISSION
ln accordance with the Public Records Act, submitted applications and altachments are considered public records and will be disclosed upon receipl of a public records request. Applications may also be published (with signatures and personal contact information redacted) in the agendas of relevant meetings of the City Council, boards and commissions.

NAME Gail Lehman
RESIDENCE ADDRESS C|TYCarmel ztP 9392L
MAILING ADDRESS zlP 93921

RESIDENCE PHONE -
EMAIL
HOW LONG HAVE YOU LIVED IN CARMEL.BY.THE.SEA? 47 VEA'S
Board or Com mission Selection:

You may apply for more than one Board or Commission. Please note, however, that members shall not serve simullaneously on more than one Council-appointed Board or Commission.

Community Activities & Cultural Commission (meets the second Tuesdav of the month at 9:3o a.m.) Harrison M e morial Libra ry Board of Trustees (meets the fou(h wednesdav of th e moith at 9:0o s. m. ) Planning Commission (meets the second wednesdav c,f the month at 4:oo p m . tour or inspection at 2:0o p.m ) X Forest & Beach Commission (meets the secod Thursday oflhe msth al 3r3O p.m , tour ofinspection al 3 p m ) Historic Resources Board (meets the thirct Moiday of the month at 4:Oo p m , tdr of inspection at 3:15 p m.) Board of Appeals (once annually and on an aeneeded rJasis) Will you be available to attend board/commission meetings ]egularly? Revised July 16.2019
VES
DATE 3.14.2022
CITY Carmel
BUSINESS PHONE 831,,277 .27 7 O
Attachment 3
All members of boards and commissions are subject to the Conflict of lnterest Laws oI the Slate of Caliromia and are required to submit Form 700, 'Statement of Economic lnterest,' within 30 days oI assuming office. Form 700 must be filed annuslly thereafter, and within 30 days of leaving office as well. ln accordance with Assembly Bill (AB) 1234 appointed members are required to attend Public SeMce Ethics Education upon appointment and every two years thereafter.

Oo you agree to flle all required st ments in a timely manner as prescribed by law or the City's Conflict of lnterest Code? YE
Please list any relevant qualifications or experience you possess that would enhance the mission and goals of the board(s) or commission(s) for which you are applying:
+
n -h
or bu 36 homes, the maiority of which are in Carmel bv-t -Sea.

Please list any local area associatlons, boards, commissions, foundations, or companies in which you have an investment, or serve as an officer or director:

Planninq Commrsslon vtce hair
o.s.B. lnvestments. a rtnF r
The Golden lvlean. LL manadtno me her
Course of Study Degree Year (s)
Harvard Univers
ernm
Govern ment
New York Scho ol of Desiqn Desion 1963 - 65 cert icate
Revised July 16,2019
Reason for lnterest in the Position:

I am re-aflplyingiln the nnsition I am intFrestFd tn cnntinue tn cnntrihltF to thF revisinns of the guidelinps and to lhp general plan that I may nnntinuc my sprrricp tn nttr Cify.

Education:
lnstitution
cnrncll t lniversitv
Attachment 3
Emolovment ExDerience (Start with Most Recent):

Organization: Please see attached C.V
Position: Year:

Organization:

Position Year;
Position Year:

Prior public service. civic or volunteer activities:

Organization:

Plannin Commission Carmel -the-Sea
3_L4.2022
sig Date
Citizen knowledge, interest and participation are vital ingredients to the delivery of high-quality public services. The richness that comes from citizens serving in advisory roles to the City Council contributes to making Carmel by the Sea the special place it is. The Gity of Carmel'by-the Sea thanks you for your interest in serving on a City board or commission.

Return application to the City Clerk's Ofrice, East side o, Monte Verde St.eet, between Ocean and Seventh Avenues or mail to PO Box CC, Carmel-by-the-Sea, 93921, attention: City Clerk's Oftice.

Position: ViCe-chair / Commissioner Year:2016 - present Oroanization:

City of Monterey
Position: Desion Review Commission Year:1976 - 77
Organizalion:

United Nations Center
Position: Teacher / HoSDitalitv Orqanizer Year: 1962 - 65 Revised July 16.2019
I
Organization:

Attachment 3

PROFILE
EDUCATION:

Cornell University 19 57 - 1960
Harvard College 1959
New School for Social Research 1960-1961
New York School of Interior Design 1963-65
SERVICE:

Interior Design Guild of Monterey Bay,1980-84, President, 1983-84 Soroptomist I nternatio na I
Chamber of Commerce, Santa Cruz, San Francisco, Monterey City of lYonterey, Design Review Board 1977-78
Democratic Club of the lvlonterey Peninsula, Vice-President 2008-2015 HONORS AND AWARDS:

Design International award winner 1983,1984, for "Excellence in the field of Inteflor Design and Space Planning."
Design projects included in the Compendium of women in Design International "Prix des Femmes International" award for excellence in commercial office design.

EMPLOYMENT HISTORY:
1/2000-Present GAIL LEHMAN FINE ART
Carmel by The Sea, California
Abstract Artist
See : Artist Bio at: www. gailleh manfineart. com
1/ 1988- Present THE GOLDEN MEAN, LLC
Carmel by the Sea, California
Position: Ownet Designet Project Manager
Responsibilities: Supervised the design and construction of thirty five homes in California and Washington, majority in Carmel by the Sea.

GAIL LEHMAN

PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONST
American Institute of Architects, (affiliate member)
Institute of Business Desig ners
Design Internationa I
Central Coast Art Association
National Society of Acrylic Painters
Women Artists of the West
Attachment 3
2/7977 to 2005 GAIL LEHMAN AND ASSOCIATES
5/76 to 2/77
3/75 to 5/76
Carmel By The Sea, California
Position: Owner. Project Directo r/ Desig ner
Responsibilities: Principal Designer, Long range feasibility planning, space evaluations for lease negotiations, project coordination, project design, marketing, coordination and direction of office personnel.

Major Clients:

American Tin Cannery
Bayou Cafe
Crocker National Bank Bu ilding
Dalgety Foods
Dominican Santa Cruz Hospita I
Fort Ord (dining room, disco, modular units/ barracks)
Fortuna Communications
Hattnell College
Hudson, Martin, Ferrante & Street
lBM Corporation ( on call field consultant
Lakin-Spears, law office
Lavorato & House, law building
Robert Louis Stevenson School
Salinas Public Library
University of California San Francisco
UCSF/ Stanford Hea lth Care
UCSF/Lucille Packard Children's Health Services
UCSF Long Hospital/ Pediatric (Floors six and seven)

MILTON SWIMMER PLANNING AND DESIGN
Beverly Hills, Californ ia
Position: Project Director, Senior Designer
Responsibilities: Coordinate and direct projects for major corporations.

Supervise initial space planning, working drawings and construction in progress.

Major Clients:

Buckeye Realty & Construction
Columbia Savings & Loan
Freed man & Low
Korean Exchange Bank
National Distillers & Chemical Corporation

ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Beverly H ills, California
Position: Project Director/Designer
Responsibilities: Identical to previous position
Major Clients:

Ayre Jorgensen MacDonald
Billy Jack Productions
The Colwell Company
2 Attachment 3
9/73 to 2/75
9/70 lo 9173
Ernst & Ernst (Salt Lake City)
Kellog & Andelson
National lvledical Enterprises
Peat, [4arwick, Mitchell (New Orleans)
Prudential Insu rance Company
Rosenfeld, Horn, Denton & Harrell
Shapiro, Robin, Cohen & Powell

SAPHIER LERNER SCHINDLER ENVIRONETICS
West Los Angeles, Californ ia

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
Depa rtment of Health Services
LAC-USC Pla nn ing Division
Los Angeles, California
Major Clients:

Gate Realty, I nc.

Harbor Insurance Build ing
Johnson & H igg ins
N4onog ram Industries
Tishman Rea lity & Construction
Unionamerica Insurance (Los Angeles, San
Francisco, Dallas, Houston and New York)
Urban Projects, Inc.

Position: Director of Technical Services
Responsibilities: Supervised production control operation. Duties included direct supervision of Draftsmen, Detailers and Tenant Development Project Directors. Responsible for job scheduling, determining building standards for construction, final approval of working drawings, building permits and computer operation. Acted as major contact between company, tenant and construction
coordinators,
Major clients
Avco Center
Cha rles Dunn Company
Dillingham Development company
S. Jon Kreed man Company
Matlow-Kennedy Corporation
The Realty Group
The State of Californ ia
Shell Oil
Tishman Realty & Construction
Positron: Sen ior Project Planner
Responsibilities: Design, plan and execute schematics and working drawings for major county hospitals. Write service and facility programs for capital projects. Conduct feasibility studies to determine optimum utilization of facilities.
3 Position: Project Director
Responsibilities: The same as above.

Attachment 3

APPLICATION TO SERVE ON A CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA CITY

BOARD OR COMMISSION
In accordance with the Public Records Act, submitted applications and attachments are considered public records and will be disclosed upon receipt of a public records request. Applications may also be published (with signatures and personal contact information redacted) in the agendas of relevant meetings of the City Council, boards and commissions.

R e ,' � a>---!:,�..,.,__ ______ DA TE
CITY C4.,,.,,.J.

MAILING ADDRESS :!!!!!!"!!!!!'---- CITY C et ,.. nil!.,,/ RESIDENCE PHONE ■Ill ■-----
HOW LONG HAVE YOU LIVED IN CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA? ------- 2. / Board or Commission Selection:

ZIP 1 3 9:2../
IP t:j 'J f .2.1
You may apply for more than one Board or Commission. Please note, however, that members shall not serve simultaneously on more than one Council•appointed Board or Commission.

Community Activities & Cultural Commission (meets the second Tuesday of the month at 9:30 a.m.) Harrison Memorial Library Board of Trustees (meets the fourth Wednesday oflhe month at 9:00 a.m.) Planning Commission (meets the second Wednesday of the month at 4:00 p.m .. tour of inspection at 2:00 p.m.) Forest & Beach Commission (meets the second Thursday or the month at 3:30 pm .. tour or inspection at 3 p.m.) v-- Historic Resources Board (meets the third Monday of the month at 4:00 p.m .. tour of inspection at 3:15 p.m.) Board of Appeals <once annually and on an as-needed basis) Will you be available 10 attend board/commission meetings regularly? ____ _ Revised July 16, 2019
Attachment 3
All members of boards and commissions are subject to the Conflict of lnterest Laws o, the Stale of Califomia and are required io submit Form 700,'Statement of Economic lnlerest," within 30 days ot assuming office. Form 700 must be filed annually thereafter, and within 30 days of leaviog otfice as well. ln accordance wath Assembly Bill (AB) 1234 appointed members are required to attend Public Service Ethics Education upon appointment and every two years trereafter.

Do you agree to file all required statements in a timely manner as prescribed by lar,, or the City's Conflict of lnterest Code? YE
Reason for lnterest in the Position:
)r\ Cz-^,*/ -b, - {t -5'.^. -t/*
Please lisl any relevant qualifications or experience you possess that would enhance the mission and goals of the board(s) or commission(s) for which you are applying:
-a A-l h. *- :rr.-llr.d./ V$'=- /Oa, ee+s
Please list any local area associations, boards, commissions, foundations, or companies in which you have an inveslment, or serve as an officer or director
5 C6 Cn^z-9* l.c,+- ol?
. *...-"r+- 64 " Cn*-J -.#- -A- t A1 -'tt.<s.a*
Education:
lnstitution Course of Study
aaq.-r'- =l.r$- do+o "o.\ Z.>--/q1Jl-q"*
D€gree Year ts)
B c <1t J"^ t/<1^*
Revised July 16,2019
A eaE ebc cf
aL*.* z-t /t* bc-.2, y4
.{*
Attachment 3
Janet N. Reimers
Education:

San Jose State College:

Oregon State University:

Family:

Married to Niels J. Reimers
Children:

Niets, ilt bom 1964
John born 1967
Kari Anne born 1971
Resume'
Graduate courses (Summer 1963)
B.S. Home Economics Education, 1959
1962
Grandchildren:

Dane born 19*); Kai born 2001 ; Anna bom Z)06
Molly born 2002, Stuart born 2004, William born 2005,
Tor born 2001 , Margaux bom 2004, Gwendolyn born 201 0, James born 2011
Employment:

Pan American World Ainvays: Stewardess 1959-1962
Palo Alto Unified School District, Palo Alto, CA: Teacher 1963-1964 Substitute teacfi er'. 1 97 2- 1 982
Grace Lutheran Church Preschool teacher: Palo Alto, 1 982-1984 Stanford Medical School Blood Center: Recruitrnent Department and Special Events coordinator: 1987- about 1993
Volu nteer Commitments:

CarmeFby-the-Sea City Council member: 2016-2020
Carmel-by-the-Sea Planning Commission: 2007 -2016
Chairman for two or three years
Carmel-by-the-Sea Design Fleview Commission: 2006
Quail Lodge & Golf Club:

Woman's Golf Association Captain: 2005, 2007, 2014
Woodside-Atherton (now Allied Arts Auxiliary) to Lucile Packard Children's Hospital at Stanford 1975 to present
Positions held:

Allied Arts Guild Director (property manager): 1 984-1 985 Public Relations Director: 1987
(primarily for the ma,or fundraiser: Tally Ho)
President: 1991
Gunn (High Scfiool) Foundation Board of Directors: 1983-1985 (organization to assist funding high sctool student's
needs and additional educational opportunities)
Positions held: Fund raising chairman 1984
Chairman: 1985
Additional volunteer commitments:

Girl Scout leader, PTA officer and other support positions lor the children's schools January 8, 2021
Attachment 3
Emplovment Experience (Start with Most Recent): P l.-.- -4erh1 Py.

Organization:
5+e"{t-t hdr uJ s "l*l Bla,d Ce^l-L
Position:

Organizalion
Yea.

Year;
Year: / 1l/
viar , f 8/
Oroanizatron:
- W.{,, dL
Position:

O(ganizalion.

Position:

Organization:

A1+,vtfi- 4^rt) {
PN*qf
Elcr ^t\,-1 J -["4 PTA
P.t<*dc.t
e4 * P^-./a'l cild4-; t]-'cl-L
Position Year:
3 Sie u Date
Citizen knowledge, interest and participation are vital ingredieds no the delivery of high-quality public services. The richness that comes from citizens serving in advisory roles to the City Council contributes to making Carmel by tho S€a the special place it is, The City of Carmel-by-the S€a thanks you for your interest in serving on a City board or commission.

Retum application to the City Clerk's Otfice, East side ot itonte Verde Street, b€tween Ocean and Sevedh Avenues or mailto PO Bor CC, Carmel-by-the-Sea, 93921, attention: City Cletk's Offlce.

I
Revised Jut 16,2019
, Yea!
Positionl
Organization:

Posrlion:

Prior public service, civic or volunteer activities:

Attachment 3
Attachment 3
Attachment 3
Attachment 3
Attachment 3
Attachment 3
Attachment 3
Attachment 3
Attachment 3
Attachment 3
Attachment 3
Attachment 3
Attachment 3
Attachment 3
Attachment 3
Attachment 3
Attachment 3

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA

CITY COUNCIL
Staff Report
June 7, 2022

PUBLIC HEARINGS
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
SUBMITTED BY: Robin Scattini, Acting Director of Budget and Contracts APPROVED BY: Chip Rerig, City Administrator
SUBJECT: Resolution 2022-047 Adopting the Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Appropriations Limit RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt Resolution 2022-047 approving the FY22-23 Appropriations Limit BACKGROUND/SUMMARY:

The State Constitution (Article XII IB) places a limit on the amount of monies that a governmental entity is able to spend based upon projected tax revenues. In accordance with State law, the government entity must adopt an annual appropriations limit. This limit is calculated using a prescribed methodology outlined by the State. The limit is adjusted by the change in the cost of living and the change in population, using the California Department of Finance figures.

In calculating the appropriations limit, the City Council has the option to use either the change in per capita income or the percentage change in the local assessment roll. In addition, the Council may either use the change in population within the City or within the County. For consistency purposes, staff recommends using the California per capita personal income of 7.55% and the population growth for the City of Carmel by the Sea of -1.74%. The Department of Finance uses a formula that converts the percent change in income and population growth into a ratio and thus the adjustment factors for calculating the GANN limit are

1.0755 for income and 0.9826 for population growth.

These adjustment factors are applied to the current fiscal year (Fiscal Year 2021-2022) GANN limit in order to determine the appropriation limit for the upcoming fiscal year (Fiscal Year 2022-2023). Using this formula, the City’s appropriation limit for Fiscal Year 2022-2023 is $39,201,580. The appropriations subject to the GANN limit is $24,983,200; thus, the City is well within its GANN limit.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The appropriation limit for fiscal year 2022-2023 is based upon budgeted revenues for property tax, sales tax, transient occupancy tax, motor vehicle in lieu and business license tax. Together these revenues are budgeted at $24,983,200.

PRIOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION:

Council adopted the Fiscal Year 2021-2022 Appropriations Limit on June 8, 2021.

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment #1 - Resolution 2022-047 FY22-23 GANN Appropriation Limit Attachment #2 - DOF Calculations

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA

CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-047

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA ADOPTING THE FISCAL YEAR 2022-2023 APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT WHEREAS, under Article XIIIB of the State Constitution, public agencies are required to annually establish maximum appropriations limits referred to as the GANN limit (Limit); and WHEREAS, since fiscal year 1991, the City is permitted to adjust its Limit in accordance with inflation and population adjustment factors; and
WHEREAS, the annual adjustment factors that were selected to calculate the Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Limit were the California per capita personal income adjustment factor of 1.0755 and the Carmel by the Sea population growth factor of 0.9826; and WHEREAS, in accordance with California Government Code Section 7910, a notice of the public hearing was published in the Carmel Pine Cone on May 20, 2022; the documentation used in determining the Limit has been made available to the general public for fifteen days prior to the date of the adoption; and Council conducted a public hearing on the Limit on June 7, 2022; and WHEREAS, the City may not appropriate any proceeds of taxes in excess of its Limit.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA DOES HEREBY:

1. Adopts the final calculation of the Appropriation Limit for Fiscal Year 2022-2023 as $39,201,580, which is attached hereto as Exhibit A.

2. Certifies the Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Adopted Appropriations Subject-To-Limit of $24,983,200 does not exceed the GANN limit, which is attached hereto as Exhibits A and B respectively.

PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BYTHE-SEA this 7th day of June 2022, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

APPROVED: ATTEST:
________________________ _________________________
Dave Potter Yashin Abbas
Mayor Interim City Clerk
Attachment 1
Resolution No. 2022
-047

Appropriations Subject to Limit
Fiscal Year 2022-2023 General Tax Revenues $ 24,983,200 Less Non proceeds of Tax $ -
Total appropriations subject to limits $ 24,983,200
Appropriations Limit
Fiscal Year 2021-2022 Appropriations limit $ 37,094,607 Plus change factors
A. Cost of Living adjustment/Per Capital Income 1.0755
B. Population Adjustment 0.9826
Total Change Factor 1.0568
Increase in appropriations limit $ 2,106,974
Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Appropriations Limit $ 39,201,580 Remaining appropriations capacity $ 14,218,380
Availability capacity as a percent of appropriations limit 36% Exhibit A
City of Carmel-by-the-Sea
Spending Limit Calculations
Fiscal Year 2022-2023
Attachment 1
Resolution No. 2022
-047

City of Carmel-by-the-Sea
Spening Limit Calculation
Fiscal Year 2022-2023
Revenue Source
Fiscal Year
2022-2023
Budget
Property Tax $ 8,299,100
Sales and Use Tax $ 8,925,100
Transient Occupancy Tax $ 6,667,000
Business License Tax $ 540,800
Motor Vehicle in Lieu $ 551,200
Total Budgeted Tax Revenues $ 24,983,200
Exhibit B
Attachment 1
Attachment 2
Attachment 2
Attachment 2

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA

CITY COUNCIL
Staff Report
June 7, 2022

PUBLIC HEARINGS
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
SUBMITTED BY: Robin Scattini, Acting Director of Budget and Contracts APPROVED BY: Chip Rerig, City Administrator
SUBJECT:

Resolution 2022-048 Adopting the Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Annual Operating and Capital Budget
RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt Resolution 2022-048 Adopting the Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Annual Operating and Capital Budget BACKGROUND/SUMMARY:

In accordance with Carmel Municipal Code Section 3.06.020, prior to the beginning of each fiscal year, the City Administrator shall prepare and submit to the City Council a proposed operating and capital budget for the forthcoming fiscal year. The proposed budget, referred to as the Fiscal Year 2022-2023 (FY 22-23) Recommended Budget of $32.4 million is submitted for Council’s consideration. The proposed expenditures totaling $32.4 million, include the General Fund operating budget ($23.3 million), debt service ($878,000), pension mitigation and unfunded liability ($3.1 million), capital budget ($5.0 million), and workers compensation ($148,000). The proposed revenues totaling $30.3 million include property taxes ($8.3 million), sales tax ($8.9 million), transient occupancy tax ($6.7 million), and other revenue ($6.4 million). The FY 22-23 Recommended Budget requires the use of $2.1 million in prior years’ savings ("fund balance") specifically to fund deferred Capital projects.

FY22-23 Recommended Revenue $30,277,000
General Fund Operating Expenditures 23,234,415
Debt Service 878,303
Pension Mitigation / Unfunded Liability 3,082,464
Capital Outlay 5,029,000
Workers Compensation 148,160
FY22-23 Recommended Expenditures $32,372,342
Revenues Over (Under) (2,095,342)
Use of Fund Balance $2,095,342
As the economy continues to rebound from the economic impacts associated with the coronavirus pandemic, the City anticipates an increase in revenues for FY 22-23. Conversely, the City also expects its expenditures to grow in FY 22-23, primarily related to increased staffing, pension costs, general operating costs, and a robust Capital Improvement Plan. Highlights of the budget include:

Salary and benefit costs of approximately $13.5 million, which include funding for an additional

2.0 full-time equivalent (FTE) positions comprised of one restored position and one brand new position to support daily citywide operations, Council prioritized projects, capital projects and the full reopening of City facilities (96.23 FTE total).

Pension costs of approximately $3.1 million, which includes $2.1 million for the City’s annual unfunded accrued liability (“UAL”) payment to CalPERS and $1.0 million investment into the City’s established Section 115 Trust.

Services and supplies costs of approximately $9.7 million to fund contractual services, fuel and vehicle maintenance, supplies and materials, utilities, fire services, insurance premiums, Sunset Center, staff training, marketing and other operational costs. $5.0 million for capital projects and vehicle and equipment purchases in the following categories: public safety ($1.4 million), streets/sidewalks ($1.0 million), facilities ($880,000), drainage ($500,000), green infrastructure ($400,000), environment ($752,000), IT/Planning ($87,000).
$878,000 for debt service payments on the City’s three existing bonds and $148,000 for workers compensation claim administration, potential claims and costs associated with the implementation of preventive measures.

Staff provided a brief overview of the budget as part of the May 3, 2022 Council meeting. At the May 17, 2022 budget workshop, staff presented a detailed review of the budget and received direction from Council on the budget. Two items of direction were given by Council as follows:
1) Approval of $24,000 in discretionary grant funding, resulting in an increase of $4,000 from the original recommended amount of $20,000. The additional $4,000 has been added to the City Council budget. 2) Approval of $30,000 in funding for the Carmel Chamber of Commerce, resulting in an increase of $15,000 from the original recommended amount of $15,000. The additional $15,000 has been added to the Marketing & Economic Development budget.

The expenses increase total of $19,000 ($4,000 + $15,000) has been offset by a corresponding increase in the budgeted amount of Charges for Services, resulting in no additional increase in the use of fund balance from the original recommended budget.

The revised budget book also has been updated to include the full listing of City Council priorities (page 24). More detailed information (chart and graph) regarding the contract services and materials and supplies budgeted for the Public Works Forest & Beach division has been added to page 49.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The FY 22-23 Recommended Budget totals $32.4 million and uses $2.1 million in prior years’ savings ("fund balance") specifically to fund deferred Capital projects.

PRIOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION:

Council received a presentation regarding the Five-Year Financial Forecast and Five-Year CIP on March 22, 2022. Council received a presentation regarding the FY 22-23 Recommended Budget, inclusive of the Capital budget, on May 3, 2022. Council held a FY22-23 budget workshop on May 17, 2022.

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment #1 - Resolution Adopting the FY22-23 Operating and Capital Budget Attachment #2: FY22-23 Proposed Budget Book
Attachment #3: FY22-23 Budget Questions June 7, 2022

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA

CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-048

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA ADOPTING THE FISCAL YEAR 2022-2023 ANNUAL OPERATING AND CAPITAL BUDGET WHEREAS, on February 1, 2022, the City Council of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea adopted the budget schedule for Fiscal Year 2022-2023 in accordance with Carmel Municipal Code Section 3.060.020; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held public meetings on the proposed Fiscal Year 2022-2023 capital projects and Five Year Capital Improvement Program on March 22, 2022 and May 3, 2022; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 3.06.020 of the Carmel Municipal Code and Section 65103 of the State Government Code, the City’s Planning Commission held a hearing on April 13, 2022 and determined that the Capital Improvement Program is consistent with the City’s General Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has received and completed its review of the proposed Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Operating and Capital Improvement Program Budgets during the budget hearing held on May 17, 2022 and gave general direction on the recommendations contained therein during a public meeting; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on June 7, 2022 for consideration of adoption of the proposed Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Operating and Capital Budget; and WHEREAS the City’s budget totals $47,598,878 for Fiscal Year 2022-2023 consisting of appropriations, inter-fund transfers, General Fund expenditures of $26,316,879, Capital expenditures of $5,029,000 (Capital Projects and Vehicle and Equipment Funds), Debt Service expenditures of $878,303 and Workers Compensation expenditures of $148,160.

WHEREAS the City’s budgeted revenue totals $45,503,536 for Fiscal Year 2022-2023, including General Fund revenue of $16,639,200.

WHEREAS, in accordance with Carmel Municipal Code Section 3.06.010, the City Council shall adopt a budget for expenditures and anticipated revenues prior to the beginning of the fiscal year and the City Council now desires to adopt the Operating and Capital Budgets for Fiscal Year 2022-2023.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA DOES HEREBY:

Authorize the City Administrator to make ministerial changes to budgeted transfers and adjust appropriations to or from designated funds for Fiscal Year 2021-2022 as necessary as part of the fiscal year-end process on June 30, 2022.

Approves and adopts the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea’s Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Recommended Operating Budget and Capital Improvement Program Budget.

Attachment 1
Resolution No. 2022-048

Authorize the City Administrator to make ministerial changes to budgeted transfers and adjust appropriations to or from designated funds as necessary during Fiscal Year 2022-2023.

Approve and adopts establishing the General Fund Reserve based upon fifteen percent (15%) of the General Fund Operating Expenditures for Fiscal Year 2022-2023.

A copy of the adopted budget, signed by the Mayor and attested to by the City Clerk, shall be kept on file with the City Clerk of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea as the official budget of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea for Fiscal Year 2022-2023.

PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BYTHE-SEA this 7th day of June, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

APPROVED: ATTEST:
_________________________ _________________________
Dave Potter Yashin Abbas
Mayor Interim City Clerk
Attachment 1
Revised: June 7, 2022
Attachment 2

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
P.O. BOX CC
CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA, CA 93921
TELEPHONE: 831.620.2000
WWW.CI.CARMEL.CA.US

CITY COUNCIL

DAVE POTTER, MAYOR

BOBBY RICHARDS, MAYOR PRO TEMPORE

CARRIE THEIS, COUNCILMEMBER

JEFF BARON, COUNCILMEMBER

KAREN FERLITO, COUNCILMEMBER

CITY ADMINISTRATOR

CHIP RERIG
Attachment 2
Introduction
City Administrator’s Budget Message .............................................................................................5 Revenues ..................................................................................................................................... 12 Expenditures ................................................................................................................................ 16 Authorized Positions..................................................................................................................... 19 Organizational Chart .................................................................................................................... 22 Operating Budget
City Council................................................................................................................................... 24 City Attorney................................................................................................................................. 26 Administration............................................................................................................................... 27 Citywide........................................................................................................................................ 33 Marketing and Economic Development........................................................................................ 34 Library and Community Activities................................................................................................. 36 Community Planning and Building................................................................................................ 40 Public Works ................................................................................................................................ 44 Public Safety ................................................................................................................................ 50 Capital Improvement Plan............................................................................................................... 55 Debt Service ...................................................................................................................................... 64 Funds .................................................................................................................................................66 Fund Balance Charts........................................................................................................................70

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Attachment 2

INTRODUCTION
Attachment 2

RECOMMENDED BUDGET MESSAGE
3 May 2022
Honorable Mayor Dave Potter, City Councilmembers, and Community Members Staff is pleased to present the proposed operating and capital budget for the City of Carmelby-the-Sea for Fiscal Year (FY) 22-23 which commences on 1 July. Presented herein is a Recommended Budget that has evolved and transitioned through the unprecedented period of disruption brought on by COVID-19. The resulting worldwide pandemic sparked a public health and economic crisis that left no organization or municipality untouched. Yet, after years of acute economic interruption, logistical challenges and forfeiture of resources, our village has endured. More than endure, we have collectively upheld the safety and health of our community, continued our tradition of securing a sound fiscal posture, and remained attentive to the vitality, uniqueness and fragility of our local economy.

The creation of this year’s proposed plan has not been easy and was only possible through the remarkable efforts of many. The decisions executed in response to the challenges we have faced were trying, but certainly necessary, prudent and courageous. Now, two years after the first signs of COVID-19, we can confidently say, as this budget will convey, that we are recovering organizationally, economically and socially. In the end result, there is much to be grateful for and many to thank in getting us where we are today. The combination of sound legislative stewardship, judicious operational management, invaluable community support, humbling volunteerism, staff’s nimbleness, and inter-governmental collaboration, has served our jurisdiction and community well.

I am pleased to report to the City Council and community that the Recommended Budget is operationally balanced, meaning total incoming revenue (sources) equal planned expenditures (uses). It also strategically proposes the use of available fund balances, accumulated from prior year savings, to specifically address important capital improvement needs that have been deferred. The proposed fiscal plan is also forward-looking as it continues the restoration of resources foregone during the pandemic. Although much work remains to be done in reestablishing the full organizational momentum we enjoyed prepandemic, this document demonstrates our full commitment in doing just that.

Many times the prevailing themes that accompany an annual budget can be lost in untold numeric columns, rows and charts. Before diving into the numbers, be assured that this Recommended Budget continues core City services drawing upon a strengthened financial position secured by the prior year sacrifices. As one reads this budget from front to back, we hope this overarching message, as highlighted below, is apparent.

Staffing
The primary increase in FY 22-23 operational expenditures can be attributed to the reestablishment of staff positions that remained unavoidably forgone since FY 20-21. This furthers the partial build back of authorized positions, a total of 7.73, started in FY 21-22. Hence, a total of 12.02 positions, both full and part-time, were restored in the mid-year budget adjustment in December 2021. This budget goes further in addressing deferred service areas and upkeep with restoring funding to 2.0 Administrative Coordinator positions and creating 1.0 5 Attachment 2
new position in the Public Works department. Considering that nearly 50% of citywide costs support the retention and procurement of people, these cost increases are the most notable change in the departmental salary and benefit line items. They also will have the greatest impact in achieving the strategic priorities and goals that the City Council has defined.

A detailed listing of both the restored and new positions proposed in this budget can be found on the Position Summary section. These additions focus on bolstering the key areas of service that experienced abridged resources in past months specifically, police safety, capital project improvements, facility maintenance, library, community activities, public engagement and environmental stewardship. This budget also recognizes the importance of augmenting staffing for key support functions within finance and administration.

State driven changes in health insurance and pension cost, as a component of salary and benefit costs, are also built into this budget. We are pleased to report, much to the credit of the California pension reform enacted in 2013 (PEPRA), that municipalities are finally seeing a moderation of rate increases making this expenditure more predictable, an important objective of the change in state law. That said, pension rates are always at the mercy of the investment markets and must be anticipated with great care and caution. As our CalPERS annual reports reveal, changes in actuarial forecast assumptions factor significantly in the determination of annual contribution rates and, most pointedly, long term unfunded liabilities.

This area of significant cost is discussed in more detail below.

Last, but not least, a conscious effort was made to replenish training budgets available to staff. Although the dollar values involved may not be relatively material, each department embraces the importance of promoting resource training as the working environment springs fully back into action.

We Remain Focused
We are proud to say that the budget is unchanged and remains focused on the key deliverables that make Carmel unique. A view of the City budget from thirty-thousand feet reveals that tax dollars are primarily allocated to the safety, health, infrastructure and community character. This is apparent in the breakdown of expenditures by department that tells us what the community receives for the dollars it spends. The vast majority of expenditures are found in police safety, fire and ambulance services, public works maintenance, neighborhood planning and library/community services. Furthermore, the City invests significantly in maintenance and beautification initiatives by funding the capital improvement projects discussed below and detailed within. We trust that you will agree that this Recommended Budget allocates tax dollars to the service areas of highest priority.

Capital Improvements & Maintenance
Although the annual comprehensive financial report (ACFR) tends to be overshadowed by the budget process, it is nonetheless a critically important document that presents both operating results and fiscal status. Among other things, the ACFR tells us that the City carries $65 million in fixed assets comprised primarily of building & improvements, infrastructure, and equipment. For private and public entities alike, these assets have real value and require resources annually for upkeep, repair and safety compliance. They represent not only the buildings that house City service centers but also essential infrastructure including roadways, sidewalks, signage, drainage systems and park sites. They are the things that make a city a livable space. Using twenty-five years as the mid-point for the expected life of these assets, 6 Attachment 2
one arrives at an annual maintenance or replacement funding of $2.6 million, an amount that is historically much higher than the City has been able to fund. Because infrastructure is as equally expensive as it is important, it remains a fiscal hurdle for many cities.

In FY 20-21, the City made the difficult decision to defer investments in capital projects. The undefined economic impacts of COVID-19 led to this necessary action knowing that spending postponements would bring future increased costs and interrupt progress made. This Recommended Budget, and the accompanying five-year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), confirms this reality that is the single highest challenge in crafting a fiscal plan. In tackling this staff quickly realized that the push-pull inertia between capital improvement needs and revenue levels is at play. We have quantified that a FY 22-23 capital expenditure level of $2.93 million would enable funding within the bounds of new year revenue only, clearly a sound fiscal policy standard. We also recognized that the pandemic has necessarily curtailed project completion intensifying the need to address citywide maintenance and improvements.

It is exactly this need to “catch up” for CIP deferrals that results in the proposed expenditure of $5.03 million in capital identified herein. It is important to note that the proposed use of available fund balances from prior year savings, totaling $2,095,342, is wholly due to this increased level of capital project expenditure. Put another way, absent the accelerated level of capital spending, this Recommended Budget is operationally balanced without the need to draw on fund balance savings. Should City Council desire to lower the use of fund balance, this can be done directly by lowering the level of capital project expenditures under the proposed $5.03 million.

As we look ahead, in years two through five of the CIP, we grapple with the same predicament of capacity, affordability and need we did in year one. To aid this discussion, the CIP presents estimated costs of identified annual projects alongside estimated capital expenditure levels the City could expend if relying solely on annual revenues. These projections have been conservatively derived and are subject to change as actual annual results come in. What is clear is that the City’s infrastructure needs far exceed available resources in the long term andbecome a subject of policy discussions as we proceed.

Ultimately, the selection of CIP projects occurs at the discretion of City Council in the context of organizational priorities and within the revenue constraints of any one year.

As the five-year CIP is considered, it is understood that identified projects are subject to modification, inclusion, exclusion, deferral and staging over time. To the extent that City Council agrees with the use of prior year savings as proposed in the Recommended FY 22-23 Budget, formal authorization will be necessary and codified in the resulting legislative resolution.

Other Trends & Highlights
This budget document is purposefully organized to flow from summary to detailed levels of information. The opening sections of this budget message communicate the highest level of strategy. This is followed in the budget document by several key sections, revenue & expenditure summaries, operating budgets by department, debt schedules, capital improvements and fund balance projections. It is in these subsequent document sections that the reader can peruse the budget detail that describes where the City gets its money from and how it is utilized by the City departments. The budget process is created in a distributed fashion, meaning that all departments are integrally involved in its creation commensurate with their level of control and responsibility.
7 Attachment 2
The next few pages of this message provide high level fiscal trends as a preamble to the summary and detail sections that follow. It begins with a “Recommended Budget-at-a – Glance” chart which rolls the numbers into one combined presentation of sources and uses of funds. It next provides a narrative snapshot of other aspects of the budget that are of keen interest to the community and policy discussions. A discussion of City revenues can be found in the beginnings of the summary section.

FY 22-23 Recommended Budget at a Glance
FY 22-22 Recommended Revenues $30,277,000
General Fund Operating Expenditures $25,316,879
Capital Outlay Expenditures 5,029,000
Pension Unfunded Liability Mitigation 1,000,000
Debt Service 878,303
Workers Compensation 148,160
FY 22-23 Total Recommended Expenditures $32,372,342
Use of Fund Balance for Deferred Capital
Projects
2,095,342
Funded Full Time Equivalent (FTE) positions 96.23
The FY 22-23 Recommended Budget totals $32.4 million in planned expenses, which includes $25.3 million for the Operating Budget, $1 million in pension unfunded liability mitigation and $5.03 million for the Capital Budget. In comparison, the FY 21-22 Amended Operating Budget totaled $21.9 million excluding pension mitigation. The primary reasons for the proposed increase of $3.3 million includes:
• $2.3 million increase in personnel costs arising from routine salary adjustments, step increases for existing staff, healthcare, and other benefits. This also includes funding for 2.0 additional full-time equivalent positions and reflects 12.02 FTE restored staffing positions authorized and added during the course of FY 21-22. • $250,000 increase in CalPERS unfunded actuarial liability (UAL) costs. The City will be making the annual UAL payment in July, for a savings of approximately $70,000. • $132,000 increase in the Public Works contract budget for landscape maintenance, tree trimming, pruning and stump removal citywide, a service in need of more focus given drought conditions and their impact on our urban forest. • $87,000 increase in the Planning department contract services to fund a variety of priority initiatives including affordable housing (with SB2 grant funding), professional services to assist in plan reviews, plan document digitization and designing guidelines and zoning code updates approved during the year.
8 Attachment 2
• $52,000 increase in community marketing costs for citywide visitor bureau and sunset center promotions
• $123,000 increase in liability insurance costs
• $ 168,000 increase in Fire Contract services
• $ 50,000 in specialized Police department contract services • $ 58,000 in specialized IT department contract services and supplies • $ 30,000 in increased fuel costs
• $ 50,000 in specialized Administration/HR/Finance contract services Of the $25.30 million in operating expenditures, approximately $15.5 million, or 61%, pays for staffing salary, benefits and normal pension payments. If pension liability mitigation is included that percentage changes to 65%. The key reasons for the change in this expenditure this budget year was explained in the preceding section entitled Staffing.

Pension Costs & Mitigation Efforts
The proposed budget includes a payment of $2.1 million to the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (“CalPERS”) for the required minimum annual contribution. This amount is actuarially calculated by the State and flows through the dedicated benefit line item in the budget. Although CalPERS rates have remained relatively stable for the reasons mentioned above, the increase of $250,000 is directly associated with the annual unfunded actuarial liability (UAL) costs.

A variety of factors are in play when projecting future contribution rates. The performance of investment markets and assumed the discount rates assumed by CalPERS have been the center of focus in recent years and will remain so. What has changed is the need to play close attention the rate of inflation (CPI) that plays a role in the overall pension rate determination.

The latest CalPERS reporting reveals that they utilize an underlying CPI assumption of 2.5% (a component of its discount rate), a data point that we are trending well above in 2022 and may continue into 2023. Although the rate impact of inflation is not yet clear, we would be prudent to keep a watchful eye on its progression.

As of the latest available CalPERS actuarial reports (2020) the current funded status of the City’s most significant city plans is 65.4% for safety and 69.4% for miscellaneous members.

This translates into these plans being underfunded by 36.4% and 31.6% respectively.

Consequently, the City’s projected Unfunded Accrued Liability (UAL) is $25.9 million as of 6/30/2022. Although this is a long term liability subject to changing conditions, it remains a significant financial obligation to address going forward basis. This budget recommends the continued funding an additional $1 million in UAL mitigation efforts to be placed in the section 115 trust established last year. Although this funding amount is discretionary, it is proposed to mitigate potential future rate increases and long term pension liabilities.

Capital Outlay
Further to the strategic discussion noted above, capital improvements are detailed later in this 9 Attachment 2
document. Recognizing the deferred capital needs of our facilities and the postponements caused by COVID-19, the budget includes funding for many key improvements including additional funding of the police facility renovation, street paving and concrete repair, maintenance for the Sunset Center, City Hall, Library & Vista Lobos, Mission Trail Nature Preserve stream stability, and a coastal engineering needs study. The capital plan also includes important vehicle replacements with an eye on clean energy including, an electric street sweeper with potential grant subsidies and the installation of three residential electricvehicle charging stations also with partial grant funding.

Other Expenditures
The FY 22-23 Recommended Budget reflects no new debt and includes existing debt service of $878,000 for the Countywide Monterey County Next Generation Radio project (NGEN), the Sunset Center 2020 Refunding Lease Bond and the 2012 Pension Obligation Bond. We are pleased to report that Pension Obligation Bonds, with a principal amount of $680,000, mature at the end of 2023.

Policy Options
Coming off of FY 21-22, this Recommended Budget was developed to further restore normal service levels and make up lost ground for maintenance & improvements projects that were deferred. Our ability to propose this restorative spending plan has everything to do with the proactive measures taken in time of need and the welcome projected recovery of the City’s major revenue sources. It can also not be understated that the passage of Measure C in March of 2020 could not have been more timely and critical in providing the resources needed to both cover operations and weather these unpredictable economic events. We remain ever conscious of the support and wisdom of our community in this effort.

The Recommended Budget projects that we will end FY21-22 in good form fiscally.

Nonetheless we remain ever diligent and cautious as our services become fully actuated and the marketplace adjusts to the eventuality of a new post pandemic normal. What that new reality is only remains to be seen. Some might contend that the strength in sales tax and hostelry experienced may be reflective of a reactive surge that emanated from a world that saw altered travel plans and vacationing alternatives. Others might contend that these trends will continue unabated as an indication of permanently modified habits. In any case, our obligation from a fiscal perspective is to not weigh too heavily on either extreme of that argument. As such, remaining conservative and playing the middle-ground is most prudent at this time. In this way we can safely await the ultimate answer that surely will be provided by that age old soothsayer, the economy.

In evaluating the current state of things, we also cannot ignore the unfortunate instability that the world is facing. The persistence of supply-chain slowdowns, the rising costs of commodities, higher rates of inflation, the potential of increased lending rates and, most concerning, the uncertainties surrounding the Ukraine conflict, all give us good reason to pause and prepare. For this reason, maintaining a posture of calculated cost control, minimizing debt, taking advantage of the process efficiencies, and continuing to effectively prioritize needs is critical.

Planning for the funding and delivery of Capital Improvements has been and remains a significant challenge. As we look beyond FY 22-23, the fiscal chasm between identified capital needs and available funding is readily apparent. As such, the five year CIP becomes 10 Attachment 2
one the most important and fiscally impactful tools worthy of attention. As constructed the Five-Year CIP presents an uncluttered list of what is required to maintain infrastructure as a foundation for discussion, prioritization, staging and status.

I wish to acknowledge the collaboration by my department heads in putting forth pragmatic and realistic Recommended Budget that marks our entry back into full operations. I also extend my appreciation to my Finance team for stewarding the budgeting process. I look forward to Council’s guidance and leadership as we work to adopt a budget that funds services and projects for our community while also balancing fiscal sustainability.

Respectfully submitted,
Chip Rerig
City Administrator
11 Attachment 2

REVENUE
The FY 22-23 Recommended Budget includes $30.26 million in new revenue. As illustrated in the chart below, statewide sales tax (Sales Tax) and local Measure C district tax (Measure C), contribute 30% and have taken over Property Tax as the largest City revenue source. This shift reveals the importance and impact of the voter approval of Measure C in 2020. With the occurrence of the pandemic, the benefits of the Measure C revenues began to emerge in FY21-22 and mature fully in this budget. Property Tax reflects its customary stable growth accounting for 27% of the budgeted revenue. Coming off of a strong year, Hotel Tax (TOT) has grown to 22% of budgeted revenue, as compared to 21% in FY 21-22 followed by Other revenues and Charges for Services at 21%.

Source Recommended Budget
Property Taxes $8,326,600
Sales Tax 3,204,100
Measure C 5,721,000
Other 4,154,500
Charges for Services 2,203,800
Transient Occupancy Tax 6,667,000
Total $30,277,000
12 Attachment 2

REVENUE
Property taxes are estimated at $8.3 million reflecting a 3.2% projected growth over current year amended budget. The City’s portion of the Sales Tax is $3.2 million and Measure C $5.7 million, or 11% and 19% of revenue respectively. The significance of the March 2020 Carmel voter approval of Measure C at a renewed rate of 1.5%, cannot be understated. In the midst of COVID-19 it provided a financial lifeline allowing for the continuance of core services. Measure C continues to play significantly in seeding both operational and capital needs. Sales Tax has fared well also. The FY 22-23 Recommended Budget projects an 8% growth in Sales Tax and a 22% growth in Measure C over the current year amended budget. The difference in the growth rates of these two retail based revenues is explained by the timing of Measure C voter approval, its higher approved rate of 1.5%, and distinct nuances in how these tax revenues flow to the City. Given a March 2020 approval date, the benefit of Measure C was not effective until mid FY 20-21 with its full year impact not realizeduntil this year. Considering that its renewed 1.5% rate is 50% higher than the prior 1% rate, it is understandablethat the rate of growth exceeds that of the unchanged statewide tax. Furthermore, the correlation between a statewide sales tax and district sales tax is not a direct one. Sales Tax rates are applied to retail activity by business location and then processed through a County managed allocation model. On the other hand, districttaxes, like Measure C, follow the locality of the merchandise and accrue directly to the jurisdiction. This plays heavily when considering e-commerce and on-line automobile sales. The FY 22-23 Recommended Budget reflects the full maturation of Measure C and Sales Tax trends that are now unclouded and better known.

Although just getting back to pre-COVID levels, TOT (at 10% of the rent charged by a hostelry operator) has done unexpectedly well, a tribute to Carmel’s claim as a unique destination place. Recommended at $6.7 million, TOT accounts for 22% of revenues as compared to 21% in FY 21-22. Charges for Services are fees collected from a specific user of a service, such as plan review, building inspection and ambulance transports and account for $2.2 million, or 7% of the budget consistent with the prior year. The category of “Other” revenue includes General Fund revenues from business license tax, franchise fee and other intergovernmental revenue as well as restricted revenue for Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS), road maintenance and transportation-related projects and federal and State grants for planning, parks and radio communications.

Table1: Estimated Performance and Recommended Budget for Major Revenue Sources Key Revenues 18-19
Actual
19-20
Actual
20-21
Actual
21-22
Estimate
22-23
Proposed
Property 6,524,330 6,690,947 7,389,656 8,142,320 8,326,600 Sales- Bradley Burns 2,652,971 2,154,961 3,020,937 3,198,065 3,204,100 Sales- Local Measure 3,079,914 2,611,802 4,007,104 5,698,173 5,721,000 Transient Occupancy Tax 6,882,015 5,115,271 5,339,285 6,972,057 6,667,000 13 Attachment 2

REVENUE
As shown in Table 1, Estimated Performance and Recommended Budget for Major Revenue Sources, the City’s major revenues indicate a notable recovery. This time last year the City was just coming off of double digit declines in key revenues (26% drop in Hotel Tax and 17% drop in Sales Tax).

Projecting future trends in that environment was akin to looking into the great unknown. More than that, the City was faced with forecasting something that, in many respects, was a one-of-a-kind event providing no trail or precedent to follow.

In the last budget cycle we reported that sales and hotel taxes were outperforming budget expectations.

Both of these major revenues exceeded pre-pandemic levels in FY 20-21 while TOT was still $1.5 million under for this same year. FY 21-22 brings much of the same with a 5.9% increase in Sales Tax estimated at $3.2 million and a resounding 42% increase in Measure C coming in at $5.7 million. Most significantly, TOT will finally reach pre-pandemic levels at $6.9 million this year end.

General consumer goods (retail) and restaurants & hotels made up the bulk of the Carmel sales tax activity followed by County/State pools, industry and food & drugs. The resurgence in general consumer purchases through in-store shopping highlights the City’s strength in tourism. It also reflects a general willingness of the public to travel and spend as the pandemic becomes more manageable. Some reported observations are worthy of mention. Firstly, local sales of apparel, artwork, jewelry and novelty items have driven gains in the general consumer category. Restaurants & hotels, businesses most impacted by the pandemic, have performed well as a testament to the innovation of business owners and the City’s status as a destination place. Clearly the effectiveness of vaccines nationwide, the allowance for outdoor dining, and the permitted sale of food “to go” have also factored into the recovery. In summary this past year has continued our path to sales tax recovery leaving us hopeful we can return to patterns of normalcy and predictability.

As we project Sales Tax and Measure C, we take comfort in current trends but also remain vigilant. The dilemma facing us is deciphering if the robust activity experienced this past year was a result of “pent-updemand” or a longer term change in travel and buying habits. We remain fully aware that unknowns still exist, consumer patterns will settle, and headwinds are in play to be managed. Certainly the unknowns surrounding COVID are ever present economically. That said, this budget is built on the assumption that COVID will remain in check and not return as a major marketplace interruption. Should that again occur, plans would have to change quickly. As for headwinds, we recognize the economic strains of continued supply chain disruption, rising inflation rates, increases fuel prices and interest rates and their potential to stall spending patterns. Lastly, geopolitical tensions loom worryingly on our minds. Hence we have compiled the FY 22-23 Recommended Budget carefully and conservatively, making sure not to over rely on a recovery that is historically unique. We project a smoothing of sales tax activity in the coming year with the City’ Sales Tax coming in at $3.2 million and Measure C $5.7 million in line with current year estimates given the unpredictability of a post-pandemic landing.

TOT is pacing stronger than expected but has taken two years to reach FY 19-20 levels. TOT is trending at $6.9 million for FY 21-22, 31% or $1.6 million above the prior year actual collections. This comeback underscores Carmel’s resilience in travel and leisure spending. The FY 22-23 Recommended Budget assumes continued strength but also a softening as world travel returns to some version of a normal state.

It may be that post pandemic tourism will continue to surge as it did this past year but, for the reasons noted above, we remain guarded in our projections.
14 Attachment 2

REVENUE
Fiscal Year
TOT Sales * Property
Property taxes, which includes secured, unsecured, unitary and property transfer tax, can be relied on to be stable. Interestingly enough the performance of real estate during COVID, as was the case in many parts of the Country, was unexpectedly strong. Local Property taxes grew during the pandemic at rates of 10% in both FY 20-21 and FY 21-22. At the end of this current fiscal year we anticipate to reach a level of $8.1 million.

The FY 22-23 Recommended Budget projects Property Tax at a total amount of $8.3 million, made up primarily of $7.7 million in secured property tax. This is an increase of $669,000 or 8.7% over the prior year budget and $258,000 or 3.2% over the current FY 21-22 amended budget. National economic reports uniformly report double digit increases over the past two-year period but also suggest a lowering in expectations as we enter FY 22-23. This has everything to do with the pressure put on the market by the posture of the Fed Reserve and the outlook of mortgage rates rising to 5% levels or more next year. This budget conservatively projects growth yet remains confident in the stability of Carmel’s property tax performance.

As the City looks forward to its future revenues that fund services, capital projects and other initiatives, stepping back and reviewing the City’s historic performance is of value. The chart below depicts the performance of the City’s three major revenue sources over the last 10 years.

Fiscal Year
Ending June 30
TOT Sales * Property
2014 $5,185,880 $5,115,880 $4,881,534
2015 $5,593,689 $5,280,418 $5,127,974
2016 $5,890,538 $4,897,325 $5,598,743
2017 $6,112,347 $5,373,800 $5,825,889
2018 $6,329,074 $5,476,123 $6,163,959
2019 $6,882,015 $5,719,521 $6,496,558
2020 $5,115,277 $4,766,313 $6,690,948
2021 $5,339,285 $7,028,041 $7,389,656
2022 Estimated $6,972,057 $8,895,703 $8,142,320
2023 Budget $6,667,000 $8,925,100 $8,326,600
* Combination of Bradley Burns & Measure C 1.5%
15 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Estimated Budget
City's Major Revenues Historical Trend
$10,000,000
$8,000,000
$6,000,000
$4,000,000
$2,000,000
$0
Attachment 2

EXPENDITURES
The FY 22-23 Recommended Budget totals $32.4 million, which consists of the following:
▪ Operating Budget, or General Fund, totals $26.4 million, or 81%, of the citywide budget; ▪ Debt service totals $878,000, or 3%, of the citywide budget; ▪ Capital totals $5.0 million, or 16% of the citywide budget.

The Operating Budget consists of the City departments and services. Debt is based upon required payments toward various bonds issued by the City or by other governmental agencies on behalf of the City. As shown in the chart below, FY 22-23 Expenditure by Type, the FY 22-23 Budget includes the Operating Budget and Debt Service. The Operating Budget is further categorized by type of expenditure including salaries and benefits, outside services, and other expenditures as explained below.

Type of Expenditure Budget
Salaries & Benefits $ 13,473,492
Outside Services $ 7,444,875
Other Expenditures $ 2,464,208
Pension $ 3,082,464
Capital Outlay $ 5,029,000
Debt Service $ 878,303
Total $ 32,372,342
16 Attachment 2

EXPENDITURES
The City’s largest expenditure is related to the cost of personnel. Salaries and benefits total $13.5 millionand account for 42% of the citywide budget. Outside services is the second largest type of expenditure at $7.4 million, or 23% of the budget. This category includes various line item accounts, such as advertising and noticing, contract services and community promotions. Contract services are used as an alternative to City staff directly providing the service due to cost savings or the specialized nature of the work being performed and include funding for expenses such as fire service provided by the City of Monterey ($2.8 million); support for the operations of the Sunset Center and other marketing activities ($1.1 million); legal services ($510,000); tree care and landscape maintenance ($475,000) and janitorial service ($275,000).

Other expenditures total $2.5 million and account for 8% of the citywide budget. This category includes various line item accounts such as, retiree healthcare and citywide operational expenses like property tax assessments and utilities. Also included here are the City’s general liability and property insurance premiums ($763,000) and expenses such as public works materials and supplies, telecommunications, fuel, training and conferences, vehicle maintenance, medical and safety supplies and printing and postage.

Pension expenses total $3.1 million, or 10%, of the budget and include the annual required unfunded pension liability ($2.1 million) and annual funding of the City’s Section 115 trust ($1.0 million) for pension mitigation.

The citywide budget is rounded out with Capital Outlay ($5.0 million) accounting for 16% and Debt Service ($878,000) accounting for 3% of the citywide budget.
17 Attachment 2

EXPENDITURES
Another way to view operating expenditures is by function, as depicted in the “FY 22-23 Expenditures by Function” illustration. Together the public safety functions of Ambulance, Fire and Police make up 29% of the budget. Citywide is the next largest operating expenditure at 14%, as it includes the City’s unfunded actuarial liability, followed by the Public Works Department at 13% of the budget. In total, Administration, Council, Planning, Legal, Marketing, the Sunset Center, and Library and Community Activities represent the remaining 25% of the Operating Budget.

Expenditures Budget Percentage
Administration $ 2,788,776 9%
Citywide $ 4,418,534 14%
Council $ 183,227 1%
Legal $ 510,000 2%
Planning $ 2,188,030 7%
Ambulance $ 1,629,223 5%
Fire $ 2,969,292 9%
Police $ 4,954,401 15%
Marketing $ 350,010 1%
Sunset Center $ 750,000 2%
Library/Community Activities $ 1,365,862 4%
Public Works $ 4,209,524 13%
Operating Budget $ 26,316,879 81%
Debt $ 878,303 3%
Capital $ 5,029,000 16%
Workers Comp $ 148,160 0%
Total $ 32,372,342 100%
Attachment 2
19 POSITIONS
Attachment 2
2022-2023 RECOMMENDED FUNDED POSITIONS
Department andTitle FY 21/22
Amended
FY 22/23
Recommended
FY 22/23
Change
Council
Councilmember
Mayor

4.00 1.00

4.00 1.00

0.00 0.00
City Council Total 5.00 5.00 0.00
Administration
City Administrator 1.00 1.00 0.00
Assistant Administrator 1.00 1.00 0.00
Administrative Coordinator 0.50 1.00 0.50
Administrative Analyst 1.00 1.00 0.00
City Clerk 1.00 1.00 0.00
Director of Budgets and Contracts 1.00 0.00 (1.00)
Finance Manager 1.00 1.00 0.00
Senior Human Resources Analyst 1.00 1.00 0.00
Information Services / Network Manager 1.00 1.00 0.00
IT Help Desk/Technican 1.00 1.00 0.00
Hourly HelpDesk Technician 0.50 0.00 (0.50)
Finance Specialist 1.50 1.00 (0.50)
Accountant 0.00 1.00 1.00
Retired Annuitant-Extra Help (480 hrs) 0.23 0.23 0.00
Finance Analyst 0.00 1.00 1.00
Administration Total 11.73 12.23 0.50
Community Activities
Community Services Assistant
Executive Assistant

1.00 0.50

1.00 0.50

0.00 0.00
Community Activities Total 1.50 1.50 0.00
Library
Circulation Supervisor 1.00 1.00 0.00
Director of Library and Community Services 1.00 1.00 0.00 Hourly Librarian I 1.00 1.00 0.00
Librarian I 1.00 1.00 0.00
Librarian II 2.00 2.00 0.00
Librarian II (Local History) 1.00 1.00 0.00
Library Assistant (full-time) 2.00 3.00 1.00
Hourly Library Assistant 3.00 2.00 (1.00)
Executive Assistant 0.50 0.50 0.00
Library Total 12.50 12.50 0.00
CommunityPlanning & Building
Administrative Coordinator 1.00 1.00 0.00
Assistant Planner 1.00 1.00 0.00
Associate Planner 2.00 2.00 0.00
Building Inspector 1.00 1.00 0.00
Building Official 1.00 1.00 0.00
Code Compliance Coordinator 2.00 2.00 0.00
Permit Technician 1.00 1.00 0.00
Planning & Building Services Director 1.00 1.00 0.00
Principal Planner 1.00 1.00 0.00
CommunityPlanning & Building Total 11.00 11.00 0.00
20 Attachment 2
2022-2023 RECOMMENDED FUNDED POSITIONS
Department andTitle FY 21/22
Amended
FY 22/23
Recommended
FY 22/23
Change
Public Works
Administrative Coordinator 0.25 1.00 0.75
Director of Public Works 1.00 1.00 0.00
Environmental Compliance Manager 1.00 1.00 0.00
Administrative Technician 1.00 1.00 0.00
Maintenance Worker 4.00 4.00 0.00
Public Works Superintendent 1.00 1.00 0.00
Senior Maintenance Worker 3.00 3.00 0.00
Street Supervisor 1.00 1.00 0.00
Project Manager 1.00 1.00 0.00
Facilities Maintenance Supervisor 1.00 1.00 0.00
Facility Maintenance Specialist 1.00 1.00 0.00
Natural Resources Manager 0.00 1.00 1.00
City Forester 1.00 1.00 0.00
Administrative Analyst 1.00 1.00 0.00
Senior Maintenance Worker 1.00 1.00 0.00
Maintenance Worker/Gardener 1.00 1.00 0.00
Tree Care Specialist 1.00 1.00 0.00
Public Works Total 20.25 22.00 1.75
Police
Community Services Officer 1.0 1.0 0.0
Community Services Officer/Animal Control 1.0 1.0 0.0
Community Services Officer - 2 year limited term * 2.0 2.0 0.0 Corporal 2.0 2.0 0.0
Police Commander 1.0 1.0 0.0
Police Officer 5.0 5.0 0.0
Police Officer/Detective 1.0 1.0 0.0
Police Officer/FTO 2.0 2.0 0.0
Police Services Officer 6.0 6.0 0.0
Police/Patrol Officer 1.0 1.0 0.0
Police Officer- 2 year limited term* 1.0 1.0 0.0
Public Safety Director 1.0 1.0 0.0
Sergeant 2.0 2.0 0.0
Administrative Coordinator 0.25 0.00 (0.25)
Police Total 26.25 26.00 (0.25)
Ambulance
Paramedic/Firefighters 6.00 6.00 0.00
Ambulance Total 6.00 6.00 0.00
FY 21/22
Amended
FY 22/23
Recommended
FY 22/23
Change
Citywide Total Funded Positions 94.23 96.23 2.00
* 2-year limited term ends June 30, 2024
21 Attachment 2
22 Carmel-by-the-Sea
Electorate
Council
City
Administrator
Library and
Community
Activities
Library
Admin
Circulation
Youth
Reference
Local History
Community
Activities
Planning
Planning
Building
Safety
Code
Compliance
Public Works
Admin
Project
Management
Envir.

Compliance
Facilities
Streets
Forest, Parks
and Beach
Public Safety
Ambulance
Fire
Police
Office of City
Administrator
Clerk
Finance
Human
Resources
Information
Technology
City Attorney
23 GENERAL FUND (101)

OPERATING BUDGET
(CITY DEPARTMENTS

AND SERVICES)
Attachment 2

CITY COUNCIL
Description
The City Council consists of the Mayor and four Councilmembers, elected at large by the citizens of Carmel-bythe-Sea on a non-partisan basis. The City Council is the policy making legislative body of the City. The Council adopts the annual budget, enacts ordinances, and approves major contracts, acquisitions and leases. With the advice and assistance of the City Administrator and City Attorney, the City Council reviews proposals to meet the community’s needs, initiates action for new policies, and allocates resources. 2021-2022 Initiatives and Accomplishments
▪ Responded to land use issues, such as wireless communications. ▪ Provided direction on the restaurant parklets.
▪ Conducted multiple Council strategic planning workshops ▪ Provided oversight of the City’s implementation of COVID-19 protocols and the safe reopening of City facilities.
2022-2023 Priorities
▪ Review opportunities for enhanced fire/ambulance service. ▪ Review and Update Sign Ordinance.
▪ Prepare Climate Action/Adaptation Plan.
▪ Develop Forest Management Plan (FMP) and Update Tree Ordinance. ▪ Update Zoning Code & Design Guidelines (Residential & Commercial). ▪ Develop Telecommunication Ordinance consistent with federal law. ▪ Filling vacant positions.
▪ Forest Theater Facilities Manager.
▪ Pandemic recovery (reopening, reporting, etc.).
▪ Stormwater Ordinance update.
▪ Review barriers to construction of affordable housing. ▪ Develop Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Ordinance.
▪ Explore opportunities for Scout House.
▪ Explore street addresses.
▪ Explore Paid Parking Program.
▪ Develop plan to maintain natural areas (pub/priv) to reduce fire risk.

Budget Summary and Service Impacts
▪ Community Promotions is $26,000 less in FY 22-23 due to reductions in the home mail delivery service program.
▪ $24,000 is budgeted for the Council discretionary grant program per Council direction. 24 Attachment 2

CITY COUNCIL
City Council
Account Number Account Description FY21-22
Amended
Budget
FY21-22
Estimated
Actual
FY22-23
Recommended
101-110-00-41008 Salaries -Elected $9,600 $9,600 $9,600 101-110-00-41101 Retirement 83 83 80
101-110-00-41104 Health Insurance 39,710 35,216 36,899
101-110-00-41105 Social Security 484 484 484
101-110-00-41106 Medicare 139 139 139
101-110-00-41108 Worker's Comp 700 535 850
Salaries & Benefits Subtotal $50,716 $46,057 $48,052
101-110-00-42005 Community Promotions 101,000 101 78,720 101-110-00-42007 Regional Memberships 46,405 46,405 47,655 101-110-00-42101 Office Supplies 450 - 450
101-110-00-42302 Conferences & Meetings 8,350 3,500 8,350 Services & Supplies Subtotal $156,205 $50,006 $135,175
Total $206,921 $96,063 $183,227
Regional Memberships
Account Number Account Description FY21-22
Amended
Budget
FY21-22
Estimated
Actual
FY22-23
Recommended
101-110-00-42007 Transportation Agency of Montery County $1,295 $1,295 $1,295 101-110-00-42007 Association of Monterey Bay Area Governm 3,825 3,825 3,825 101-110-00-42007 Monterey Peninsula Chamber of Commerce 775 775 775 101-110-00-42007 Monterey County Mayors Association 1,575 1,575 1,575 101-110-00-42007 Monterey County Business Council 500 500 500 101-110-00-42007 MBUAPCA (Air Pollution Control District) 1,900 1,900 1,900 101-110-00-42007 League of CA Cities 2,850 2,850 3,380
101-110-00-42007 League of CA Cities- Monterey Bay Division 165 165 165 101-110-00-42007 LAFCo 16,375 16,375 15,840
101-110-00-42007 Community Human Services 16,375 16,375 17,625 101-110-00-42007 CoastWalks/Coastal Trail Association 300 300 300 101-110-00-42007 Carmel Chamber of Commerce 470 470 475 Total $46,405 $46,405 $47,655
25 Attachment 2

CITY ATTORNEY
Description
The City Council appoints the City Attorney. The City Attorney legally represents the City and provides legal advice and/or training to the City Council, City Administrator, boards, commissions, and departments; investigates and resolves claims against the City; defends the City in litigation and administrative actions; initiates and prosecutes litigation on behalf of the City; and drafts and reviews legal documents and agenda items.

Budget Summary and Service Impacts
▪ The FY 22-23 City Attorney contract services budget totals $435,000 and consists of $360,000 for general legal services (a return to pre-pandemic budget level) and $75,000 for other specialized legal assistancefrom the City’s attorney office, including labor negotiations and personnel. ▪ $75,000 is budgeted for supplementary specialized legal counsel costs, such as wireless communications, and will be reflected in a separate line item. This is a change from prior fiscal years and will help isolate legal costs incurred separately from the City’s attorney office.

City Attorney
Account Number Account Description FY21-22
Amended
Budget
FY21-22
Estimated
Actual
FY22-23
Recommended
101-112-00-42001 Contract Services $385,000 $428,420 $435,000 101-112-00-42004 Legal Costs 0 0 75,000
Total $385,000 $428,420 $510,000
26 Attachment 2

ADMINISTRATION
Description
The City Administrator is appointed by the City Council and responsible for the enforcement of City laws and ordinances; ensuring that the orders of the City Council are executed; preparing the budget and monitoring City finances; and managing day-to-day operations. In addition to overseeing City departments, the Administrator also serves as the director of the centralized administrative functions pertaining to the City Clerk, Finance, Human Resources and Information Technology.
2021-2022 Initiatives and Accomplishments
▪ Ensured the execution of Council policy direction, completion of capital projects, hiring of staff and continuity of daily citywide operations to deliver services in an efficient and effective manner. ▪ Implemented the newly structured mail home delivery program. ▪ Implemented digital signatures, continued efforts for digital storage of records, responded to requests for records.
▪ Oversaw the City’s response to COVID-19, including providing IT support for virtual operations and hybrid City Council meetings.
2022-2023 Priorities
▪ Continue to oversee the City's response to COVID-19 to ensure the safe delivery of City services ▪ Oversee the filing of candidate forms and administering the November 2022 City Council election. ▪ Explore service delivery alternatives and other options to enhance revenue as directed by Council. ▪ Continue hiring of staff.

Administration Budget Summary and Service Impacts
▪ The Administration Divisional budget includes funding for the City Administrator’s performance evaluation within contract services, office supplies, copier fees, and the citywide postage meter. Funding for the City Administrator’s lunches with staff is now separately reflected under Employee Appreciation. 27 Attachment 2

ADMINISTRATION
Office the City Administrator
Account Number Account Description FY21-22
Amended
Budget
FY21-22
Estimated
Actual
FY22-23
Recommended
101-111-00-41001 Salaries $1,249,225 $1,142,981 $1,616,020 101-111-00-41003 Salaries -Part time 119,192 53,216 36,806 101-111-00-41101 Retirement 70,006 64,690 93,767
101-111-00-41103 Deferred Compensation 48,380 48,738 48,972 101-111-00-41104 Health Insurance 151,068 141,054 257,888 101-111-00-41105 Social Security 2,905 2,362 -
101-111-00-41106 Medicare 17,958 16,608 23,966
101-111-00-41107 LTD/STD/Life 1,261 1,106 1,717
101-111-00-41108 Worker's Comp 16,376 16,330 25,935
101-111-00-41109 Benefits-MOU Obligations 3,120 2,947 4,160 Salaries & Benefits Subtotal $1,679,491 $1,490,032 $2,109,231 101-111-00-42001 Contract Services $96,322 $147,931 $164,330 101-111-00-42002 Recruiting Services 84,385 80,000 90,210 101-111-00-42003 Auditing Services 48,500 48,500 48,500 101-111-00-42006 Records Management 5,000 4,545 5,000
101-111-00-42009 Advertising and Legal Notices 15,000 11,390 20,000 101-111-00-42015 Other Services 12,000 10,334 12,000
101-111-00-42101 Office Supplies 9,750 3,954 9,750
101-111-00-42102 Publications & Subscriptions 113,568 119,133 123,335 101-111-00-42106 Small Tools and Equipment 350 - 350
101-111-00-42202 Equipment Maintenance 8,500 3,247 8,500 101-111-00-42301 Training & Education 10,750 605 11,750 101-111-00-42302 Conferences & Meetings 5,845 6,037 6,395 101-111-00-42304 Dues & Memberships 3,175 1,877 3,175
101-111-00-42305 Mileage Reimbursement 50 - 50
101-111-00-42306 Employee Programs 20,450 12,000 3,950
101-111-00-42307 Employee Appreciation - - 20,700
101-111-00-42403 Printing 5,900 5,233 6,600
101-111-00-42404 Shipping/Postage/Freight 11,700 11,307 11,950 101-111-00-42405 Telephone & Communications 80,000 68,682 80,000 101-111-00-42406 Bank & Merchant Fees 19,000 12,766 19,000 101-111-00-42407 Computer Non Capital 10,100 22,000 25,000 101-111-00-42410 Pre-employment Costs 9,000 3,200 9,000 Services & Supplies Subtotal $569,345 $572,741 $679,545 Total $2,248,836 $2,062,773 $2,788,776
28 Attachment 2

ADMINISTRATION
Administration
Account Number Account Description FY21-22
Amended
Budget
FY21-22
Estimated
Actual
FY22-23
Recommended
101-111-10-42001 Contract Services $13,850 $13,290 $21,550 101-111-10-42015 Other Services 12,000 10,334 12,000
101-111-10-42101 Office Supplies 5,250 2,804 5,250
101-111-10-42102 Publications & Subscriptions 150 1,133 150 101-111-10-42302 Conferences & Meetings 1,200 4,347 1,200 101-111-10-42304 Dues & Memberships 1,350 1,047 1,350
101-111-10-42307 Employee Appreciation - - 1,200
101-111-10-42403 Printing 100 - 100
101-111-10-42404 Shipping/Postage/Freight 11,250 11,250 11,500 Services & Supplies Subtotal $45,150 $44,205 $54,300
Clerk Description
The City Clerk provides timely and accessible service in response to all inquiries and requests for public information and records, and is responsible for the administration of elections, public records requests processing, records management, and the legislative process. Records the City’s legislative history through approved minutes and maintaining City Ordinances and the Municipal Code; facilitates applications for appointments to boards and commissions and coordinates Statements of Economic Interest as well as campaign and other financial disclosure related filings.

City Clerk
Account Number Account Description FY21-22
Amended
Budget
FY21-22
Estimated
Actual
FY22-23
Recommended
101-111-11-42001 Contract Services $46,080 $45,000 $46,080 101-111-11-42006 Records Management 5,000 4,545 5,000
101-111-11-42009 Advertising and Legal Notice 15,000 11,390 15,000 101-111-11-42302 Conferences & Meetings 1,550 - 2,000
101-111-11-42304 Dues & Memberships 260 - 260
101-111-11-42403 Printing 5,000 3,756 5,000
Services & Supplies Subtotal $72,890 $64,691 $73,340
Clerk Budget Summary
▪ Clerk contract services include the November 2022 election administered by Monterey County, agenda management and video streaming, Municipal Code updates, and records request management software.
29 Attachment 2

ADMINISTRATION
Finance Description
Finance provides financial analysis, management and reporting through the development of the annual budget, ongoing financial monitoring and reporting of revenues and expenditures. Routine financial duties including vendor payments, payroll, business license processing and the collection of the transient occupancy tax and the administration of pass- through funding to the hospitality and tourism improvement districts. Provides treasury services and invests revenue and issues and manages debt.

Finance
Account Number Account Description FY21-22
Amended
Budget
FY21-22
Estimated
Actual
FY22-23
Recommended
101-111-12-42001 Contract Services $25,500 $28,000 $45,500 101-111-12-42003 Auditing Services 48,500 48,500 48,500 101-111-12-42101 Office Supplies 300 300 300
101-111-12-42102 Publications & Subscriptions 27,490 27,000 28,485 101-111-12-42301 Training & Education 750 175 750
101-111-12-42302 Conferences & Meetings - - -
101-111-12-42304 Dues & Memberships 635 300 635
101-111-12-42305 Mileage Reimbursement 50 - 50
101-111-12-42403 Printing 500 1,177 1,200
101-111-12-42406 Bank & Merchant Fees 19,000 12,766 19,000 Services & Supplies Subtotal $122,725 $118,218 $144,420 Finance Budget Summary
▪ Finance contract services includes bond compliance reporting, sales tax analysis, and specialized consulting services to complete a full review of the City’s fees for service for FY23-24. ▪ State law mandates that the City has an independent firm review its basic financial statements and thus auditing services is a required expense.
▪ Publications and subscriptions include the annual maintenance costs for the City’s financial systems. 30 Attachment 2

ADMINISTRATION
HR Description
Human Resources recruits, develops, and retains a diverse, well-qualified workforce that reflects the high standards of the community, and leads the City departments in positive employee relations, talent management, succession planning, and employee engagement. Services include employee orientation, recruitment, performance assessment, compensation and job classification assessments, safety and wellness programs; and organization development services efficiently to City departments. Staff is responsible for negotiating Memorandums of Understanding with the City’s three bargaining units, subject to Council direction and approval.

HR
Account Number Account Description FY21-22
Amended
Budget
FY21-22
Estimated
Actual
FY22-23
Recommended
101-111-13-42001 Contract Services $2,460 $6,997 $6,000 101-111-13-42002 Recruiting Services 84,385 80,000 90,210 101-111-13-42009 Advertising & Legal Notice - - 5,000
101-111-13-42101 Office Supplies 700 850 700
101-111-13-42102 Publications & Subscriptions 3,050 6,000 6,700 101-111-13-42301 Training & Education 9,500 430 9,500
101-111-13-42302 Conferences & Meetings 2,595 1,090 2,595 101-111-13-42304 Dues & Memberships 800 400 800
101-111-13-42306 Employee Programs 20,450 12,000 3,950
101-111-13-42307 Employee Appreciation - - 19,500
101-111-13-42403 Printing 300 300 300
101-111-13-42404 Shipping/Freight/Postage 200 - 200
101-111-13-42410 Pre-employment Costs 9,000 3,200 9,000 Services & Supplies Subtotal $133,440 $111,267 $154,455 HR Budget Summary
▪ The HR divisional budget includes funding for recruiting services, recruitment management software and pre-employment costs.
▪ Funding for the staff appreciation events, such as the annual holiday party, is now separately reflected under Employee Appreciation.
31 Attachment 2

ADMINISTRATION
IT Description
Information Technology (IT) provides innovative and secure technology solutions that support City departments in delivering quality services to the community. The purpose of IT is to provide a broad range of high-quality technology-related solutions to employees, departments, council members, and the community; and to support and continuously improve essential technology infrastructure for enabling day-to-day operations of the City.

IT
Account Number Account Description FY21-22
Amended
Budget
FY21-22
Estimated
Actual
FY22-23
Recommended
101-111-14-42001 Contract Services $8,432 $54,644 $45,200 101-111-14-42101 Office Supplies 3,500 - 3,500
101-111-14-42102 Publications & Subscriptions 82,878 85,000 88,000 101-111-14-42105 Materials and Supplies - 791 -
101-111-14-42106 Small Tools and Equipment 350 - 350
101-111-14-42202 Equipment Maintenance 8,500 3,247 8,500 101-111-14-42301 Training & Education 500 - 1,500
101-111-14-42302 Conferences & Meetings 500 600 600
101-111-14-42304 Dues & Memberships 130 130 130
101-111-14-42404 Shipping/Postage/Freight 250 57 250
101-111-14-42405 Telephone and Communications 80,000 68,682 80,000 101-111-14-42407 Computer Non capital 10,100 22,000 25,000 Services & Supplies Subtotal $195,140 $235,151 $253,030 IT Budget Summary
▪ The IT division publication and subscriptions budget includes required licensing for Microsoft products, G-Suite, security monitoring, and Zoom meeting licensing. ▪ The City’s website is five years old and in need of an update. Funding is included in contract services. ▪ As many of the City’s computers age and become outdated, funding is included for computer replacements.
32 Attachment 2

CITYWIDE
Description
Citywide, or non-departmental costs, are expenses that are spread across the entire organization. These items include the unfunded pension liability, the City’s premiums insurance for general liability and property insurance and the City’s share of costs toward retiree healthcare. Other operational expenses include utilities, property tax assessments and the administrative fee charged by Monterey County for property tax collection.

Budget Summary and Service Impacts
▪ In addition to the employer contribution toward retirement for City employees, the City also is responsible for pension obligations for the unfunded actuarial liability (“UAL”). This amount increases by $250,000, or 14%, in FY 22-23 compared to the FY 21-22 originally Adopted Budget. The FY21-22 lump sum payment was paid in July 2021 for a savings of $61,000 and those savings were transferred to other budget line items during the fiscal year.
▪ The City will pay the annual lump sum UAL in July, which will result in approximately $70,000 of interest savings. Those savings would then be available for other line item expenses. ▪ The City continues to mitigate future pension liability and costs with another $1.0 million investment into the City’s established Section 115 Trust.
▪ The City’s liability insurance premiums are budgeted to increase by $123,000. ▪ The utility expenses for the Forest Theater are separated out for tracking purposes, as required by the new lease.

Non-Departmental
Account Number Account Description FY20-21
Amended
Budget
FY20-21
Estimated
Actual
FY21-22
Recommended
101-130-00-42501 Liability Insurance Premium $689,500 $637,000 $813,000 101-130-00-42503 PERS Unfunded Accrued Liability Payment 1,772,536 1,772,536 2,082,464 101-130-00-42503 Pension Mitigation Options 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 101-130-00-42504 Insurance Claims Paid 30,000 110,000 30,000 101-130-00-42505 Utilities 235,000 231,000 230,000
101-130-00-42506 Property Tax Assessments 82,115 81,853 83,755 101-130-00-42508 Unemployment Costs 15,000 11,600 15,000 101-130-00-42510 Retiree Health Share 79,980 74,060 79,980 101-130-00-42511 County Property Tax Admin Fees 70,793 70,793 74,335 101-130-00-42512 Forest Theater Utilities - - 10,000
Total $3,974,924 $3,988,842 $4,418,534
33 Attachment 2

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Description
Two of the City’s unique facilities include the performing arts venue known as the Sunset Community and Cultural Center and the Forest Theater, an outdoor amphitheater. These locations support musical performances, lectures and other cultural activities that enhance the quality of life for residents and promote the City and the Monterey Peninsula as an artistic and cultural destination.

In 2017, the City entered into a lease agreement with the Sunset Cultural Center, Inc. (SCC) for the management of these facilities and the terms of the lease require the City to make an annual grant to SCC to support operations. In 2021, Sunset Cultural Center, Inc.’s management of the Forest Theater ended. The annual grant for management of only Sunset Center remains in the budget.

In 2021, the City entered into a lease agreement with Pac Rep Theater for the management of the Forest Theater. This new lease does not require an operational grant payment. Rather, the City pays for a portion of utilities and repairs, which are budgeted in the Citywide (Non-Departmental) and Public Works budgets, respectively.

The City funds the Monterey County Convention and Visitors Bureau (MCCVB) and Visit Carmel to manage visitors. Visit Carmel maintains the City’s official travel website (www.carmelcalfornia.com) and develops targeted and seasonal marketing campaigns to encourage visitors to stay overnight, dine and shop within the Village.

In addition to supporting these organizations with General Fund revenues, the City also collects a tourism improvement district assessment from its lodging establishments on behalf of the County and remits these pass-thru funds to MCCVB on a bi-monthly basis. The City also collects an assessment on lodging through the Carmel Hospitality Improvement District and remits these funds to Visit Carmel for the marketing of overnight stays within the Village during mid-week and the non-peak season. As of January 1, 2019, the City also began collecting an assessment from full-service restaurants on behalf of the Carmel Restaurant Improvement District and remits these funds to Visit Carmel for marketing efforts to increase food and beverage sales within the City.

Another partner agency is the Carmel Chamber of Commerce, which operates a visitor center in town, publishes a comprehensive visitor guide, and assists businesses. The Chamber also supports small businesses and provides services to assist its members, including listing businesses on the Chamber website, providing educational programs, conducting outreach with businesses via weekly business walks with City elected officials and staff and marketing opportunities to “shop locally”.

Budget Summary and Service Impacts
▪ The FY 22-23 budget increases by $74,200, or 7%, from the FY 21-22 Adopted Budget. Visit Carmel has requested that funding be returned to the pre-pandemic amount of $120,000 annually. Funding to MCCVB ($200,010) equates to 3% of the FY22-23 transient occupancy tax revenue budget of $6.7 million. Council agreed to increase the Carmel Chamber of Commerce funding amount to $30,000. 34 Attachment 2

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Marketing & Economic Development
Account Number Account Description Details FY21-22 FY21-22 FY22-23 Amended Estimated Recommended
Budget Actual
SCC- Sunset Center
101-122-00-42008 Mktg & Economic Dev Operating Grant 750,000 750,000 750,000 SCC- Forest Theater
101-122-00-42008 Mktg & Economic Dev Operating Grant 7,500 - - 101-122-00-42008 Mktg & Economic Dev MCCVB 160,007 160,007 200,010 101-122-00-42008 Mktg & Economic Dev Visit Carmel 100,800 100,800 120,000 Carmel Chamber of
101-122-00-42008 Mktg & Economic Dev Commerce 15,000 15,000 30,000 Total $1,033,307 $1,025,807 $1,100,010
35 Attachment 2

LIBRARY AND COMMUNITY ACTIVITIES
Description
Library
The Library is an efficient medium for the free and equitable distribution and exchange of books, information, and ideas; and a recognized social center providing the community with a place to learn, interact and gather. The Library aspires to be a welcoming place, in-person and virtually, where reading, learning and imagination thrive; a recognized leader and respected voice in our community; and a model library in our industry.

A five-member Board of Trustees appointed by the City Council governs the Library. The Harrison Memorial Library Board of Trustees, the Carmel Public Library Foundation, Harrison Memorial Library Friends of the Library, and the City work together in partnership to sustain the vital and historic tradition of providing free public library service of excellent quality for the residents and visitors of the City of Carmel and the Monterey Peninsula
2021-2022 Workload Indicators / Performance Measures
▪ 5,717 reference and information questions were answered ▪ 617 library cards were issued
▪ 34,493 library items were circulated
▪ 1,042 people attended library programs
▪ 31,832 digital items (e-books, audios, magazines, films, music) were accessed 2021-2022 Initiatives and Accomplishments
▪ Pivoted library services to provided reference and tech help via phone, email, and text. ▪ Transitioned from curbside pick-up system to outside library services to restoring in-building library services.
▪ Continued to explore opportunities for passive programming in the libraries. 2022-2023 Priorities
▪ Filling vacant positions and increasing open hours at both the Main and Park Branch libraries.
▪ Continuing the implementation of the Library’s Strategic Plan.

Budget Summary and Service Impacts
▪ The City funds the personnel and building maintenance costs for operating the Main and Park Branch libraries. The sources of funding for library materials, programs and services are the Carmel Public Library Foundation, the Friends of the Library, and other donations. 36 Attachment 2

LIBRARY AND COMMUNITY ACTIVITIES
Library
Account Number Account Description FY21-22
Amended
Budget
FY21-22
Estimated
Actual
FY22-23
Recommended
101-120-00-41001 Salaries $643,426 $453,558 $800,482
101-120-00-41003 Salaries -Part time 131,934 12,780 122,007 101-120-00-41101 Retirement 38,541 28,088 43,673
101-120-00-41103 Deferred Compensation 7,350 9,483 8,700 101-120-00-41104 Health Insurance 77,984 49,681 91,987
101-120-00-41105 Social Security 8,180 774 7,564
101-120-00-41106 Medicare 11,240 6,542 13,376
101-120-00-41107 LTD/STD/Life 1,062 711 1,192
101-120-00-41108 Worker's Comp 15,658 11,957 18,990
101-120-00-41109 Benefits-MOU Obligations 13,520 7,858 16,120 Salaries & Benefits Subtotal $948,895 $581,432 $1,124,091 101-120-00-42001 Contract Services $3,500 $3,500 $3,500 Services & Supplies Subtotal $3,500 $3,500 $3,500
Total $952,395 $584,932 $1,127,591
37 Attachment 2

LIBRARY AND COMMUNITY ACTIVITIES
Community Activities
The Community Activities department and Commission encourage and support the interaction of neighbors, friends, families and visitors through the shared experience of special events, programs, and gatherings which bring the community together virtually and in-person safely on the City’s streets and in its parks and create opportunities to interact, celebrate, enrich people’s lives, and promote inclusiveness.

The Community Activities department facilitates the weekly Farmers’ Market, permitting for special events, beach events, and filming, the City’s annual special events (Memorial Day, 4th of July, Sandcastle Contest, Pumpkin Roll, Halloween Parade, Veteran’s Day, Homecrafters’ Marketplace, and Holiday Menorah and Tree-lighting), and manages the Vista Lobos Community Room and the Scout House.
2021-2022 Workload Indicators/Performance Measures
▪ Planned and facilitated seven City special events
▪ An estimated 5,000 people attended City Special Events ▪ Issued 36 event and film permits
2021-2022 Initiatives and Accomplishments
▪ Developed a new policy for community group participation in the Farmers’ Market. ▪ Reinvented the City’s special events to be more streamlined and maximized community partnerships.
▪ Continued Community Activities Commission campaigns at the Farmer’s Market to encourage residents and business owners to encourage community connection. 2022-2023 Priorities
▪ Continue implementing the new strategic plan that includes goals to maximize communication opportunities, embrace opportunities for community connections – whatever the form, engaging in environmentally sustainable practices, and to put our community spaces to their best use. ▪ Continue to streamline processes for special event permit applications Budget Summary and Service Impacts
▪ Community Activities department expenses include costs for advertising, banners and signage, event and office supplies for City events, equipment replacements, Community Activities Commission initiatives, and the Farmers’ Market.
38 Attachment 2

LIBRARY AND COMMUNITY ACTIVITIES
Community Activities
Account Number Account Description FY21-22
Amended
FY21-22
Estimated
FY22-23
Recommended
101-121-00-41001 Salaries $81,277 $80,000 $131,665
101-121-00-41101 Retirement 3,310 4,572 10,362
101-121-00-41103 Deferred Compensation 150 1,134 1,800
101-121-00-41104 Health Insurance 5,660 5,660 13,964
101-121-00-41105 Overtime - 420 -
101-121-00-41106 Medicare 609 817 1,909
101-121-00-41107 LTD/STD/Life 65 79 195
101-121-00-41108 Worker's Comp 5,176 3,952 6,276
101-121-00-41109 Benefits-MOU Obligations - 348 2,080
Salaries & Benefits Subtotal $96,247 $96,982 $168,251
101-121-00-42001 Contract Services $9,000 $8,500 $39,220 101-121-00-42005 Community Promotions 19,500 19,000 19,500 101-121-00-42009 Advertising and Legal Notice 3,000 2,900 8,500 101-121-00-42101 Office Supplies 300 130 300
101-121-00-42403 Printing 2,500 1,155 2,500
Services & Supplies Subtotal $34,300 $31,685 $70,020
Total $130,547 $128,667 $238,271
39 Attachment 2

COMMUNITY PLANNING AND BUILDING
Description
The Community Planning and Building Department (CPB) includes the Planning, Building and Code Compliance Divisions and is responsible for preserving community character while fostering a vibrant community and a high quality of life for its residents, businesses and visitors. ▪ The Planning Division processes current development applications, maintains the General Plan, and ensures that capital programs, zoning and other activities of the City are consistent with the goals and policies of the Plan.
▪ The Building Safety Division is responsible for plans examination and inspections of City and private development projects to ensure compliance with building codes. ▪ The Code Compliance Division ensures compliance with the City Municipal Code. This function includes public education and outreach on existing laws and resolving code violations. 2021-2022 Initiatives and Accomplishments
▪ Adopted an updated Sign Ordinance to be in compliance with all State and Federal laws ▪ Significant progress made on scanning/digitizing of physical property files. Vendors selected, programming complete, and 20% of parcels have been digitized and made available through the City’s GIS map
▪ Implemented several measures in line with the CPB 2019 strategic plan’s customer service, technology, and streamlining goals including but not limited to: Reinstating the “Permit by Appointment” process for building permits, simplifying CPB’s website portal, progress on scanning/digitizing files, clarifying the Track 1 and Track 2 Planning Application process and creating SOPs for the public to follow, and restarting the annual Development Process Workshop focused on updating the development industry
▪ Fully re-opened CPB offices to the public while maintaining COVID-19 safety protocols ▪ Completed recruitments for all vacant positions in CPB, including two new positions added by City Council: 1) Long Range Associate Planner; 2) Second Code Compliance Coordinator. Anticipating all CPB positions to be full by June 30, 2022.
2022-2023 Priorities
▪ Continued implementation of the CPB 2019 strategic plan, with a focus on customer service, technology, and streamlining processes
▪ Complete housing feasibility study in accordance with State “SB 2”, local “LEAP”, regional “REAP” grants and begin work in earnest on General Plan Housing Element update for completion by December, 2023 ▪ Adopt Historic Context Statement update in accordance with State CLG grant ▪ Adoption of: (1) updated Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance; (2) updated Wireless Ordinance ▪ Finish scanning/digitizing of physical property files for online public access ▪ Adoption of updated Design Guidelines and Zoning Code through the Design Traditions 1.5 Project
▪ In partnership with the Police Department, develop a paid parking program in the downtown commercial district for consideration by the City Council Budget Summary and Service Impacts
▪ Planning contract services increases this year due to a $140,000 allocation for Winter & Company’s support on the Design Traditions 1.5 Project, which utilizes 1-time money to implement Council priorities. Still remaining in the planning contract services line item is $290,000 in services representing 40 Attachment 2

COMMUNITY PLANNING AND BUILDING
State, local and regional grants which will fund consultant support for housing studies and General Plan updates.
▪ Building contract services dropped significantly due to a reduced need for outside plan review by CSG, thanks to the hiring of a new Building Inspector. $40,000 in contract plan review support will still be needed for technical and specialized plan review matters that arise. ▪ As part of the Capital Improvement Plan, CPB is continuing scanning and digitizing physical property files to make them publicly available via the City’s online GIS mapping tool. The FY22-23 CIP incudes the second and final year of funding for this project totaling $67,000. ▪ Also as part of the Capital Improvement Plan, CPB will be acquiring two (2) residential electric vehicles for Planning, Building, and Code Compliance inspections to replace a single gas engine vehicle. These vehicles will allow for more inspections to take place in a shorter amount of time, which will benefit the Village as a whole. Switching to electric vehicles will also help lower the City’s carbon footprint.

Upgrades to the electrical panel at City Hall and installation of charging stations will be required. Total cost of the project including vehicles and upgrades will be approximately $50,000. However, nearly all of this cost should be offset by a combination of selling CPB’s existing gas vehicle, and funds from the Central Coast Community Energy Vehicle Electrification Program. 41 Attachment 2

COMMUNITY PLANNING AND BUILDING
Community Planning & Building
Account Number Account Description FY21-22
Amended
FY21-22
Estimated
FY22-23
Recommended
101-115-00-41001 Salaries $949,196 $775,921 $1,220,334
101-115-00-41005 Overtime - 1,603 -
101-115-00-41101 Retirement 55,420 38,017 60,805
101-115-00-41103 Deferred Compensation 7,750 5,933 8,100 101-115-00-41104 Health Insurance 184,093 147,029 225,785 101-115-00-41106 Medicare 14,991 10,653 17,694
101-115-00-41107 LTD/STD/Life 1,416 1,072 1,559
101-115-00-41108 Worker's Comp 15,818 12,079 19,183
101-115-00-41109 Benefits-MOU Obligations 16,468 7,147 18,720 Salaries & Benefits Subtotal $1,245,152 $999,454 $1,572,180 101-115-00-42001 Contract Services $613,350 $245,800 $583,400 101-115-00-42009 Advertising and Legal Notice 500 - 500 101-115-00-42101 Office Supplies 3,650 2,134 3,650
101-115-00-42102 Publications & Subscriptions 775 330 1,425 101-115-00-42104 Safety Equipment and Supplies 800 645 800 101-115-00-42107 Gas and Oil 1,560 465 780
101-115-00-42115 Other Supplies 600 15,700 950
101-115-00-42301 Training & Education 4,085 1,950 8,565 101-115-00-42302 Conferences & Meetings 5,450 290 8,150 101-115-00-42304 Dues & Memberships 4,580 1,756 4,480
101-115-00-42305 Mileage Reimbursement 300 - 150
101-115-00-42403 Printing 3,000 1,440 3,000
Services & Supplies Subtotal $638,650 $270,510 $615,850 Total $1,883,802 $1,269,964 $2,188,030
42 Attachment 2

COMMUNITY PLANNING AND BUILDING
Community Planning & Building: Planning
101-115-20-42001 Contract Services $382,300 $24,700 $469,600 101-115-20-42009 Advertising and Legal Notice 500 - 500 101-115-20-42101 Office Supplies 3,000 1,773 3,000
101-115-20-42102 Publications & Subscriptions 125 - 125 101-115-20-42104 Safety Equipment and Supplies 800 645 800 101-115-20-42115 Other Supplies - 15,700 -
101-115-20-42301 Training & Education 2,125 1,500 4,325 101-115-20-42302 Conferences & Meetings 600 200 2,000
101-115-20-42304 Dues & Memberships 2,500 1,300 2,400
101-115-20-42305 Mileage Reimbursement 200 - 100
101-115-20-42403 Printing 3,000 1,440 3,000
Services & Supplies Subtotal $395,150 47,258 $485,850
Community Planning & Building: Building
101-115-21-42001 Contract Services $220,050 $210,100 $102,800 101-115-21-42101 Office Supplies 400 280 400
101-115-21-42102 Publications & Subscriptions 650 330 1,300 101-115-21-42107 Gas and Oil 960 465 480
101-115-21-42115 Other Supplies 400 - 500
101-115-21-42301 Training & Education 1,460 450 3,240
101-115-21-42302 Conferences & Meetings 3,350 - 3,350
101-115-21-42304 Dues & Memberships 2,080 456 2,080
101-115-21-42305 Mileage Reimbursement 100 - 50
Services & Supplies Subtotal $229,450 $212,081 $114,200 Community Planning & Building: Code Compliance
101-115-22-42001 Contract Services $11,000 $11,000 $11,000 101-115-22-42101 Office Supplies 250 81 250
101-115-22-42107 Gas and Oil 600 - 300
101-115-22-42115 Other Supplies 200 - 450
101-115-22-42301 Training & Education 500 - 1,000
101-115-22-42302 Conferences & Meetings 1,500 90 2,800
Services & Supplies Subtotal $14,050 $11,171 $15,800
43 Attachment 2

PUBLIC WORKS
The mission of the Public Works Department is to plan, design, construct, operate, and maintain public infrastructure, streets, facilities, beach, urban forest, and parks that contribute to the health, safety, and well-being of the community. We do so in an efficient, cost-effective manner without detrimental effects on the environment. Public Works consists of five operating divisions with responsibilities as follows:
▪ Administration Unit: prepare Council reports, 5-year Capital Improvement Plan, and give presentations, perform engineering services, support the Forest and Beach Commission, serve on the Traffic Safety Committee and TAMC TAC, and provide staffing, budget, and performance oversight of the following five operating divisions and various volunteer organizations.
▪ Environmental Compliance: manage environmental projects in the North Dunes and MTNP, serve on the Climate Committee and develop Climate Action and Adaptation Plans, implement the State’s storm water quality regulations, enforce the State’s waste reduction and recycling regulations, oversee the franchise agreement with the City’s waste hauler, serve on the Monterey Regional Stormwater Management Program Committee and the Monterey Regional Waste Management District’s Technical Advisory Committee, evaluate energy reduction initiatives, and conduct public outreach. ▪ Facilities Maintenance: maintain and repair 15 City-owned buildings and facilities with 149,050 square feet, including six historic buildings nearly 100 years old, support capital improvement projects, oversee janitorial contract and numerous trade vendors, and implement small ADA and various construction projects.
▪ Forestry, Parks and Beach: staff Forest & Beach Commission, maintain eight municipal parks, Carmel Beach, Scenic Pathway, and landscaped islands, manage contract tree services and 9,000+ City trees, process tree removal and pruning permits, and perform landscape maintenance services.
▪ Project Management: implement the Capital Improvement Plan, perform condition assessments and cost estimates, plan, design, inspect, and manage construction of capital projects, administer public bidding process, and coordinate with consultants, contractors, utilities, and other departments.
▪ Street Maintenance: supervise all Public Works field personnel and allocate resources, maintain and repair streets, potholes, sidewalks, curbs, fencing, storm drainage system, berms, traffic signs, striping, and pavement markings, provide street sweeping services, perform basic fleet maintenance services, review utility encroachment permit applications, support City events, and provide emergency response.
44 Attachment 2

PUBLIC WORKS
2021-2022 Initiatives and Accomplishments
▪ Negotiated a Lease Agreement with Pacific Repertory Theatre for Theatrical Programming and Facility Management of the Forest Theater.
▪ The Climate Committee completed a Vulnerability Assessment, Greenhouse Gas Emissions Study, and are currently finalizing Climate Action and Adaptation Plans. ▪ Updated the Carmel Municipal Code relative to SB1383 organics recycling, and modified the franchise agreement with Greenwaste Recovery.
▪ Planning Commission extended Coastal Development Permits for the North Dunes Habitat Restoration and Mission Trail Nature Preserve (MTNP) projects for five years. ▪ Received a $45,000 grant from the Coastal Conservancy to conduct wildfire fuel mitigation at MTNP and completed the project.
▪ Replaced the fire pump assembly and the HVAC controller system for Sunset Center, both as emergency replacement projects.
▪ Renovated the Ocean Avenue median island landscaping, between Lincoln and Monte Verde Streets, as a pilot for the four remaining raised medians along Ocean Avenue. ▪ Supported the completion of 17 capital improvement projects funded in FY 2021/22. ▪ Resumed the annual traffic striping and markings and the sidewalk grinding programs. ▪ Continued to guide the unique partnership with Carmel Cares to restore the Scenic Pathway, Forest Theater grounds, Devendorf and Vista Lobos Parks, and expanded Median Minders and Pick-Up-Posse community engagement programs.
2022-2023 Priorities
▪ Negotiate an Operations and Maintenance Agreement with a qualified organization for renovation, activities programming, and facility management of the Scout House. ▪ Update Municipal Code Chapter 17 related to storm water requirements. ▪ Collaborate with the Monterey Regional Waste Management District and GreenWaste Recovery on implementation of SB 1383 requirements.
▪ Commence building condition assessments, resilience infrastructure planning, additional EV charging stations, and electrical upgrades at multiple City facilities. ▪ Update the design of the Police Station to include an EOC/Community Room, new lockers, EV station, and other facilities, solicit bids, and begin construction. ▪ Issue an RFP for Citywide janitorial services for the next three fiscal years. ▪ Construct the annual asphalt paving project, along Junipero, San Carlos, and San Antonio Streets, including micro-surfacing, bike route, and medians on San Carlos. ▪ Commence design of broken pipe repairs and eliminate bottlenecks in the storm drain system listed as priority recommendations in the Storm Drain Master Plan. ▪ Design repairs of concrete streets, along lower Ocean Avenue and within several downtown intersections, that are heavily damaged.
▪ Prepare the Forest Management Plan, predominantly funded by a $150k Cal Fire grant, and solicit public participation in the development process.
▪ Beautify the remaining raised median islands along Ocean Avenue as part of the Downtown Beautification Initiative.
▪ Purchase a street sweeper, preferably an electric or hybrid, utilizing a 3CE rebate. 45 Attachment 2

PUBLIC WORKS
Budget Summary and Service Impacts
▪ Previously, the Street Division budget was merged with the Administration budget, 101-119-40.

Effective Fiscal Year 2022/23, the Street Division budget, 101-119-41, will be accounted for separately.
▪ The Administration Division budget includes funding for a full-time administrative coordinator for front counter and customer service support, contract services ($66,400), including uniform services, copier lease, and software contracts, contracted project manager services ($50,000), training ($8,000), subscriptions ($5,500), and office supplies ($5,000). ▪ The Street Division budget includes funding for equipment & vehicle maintenance ($51,500), materials and supplies ($50,000), including asphalt, lumber, base rock, and paint, fuel for City vehicles ($38,000), and contract services ($8,500).
▪ The Facilities Maintenance Division budget includes funding for contract services ($394,270) including janitorial services, alarm and fire system monitoring, and HVAC, plumbing, roofing, and electrical repairs, and materials & supplies ($65,000), including hardware, lighting, filters, plumbing and paint supplies.
▪ The Environmental Compliance Division budget includes funding for environmental consultant support ($50,000), regional storm water permit implementation ($25,000), Vactor cleaning of storm drains ($25,000), ASBS watershed sampling ($20,000), SB1383 and recycling expenses ($17,000), various other compliance consultants, and regional permit dues ($11,000). ▪ The Forestry, Parks, and Beach Division budget includes funding for contract services ($497,500), including tree removals, pruning, watering, stumps, landscape maintenance, and emergency response services, fund matching for the Forest Management Plan ($20,000), and materials and supplies ($50,000) including new trees, landscaping, irrigation supplies, and planting materials.
46 Attachment 2

PUBLIC WORKS
Public Works Department Total
Account Number Account Description FY21-22
Amended
Budget
FY21-22
Estimated
Actual
FY22-23
Recommended
101-119-00-41001 Salaries $1,583,893 $1,402,384 $2,136,494 101-119-00-41005 Overtime 8,800 6,000 8,800
101-119-00-41101 Retirement 88,011 79,081 115,821
101-119-00-41103 Deferred Compensation 12,612 11,695 18,612 101-119-00-41104 Health Insurance 278,844 266,345 342,020 101-119-00-41106 Medicare 22,064 19,389 30,980
101-119-00-41107 LTD/STD/Life 2,423 2,222 2,988
101-119-00-41108 Worker's Comp 51,744 51,731 82,157
101-119-00-41109 Benefits-MOU Obligations 28,600 26,424 33,280 Salaries & Benefits Subtotal $2,076,991 $1,865,271 $2,771,152 101-119-00-42001 Contract Services $1,001,385 $877,438 $1,133,530 101-119-00-42009 Advertising and Legal Notice 1,000 1,000 2,500 101-119-00-42101 Office Supplies 2,500 1,589 5,000
101-119-00-42102 Publications & Subscriptions 6,860 4,191 5,500 101-119-00-42104 Safety Equipment and Supplies 8,000 5,332 8,400 101-119-00-42105 Materials and Supplies 195,000 130,000 165,000 101-119-00-42106 Small Tools and Equipment 750 - 1,000
101-119-00-42107 Gas and Oil 24,000 26,000 38,000
101-119-00-42202 Equipment Maintenance 10,000 466 10,000 101-119-00-42203 Vehicle Maintenance 41,000 31,390 41,500 101-119-00-42301 Training & Education 5,000 5,186 8,000 101-119-00-42304 Dues & Memberships 1,500 1,603 2,875
101-119-00-42403 Printing 400 - 2,000
101-119-00-42408 Permits and Licenses 9,500 10,432 11,067 101-119-00-42409 Rentals 2,250 2,467 4,000
Services & Supplies Subtotal $1,309,145 $1,097,094 $1,438,372 Total $3,386,136 $2,962,365 $4,209,524
47 Attachment 2

PUBLIC WORKS
PW Administration
Account Number Account Description FY21-22
Amended
Budget
FY21-22
Estimated
Actual
FY22-23
Recommended
101-119-40-42001 Contract Services $18,900 $18,830 $66,400 101-119-40-42009 Advertising and Legal Notice 1,000 1,000 2,500 101-119-40-42101 Office Supplies 2,500 1,589 5,000
101-119-40-42102 Publications & Subscriptions 6,860 4,191 5,500 101-119-40-42104 Safety Equipment and Supplies 8,000 5,332 8,400 101-119-40-42105 Materials and Supplies* 51,000 20,000 - 101-119-40-42106 Small Tools and Equipment* 750 - -
101-119-40-42107 Gas and Oil* 24,000 26,000 -
101-119-40-42202 Equipment Maintenance* 10,000 466 -
101-119-40-42203 Vehicle Maintenance* 41,000 31,390 -
101-119-40-42301 Training & Education 5,000 5,186 8,000 101-119-40-42304 Dues & Memberships 1,500 1,603 2,875
101-119-40-42403 Printing 400 - 2,000
101-119-40-42409 Rentals* 2,250 2,467 -
Services & Supplies Subtotal $173,160 $118,054 $100,675 *Moved to PW-Streets budget effective FY22-23
PW Street
Account Number Account Description FY21-22
Amended
Budget
FY21-22
Estimated
Actual
FY22-23
Recommended
101-119-41-42001 Contract Services* $0 $0 8,500
101-119-41-42105 Materials and Supplies* - - 50,000
101-119-41-42106 Small Tools and Equipment* - - 1,000
101-119-41-42107 Gas and Oil* - - 38,000
101-119-41-42202 Equipment Maintenance* - - 10,000
101-119-41-42203 Vehicle Maintenance* - - 41,500
101-119-41-42409 Rentals* - - 4,000
Services & Supplies Subtotal $0 $0 $153,000
*Moved from PW-Admin budget effective FY22-23
PW Facilities
101-119-42-42001
101-119-42-42105
Contract Services
Materials and Supplies
$362,720
120,000
$360,000
95,000
$394,270
65,000
Services & Supplies Subtotal $482,720 $455,000 $459,270 48 Attachment 2

PUBLIC WORKS
PW Environmental Compliance
101-119-43-42001
101-119-43-42105
101-119-43-42408
Contract Services
Materials and Supplies
Permits and Licenses
$289,765
-
9,500
$248,608
-
10,432
$166,860
-
11,067
Services & Supplies Subtotal $299,265 $259,040 $177,927 PW Forest & Beach
101-119-45-42001
101-119-45-42105
Contract Services
Materials and Supplies
$330,000
24,000
$250,000
15,000
$497,500
50,000
Services & Supplies Subtotal $354,000 $265,000 $547,500 49 Type of Expenditure Budget Percentage
Tree Related Services $ 330,000 60%
Landscaping Services 125,000 23%
Foresty Management Plan & Software 22,500 4%
Weed Abatement Services 20,000 4%
New trees/plants 25,000 5%
Landscaping & Irrigation Materials 20,000 4%
Equipment 5,000 1%
Total $ 547,500 100%
Attachment 2

PUBLIC SAFETY
Description
The Director of Public Safety/Police Chief manages the Public Safety Department and three distinct functions:
▪ The Police Department is responsible for law enforcement and crime prevention within the City. The mission of the Department is to protect and serve, with the primary responsibility of ensuring the rights of citizens and visitors to live in peace and safety. It also oversees the management and operation of the Emergency Operations Center; the Volunteers in Policing Program that assists with daily clerical activities, errands, public outreach and special events and the City Community Emergency Response Team of volunteers ready to assist the community during an emergency situation. ▪ The Fire Department is primarily responsible for saving lives and protecting property through the prevention and control of fires. The Fire Department has operated under a contract with the City of Monterey since 2012. The Public Safety Department manages the contract with the City of Monterey and is responsible for oversight of needed equipment and supplies. ▪ Carmel Fire Ambulance provides advanced life support ambulance service to the residents of Carmelby-the-Sea. Ambulance staffing includes paramedic-firefighters and emergency medical technicianfirefighters to provide front line medical emergency response and all-hazard response as a key component of the City’s public safety services. The City of Monterey also provides administrative oversight of this function through a contractual agreement managed by the Public Safety Department. 2021-2022 Initiatives and Accomplishments
▪ Managed pandemic-related challenges including mask mandates and vaccination requirements ▪ Began an investigation of a graffiti bandit who painted numerous walls throughout the city. Suspect was identified via city and resident cameras. The investigation led to the suspects arrest and a full confession. ▪ Began an investigation of a daytime smash and grab at a local jewelry store. Via cameras from businesses and locals in the area we quickly obtained suspect information. One juvenile suspect was taken into custody and charged with the crime. Multiple additional suspects are still pending. ▪ Upgraded patrol vehicles to include 2 new police cruisers ▪ Upgraded outdated police radios
▪ Increased the number of volunteer group and CERT members and utilized their services on multiple occasions to include assistance with missing persons, council meetings and various activities throughout the city.
▪ Staffed a vacant ambulance/firefighter.
2022-2023 Priorities
▪ Fill vacancies, including Police Officer, Dispatchers, and Community Service Officers. ▪ Developing new contract language for Fire Services with the City of Monterey. ▪ Continue to improve radio communications and complete the radio transition from analog to digital for police services.
▪ Continue to align policies and procedures with federal and State legislation regarding police tactics. ▪ Work with City Staff and Council on the implementation of a new parking enforcement structure and paid parking in the City.
▪ Increase commitment to service in the Village through police programs to include increased bicycle patrols, community camera sharing, and use of volunteer groups like CERT. 50 Attachment 2

PUBLIC SAFETY
Budget Summary and Service Impacts
Ambulance
▪ The FY 22-23 Budget increases by $85,324 over the FY 21-22 Amended Budget. Overtime reflects an anticipated decrease due to being fully staffed. Contract services include station coverage by the City of Monterey as needed ($170,000), ambulance billing ($48,000), Monterey Fire management of Ambulance personnel ($24,000), narcotics management ($11,000). Other major expenses include medical supplies ($39,000), fuel and vehicle maintenance ($17,000), safety equipment ($12,000) and required training to maintain credentials ($13,000).

Ambulance
Account Number Account Description FY21-22
Amended
Budget
FY21-22
Estimated
Actual
FY22-23
Recommended
101-118-00-41002 Salaries -Safety $709,018 $673,173 $770,123 101-118-00-41006 Overtime -Safety 160,000 170,000 140,000 101-118-00-41009 Holiday in Lieu 64,574 62,000 69,740
101-118-00-41102 Retirement -Safety 99,761 9,104 99,905 101-118-00-41103 Deferred Compensation 4,500 4,300 5,400 101-118-00-41104 Health Insurance 81,349 78,583 88,481
101-118-00-41106 Medicare 13,589 13,064 14,550
101-118-00-41107 LTD/STD/Life 858 879 858
101-118-00-41108 Worker's Comp 52,072 39,765 63,153
101-118-00-41111 Uniform Allowance 3,600 3,333 3,600
Salaries & Benefits Subtotal $1,189,321 $1,054,201 $1,255,810 101-118-00-42001 Contract Services $261,528 $260,000 $272,163 101-118-00-42101 Office Supplies 1,100 900 1,300
101-118-00-42103 Medical Supplies 39,150 31,370 39,150
101-118-00-42104 Safety Equipment and Supplies 11,000 4,500 12,000 101-118-00-42107 Gas and Oil 7,000 11,723 11,000
101-118-00-42201 Building Maintenance 1,500 1,200 4,500 101-118-00-42202 Equipment Maintenance 3,500 870 3,500
101-118-00-42203 Vehicle Maintenance 17,000 10,922 17,000 101-118-00-42301 Training & Education 12,800 1,200 12,800 Services & Supplies Subtotal $354,578 $322,685 $373,413 Total $1,543,899 $1,376,886 $1,629,223
51 Attachment 2

PUBLIC SAFETY
Fire
▪ The FY 22-23 Budget increases by $165,146 over the FY 21-22 Amended Budget. Contract services include fire services provided to the Village by the City of Monterey ($2,840,000) and dispatch services ($25,000). Funding for a wildfire risk assessment is also included within the budget ($20,000).
▪ The FY 22-23 Budget also includes funding for fuel ($14,000) and vehicle maintenance ($35,000) as Carmel is responsible for vehicle repair and replacement under the contract with Monterey.

Fire
Account Number Account Description FY21-22
Amended
Budget
FY21-22
Estimated
Actual
FY22-23
Recommended
101-117-00-42001 Contract Services $2,740,196 $2,735,196 $2,905,342 101-117-00-42005 Community Promotions 500 1,097 500
101-117-00-42103 Medical Supplies 3,000 1,200 3,000
101-117-00-42104 Safety Equipment and Supplies 7,000 3,800 7,000 101-117-00-42107 Gas and Oil 14,000 7,000 14,000
101-117-00-42202 Equipment Maintenance 4,450 3,016 4,450 101-117-00-42203 Vehicle Maintenance 35,000 11,000 35,000 Total $2,804,146 $2,762,309 $2,969,292
52 Attachment 2

PUBLIC SAFETY
Police
▪ The FY 22-23 Budget increases by $514,923 over the FY 21-22 Amended Budget, primarily due to the addition of a full fiscal year’s worth of personnel costs for 3.0 FTE new 2-year limited term positions that were added in FY21-22 ( 1.0 FTE Police Officer and 2.0 FTE Commnity Services Officer). The Department will continue to focus on patrol and responding to public safety needs.
▪ The FY 22-23 Budget reflects an increase of $51,361 in services and supplies over FY 21-22.

The increase is primarily the result of upgrading aging equipment, increased ammunition prices, providing CERT team uniforms and equipment, and training and supplies needed to fill vacant positions. Training expenses were increased to add Critical Incident Training, Deescalation and Racial Bias Training for all department members. Contract services include expenses critical to operations including dispatch, jail booking and animal services provided by Monterey County; tasers, body and surveillance cameras and associated software and maintenance costs. Fuel costs are projected to increase as well. 53 Attachment 2

PUBLIC SAFETY
Police
Account Number Account Description FY21-22
Amended
Budget
FY21-22
Estimated
Actual
FY22-23
Recommended
101-116-00-41001 Salaries $698,972 $533,198 $829,659
101-116-00-41002 Salaries -Safety $1,931,512 $1,747,609 $2,142,749 101-116-00-41006 Overtime -Safety $185,000 $322,742 $205,000 101-116-00-41009 Holiday in Lieu $141,270 $121,574 $171,329 101-116-00-41101 Retirement $42,945 $34,263 $52,952
101-116-00-41102 Retirement -Safety $327,515 $239,829 $330,706 101-116-00-41103 Deferred Compensation $21,294 $16,860 $24,144 101-116-00-41104 Health Insurance $441,847 $312,783 $461,169 101-116-00-41106 Medicare $42,201 $38,428 $49,063
101-116-00-41107 LTD/STD/Life $3,469 $2,860 $3,939
101-116-00-41108 Worker's Comp $91,498 $75,216 $119,455 101-116-00-41109 Benefits-MOU Obligations $520 $433 $0
101-116-00-41111 Uniform Allowance $33,120 $27,520 $34,560 Salaries & Benefits Subtotal $3,961,163 $3,473,315 $4,424,725 101-116-00-42001 Contract Services $293,300 $201,684 $335,635 101-116-00-42005 Community Promotions $1,000 $207 $1,000 101-116-00-42101 Office Supplies $7,500 $6,154 $8,500
101-116-00-42102 Publications & Subscriptions $915 $180 $960 101-116-00-42104 Safety Equipment and Supplies $41,450 $40,500 $25,450 101-116-00-42106 Small Tools and Equipment $0 $0 $0
101-116-00-42107 Gas and Oil $32,500 $32,290 $48,750
101-116-00-42201 Building Maintenance $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 101-116-00-42202 Equipment Maintenance $42,300 $50,000 $38,181 101-116-00-42203 Vehicle Maintenance $23,000 $21,000 $23,000 101-116-00-42301 Training & Education $14,250 $9,000 $21,750 101-116-00-42304 Dues & Memberships $1,400 $950 $1,550
101-116-00-42403 Printing $4,700 $2,800 $5,900
101-116-00-42404 Shipping/Postage/Freight $500 $300 $500 101-116-00-42405 Telephone and Communications $8,500 $6,500 $8,500 101-116-00-42415 Other Expenditures $6,000 $12,000 $9,000 Services & Supplies Subtotal $478,315 $384,565 $529,676 Total $4,439,478 $3,857,880 $4,954,401
54 Attachment 2
55 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT

PLAN (CIP)
Attachment 2

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Description
The FY 22-23 Recommended Budget includes $5.03 million for capital projects. This level of capital spending represents 16% of the total citywide budget of $32.3 million. As the economy recovers from the economic impact of the pandemic, sales tax revenue generated by Measure C, the City’s local sales tax, plays a pivotal role in provide a funding source for the City’s capital needs. The presence of state and county gas and transit taxes also provide a consistent base, albeit partial, for much needed street projects. That said the five-year capital plan points out that, as vital as these funding sources are, they cannot cover the full scope of identified improvements in the long term requiring that we attend to the highest needs and deferring others until funding becomes available.

Capital outlay funds several types of projects as depicted to the right in the “FY 22-23 CIP Funding by Category” chart. Streets and sidewalks
account for 20% of capital expense, with a
proposed budget of $1 million, largely
funded by revenues the City receives
specifically for street maintenance and other
transportation-related projects. Public safety
is prioritized with the long overdue need to
renovate City policy facilities. Police safety
accounts for 28% of capital expenditures for
a total of $1.4 million including $1.3 million
for facility renovation augmenting the prior
approved $2 million budget. The FY 22-23
Recommended Budget recognizes the
importance of facility investments and
“green” infrastructure which combined make
up 25% of capital expenditures. The spending plan for deferred facility maintenance items equals $805,000 and addresses library needs, Sunset center renovations, City Hall roofing and retaining walls, Vista Lobos design and general beautification projects. “Green” projects reach $400,000 and include electric vehicle panel upgrades, supporting generators and costal engineering studies. The remaining $27%, or $1.3 million includes critical drainage, environmental and technology projects including Drainage design, MTNP beautification, North Dunes restoration and the purchase of a zero emissions street sweeper.

Capital outlay includes $685,000 for the projects listed in Table 1, FY 22-23 Recommended Vehicle and Equipment Acquisitions and Funding Source.

Table 1: FY 22-23 Recommended Vehicle and Equipment Acquisitions and Funding Source 56 Account Number Account Description FY22-23
Recommended Funding Source
503-513-00-43005 Ambulance Equipment +AED 75,000 Measure C 503-513-00-43005 2 Residential Electric Vehicles (CPB) 30,000 Measure C 503-513-00-43005 Electric Sweeper ($200K Grant Funded) 550,000 Measure C/3CE Grant 503-513-00-43006 Police Radios Lease (Year 2 of 6) 30,000 Measure C $685,000
Vehicle and Equipment Fund
Total
Attachment 2
Funding prioritizes public safety response capabilities, including enhanced communications and the purchase of new vehicles. A focus on environmentally friendly vehicles is evident in this year’s spending plan. The budget also invests in critical safety equipment related to emergency ambulance services.

Vehicle & Equipment:

Ambulance Equipment and Automated External Defibrillator (AED): Upon purchase of the Ambulance, a FY 2021/22 carry-over project, additional funding is required to purchase the necessary safety equipment and AED to be installed in the new ambulance. $75,000 is recommended. The Police and Fire Departments will lead this project
Two Residential Electric Vehicles (REVs) for Community Planning and Building: The Community Planning and Building Department requests to utilize the proceeds from the sale of the existing building inspection vehicle, as well as to apply for grant funding from Central Coast Community Energy, to purchase two REVs for use by Planning and Building staff to conduct site visits and inspections. It is anticipated that the purchase will be largely funded by the vehicle sale and grants ($25,000), with the remaining $5,000 provided by the City.

Street Sweeper: The existing street sweeper is 12 years old and is past its useful life, requiring frequent repairs, sometimes costing over $5,000 for each repair. Staff evaluated alternatives for a repurchase including renting/leasing a sweeper (which is economically restrictive over just a few years), or contracting out these services to a private company. Multiple agency contacts warned staff that contracted street sweeping services are often plagued by substandard performance levels, inability to be promptly responsive, and complaints.

Furthermore, with Carmel’s lack of curbs and gutters, coupled with extensive pine needles, the privatized street sweeping operations would likely be substandard for Carmel. Staff has been exploring diesel, as well as electric and hybrid sweeper models that work on a vacuum system (rather than a broom system that would not be effective on Carmel streets). Although electric sweepers are costlier, Central Coast Community Energy has a grant program that would fund the cost difference between a diesel and electric sweeper, up to a maximum of $200,000. A net of $350,000 is budgeted for the sweeper purchase. While electric sweepers would be preferred, a disadvantage would be to charge up the sweeper overnight at electric vehicle charging stations until a more powerful, commercial-grade vehicle charger could be installed at the Public Works Yard.

Radios Lease (Year 2): Twenty-two (22) Police radios were leased starting last year to replace the prior, hand-held radios that were past their useful life. The radios are leased/purchased at $30,000 per year for a total of six (6) years. FY 2022/23 marks the second year of the six-year lease. The Police and Finance Departments will coordinate this project.

Table 2: FY 22-23 Recommended Capital Projects and Funding Source In addition, funding for various other capital projects total $4.34 million. The funding sources include Measure C revenue as well as transportation-related revenues and project specific grants. (See Table 2, FY 22-23 Recommended Capital Projects and Funding Source, located on the following pages.) Project descriptions follow the table explain the nature and background of each.

The Recommended Budget proposes the use of available fund balances that have resulted from prior period savings and the postponements of capital projects during pandemic shutdowns and staffing shortages. Table 2 has identified these projects that have been deferred and remain in need of attention. The tally and identification of these projects is directly related to the budget strategy taken this year in the attempt to “catchup” for maintenance unavoidably foregone. This use of fund balances as proposed in the FY 22-23 Recommended Budget leaves policy reserves intact and is directly related to this one-year extended level of capital spending.

As we look beyond FY 22-23 into the five-year CIP plan, it becomes apparent that the level of CIP expenditures proposed this year cannot be maintained in the long term. Although the five-year plan does its job in articulating the physical project needs it also tells us that the City is faced with more capital needs than it can 57 Attachment 2
afford. This is true even if capacity resources are at full strength. Hence, priorities and limits will need to be set in navigating a sound fiscal plan in the longer term.

Capital Projects Fund
Fund 301 Acccount 43008
Strategic
Priority
Category Description FY 22.23
Recommended
Funding Source
Grants Streets Paving Project -Concrete Street Repairs $ 15,300 General Fund/RSTIP General Fund/Hostelry
TAMC: Gas Tax, RMRHA
Grants Streets Paving Project -Concrete Street Repairs 563,700 Grants Streets Paving Project -Concrete Street Repairs 426,000 Grants Streets 1,005,000
Grants Drainage MTNP 3 Stream/Drainage Projects - Construction 25,000 Measure C (Match) Grants Drainage MTNP 3 Stream/Drainage Projects - Construction 117,000 Parks Per Capita Grant CIP Planning Drainage Drainage Design Bottlenecks & Spot Repairs -Design Phase II 500,000 Measure C CIP Planning Facilities Facilities Component Inspections 85,000 Measure C Public Safety Facilities Police Facility Renovation - Additional Scope 1,300,000 Measure C Public Safety Facilities ADA Upgrades 15,000 Measure C
Resilience Facilities Resilience Infrastructure Pilot Design 85,000 Measure C Resilience Facilities Electrical Panel Upgrade Design 75,000 Measure C Resilience Frst/Parks/Bch Coastal Engineering Report 150,000 Measure C Resilience Frst/Parks/Bch North Dunes Restoration/Split Rail Fence/Signage 10,000 Measure C Resilience Frst/Parks/Bch North Dunes Restoration/Split Rail Fence/Signage 25,000 Donation Resilience IT/Planning Public Access Property Records (Yr 2) 67,000 Measure C Resilience IT/Planning HML Generator 60,000 Measure C
Resilience IT/Planning UPS Power Back-UP Systems 20,000 Measure C Deferred Maint Facilities HML Exterior and Interior Painting 200,000 Measure C Deferred Maint Facilities HML Carpet Replacement 100,000 Measure C Deferred Maint Facilities Sunset Center Haz Mat Remediation and Exterior Painting 150,000 Measure C Deferred Maint Facilities Sunset Center Cottage Windows 105,000 Measure C Deferred Maint Facilities City Hall Roof Replacement 100,000 Measure C Deferred Maint Facilities City Hall Retaining Wall Repair 100,000 Measure C Deferred Maint Facilities Vista Lobos Interior Remodel Design [New] 25,000 Measure C Deferred Maint Frst/Parks/Bch Beautification Projects 25,000 Measure C Deferred Maintenance 805,000
Total $ 4,344,000
Grants:

Concrete Street Repairs: This project includes the repair of concrete street segments, including Ocean Avenue between Monte Verde Street and San Antonio Avenue, plus the intersections of Ocean Avenue at San Antonio, San Carlos Street and Fifth Avenue, San Carlos and Sixth Avenue, and a curb bulb-out and ADA ramp on the east side of Junipero Street across from Seventh Avenue. Public Works initially identified this project based on the Street Saver Pavement Management System and recommends focusing one full funding cycle strictly on concrete street repairs for cost-effectiveness. This project is partially funded by State Gas Tax and TAMC transit taxes.

Mission Trails Nature Preserve (MTNP) Stream Stability Projects – Construction: This project is the construction phase of the first three (3) of eight (8) stream restoration and erosion control measures recommended by the Mission Trail Nature Preserve Stream Stability Study. The project is largely funded by a California State Parks Per Capita Grant. In FY 2021/22, the City retained engineering and environmental consultants to design and obtain environmental permits for the project. The project will continue to be managed by the Environmental Compliance Manager.
58 Attachment 2
CIP Planning:

Drainage System Repair Design, Phase II: This project, which is part of a multi-year drainage improvement program, would allocate an additional $500,000 to continue the development of drainage system improvement plans to fix the highest and moderate priority broken pipes and bottlenecks, based on the findings of the Drainage Master Plan. This funding would supplement the Drainage System Repairs – Design project carryover funds from FY 2021/22. Nearly $7.5 million will be needed to complete the highest and moderate priority repairs. A request for Statements of Qualifications has been posted to hire a consultant to design this project. A PM is needed to implement this project.

Facilities Component Inspections: This project would be a follow-up to the cursory Facilities Assessment conducted in 2013 and would include ASTM E 2018-5 or similar property condition assessments for City Hall, Fire Station, Public Works, and Vista Lobos facilities by qualified engineers and architects. Reports would include detailed specifics on building infrastructure along with any noted deficiencies and their associated estimated costs. A project manager is needed to implement this project.

Public Safety:

Police Renovation Additional Scope: The additional cost for the expanded project scope (beyond the $2 million carryover amount), including locker room modernization, public report taking area, an Emergency Operations Center (EOC)/community meeting room, and EV charging infrastructure, would be $1.3 million.

This added project scope may trigger additional code-required improvements, including a fire sprinkler system, additional ADA facilities, seismic upgrades, and/or replacement of electrical wiring. Since the scope of these additional improvements, if required, is premature to determine at this time, staff recommends that the $1.3 million budget be maintained. As the design proceeds the could evolve into two phases, with the first phase of the project as previously bid (with minor updates) and a second phase to include the new EOC, locker rooms, report taking area, EV charging station, and any code-triggered, building-wide upgrades. An architectural consultant has been evaluating these changes and developing budgetary cost estimates for the City’s benefit, but they are not yet under contract to commence work. A PM is needed to recommence this increasingly complex, but urgently needed project.

ADA Upgrades, Year 5: Funding should continue to be programmed each year to demonstrate good faith efforts to address disability obstacles across the City. Year 5 would continue with in-house and vendor upgrades to water fountains, bathroom facilities, signage, and railings as specified in the ADA Transition Plan.

A budget of $15,000 is recommended and this program will continue to be managed by the Facilities Maintenance Supervisor.

Resilience:

Resilience Infrastructure Pilot Project Planning and Design: In accordance with the recommendations of the Climate Adaptation Plan, this pilot project involves developing a feasibility analysis and engineering plans for sustainable backup power to provide continued operations of critical facilities at the Police, Public Works, and Youth Center community emergency hub, and potentially tie in the Vista Lobos facility, in the event of an extended power outage. Currently, the first three buildings are backed up by an above-ground diesel powered backup generator. However, diesel may become more difficult to obtain in extended emergencies, and health and safety regulations may make the above ground tanks an environmental liability into the future. This project will need to be coordinated with the electrical panel upgrades proposed at some of these locations (as described in the project below), and it may be beneficial to combine the project using one consultant and one PM. Additionally, the Police Building being a mission critical facility, may require a combination of an alternative energy backup system with that of a conventional generator backup system to avert power interruptions that would otherwise have a severe impact on operations. This project could be expanded at some point to include City Hall and/or other City buildings. Grants may partially cover the cost of implementation. The budget for this 59 Attachment 2
first planning and design phase of the project is $85,000. A request for Statements of Qualifications has been posted to hire a consultant to design this project. A PM is needed to implement this project.

Electrical Panel Upgrades for City Hall, Public Works, Sunset Center, and Vista Lobos Facilities:

Despite some reduced loads on existing electrical panels due to the installation of numerous LED lights and energy-efficient HVAC equipment over the past few years, electrical panels at these facilities are at capacity and in some cases, circuits trip with small additional loads. Upgrades are necessary for these facilities to accommodate more computer equipment, increased staffing, new/additional electric vehicle chargers to allow the progressive replacement of the existing fleet with electric vehicles, and to accommodate future needs. The PG&E power conductors to these electrical panels may also need to be enlarged to handle the higher projected loads. Before the panels can be upgraded, a study is necessary to determine: a) the existing electrical capacity available at each location, b) PG&E and building code requirements, and c) current and anticipated future electrical loads. The cost to perform such a study along with PG&E’s design review cost of $5k per site is estimated to be $75,000. A request for Statements of Qualifications has been posted to hire a consultant to evaluate this project. A PM is needed to implement this project.

Sea Level Rise/Coastal Engineering Report: This report has been identified by the Climate Committee as a critical document for sea level rise resilience planning. This report will ensure the City has the information and tools necessary to make decisions related to the long-term durability and maintenance needs of our coastal resources and infrastructure. For efficiency, this project would be combined with the Beach Sand Survey and Wall Inspections project, a FY 2021/22 carry-over project. A consultant would be needed with an estimated fee of $150,000. Staff is researching whether grant opportunities can be leveraged to fund this project. A request for Statements of Qualifications has been posted to hire a consultant to execute this, and many other projects.

The Environmental Compliance Manager will manage this project.

North Dunes Habitat Restoration Project (Year 7): Significant habitat improvements have been made at the North Dunes in recent years by removing invasive trees, non-native plants, ice plant, planting native dune vegetation, installing post and cable fencing, and other restoration actions. The progress on the restoration project should be maintained by continuing to fund restoration activities and biological monitoring and reporting. The cost to maintain restoration activities and monitoring is $10,000. Staff will seek grant funding, donations, and/or additional volunteer labor donations to continue additional enhancements, including new interpretive signage and/or split rail border fencing. The Environmental Compliance Manager will continue to manage this project.

Public Access Property Records and GIS (Phase 2): The Community Planning and Building Department retained a consultant in FY2021/22 to digitize the City’s vast property files, to link those records to the City’s existing online GIS portal, and to incorporate additional data layers into the GIS. The project was split into two years with $66,250 budgeted in FY 2021/22, and $67,000 proposed for FY 2022/23 to complete the project.

Once complete, this project will significantly increase public access to the City’s property records while reducing staff time spent on fulfilling records requests. The Community Planning and Building Director will continue to manage this project.

Backup Generator at the Harrison Memorial Library: Preliminary quotes were received for a new generator to predominantly backup the IT servers and essential equipment in the lower level of the library. This has proven to be a tricky project as there is limited outdoor space available for the generator, which has restricted progress to date. The quotes were under $60,000. It is recommended that the implementation of this project be conducted in coordination with the Resilience Infrastructure Planning and Design Project and managed by the same PM.

Uninterrupted Power Supply System: An estimate of $20,000 is needed to protect our computer systems and secure the City's data from power disruptions. The IT Manager will manage this project. 60 Attachment 2
Deferred Maintenance:

Harrison Memorial Library Exterior and Interior Painting: This project and the following project (carpet replacement) for the Harrison Memorial Library could be considered a "package deal." A City investment of $100,000 to paint the exterior of the library, $100,000 to paint the interior, (combined $200,000) and another $100,000 to replace all of the carpeting, would satisfy the City’s deferred and ongoing maintenance obligation for this historic building. This $300,000 total investment by the City would likely leverage significant private donations to the library for extensive interior renovations, including shelving, furniture, lighting, and other upgrades. A request for Statements of Qualifications has been posted to hire a consultant to design this project. A PM is needed for this project.

Harrison Memorial Library Carpet Replacement: This project, along with the interior and exterior painting project described above, would satisfy the City’s ongoing maintenance obligation for this historic building. The carpet replacement cost estimate is $100,000. This project should not commence until the FY 2021/22 carryover Libraries Master Plan project is completed so that no carpeting will have to be redone for any proposed remodels. However, the carpet specifications should be prepared concurrently during the design of the exterior and interior painting project above. The PM assigned to the painting project will also oversee this carpet replacement project.

Sunset Center Hazardous Materials Remediation and Exterior Painting: The exterior of Sunset Center has not been painted in many decades. As part of a recently-completed FY 2021/22 project, paint and window casing samples were tested for hazardous materials. Hazardous material remediation and repair of some of the windows was planned for FY 2021/22; however, the funding was re-appropriated for an emergency replacement of the HVAC Controller necessary for the continued operation of the theatre facilities. Asbestos was noted in only a few locations; however, lead was present in the paint in nearly all cases. Without further testing, we can no longer assume that the lead paint can be encapsulated in place, rather costlier remediation/ removal of the existing paint will likely be necessary prior to new painting. This project cost would include hiring a consultant to prepare performance specifications for the lead remediation and exterior painting, and hiring a contractor to do the remediation and painting in the field. It is premature to determine the extent to which the proposed budget of $150,000 will go, but future phases may be necessary. A request for Statements of Qualifications has been posted to hire a consultant to design this project. A PM is needed to implement this project.

Sunset Center Cottage Window Repairs: This project is a companion project to the Sunset Center Hazardous Materials Remediation and Exterior Painting Project above. This project would be to remediate asbestos and lead paint around the windows of the Sunset Center Cottages, and repair or replace the imminently-failing windows. Consultant-prepared performance specifications prepared for the above project, and the PM for the above project, should also perform these services for this related project, for efficiency.

The project cost estimate for the Cottage Windows is $105,000.

City Hall Roof Replacement: The City Hall roof was last replaced in 1984 and is approximately 15-years past its warranty. Roof leaks have been increasing and repaired by contractors, or staff, over the past few years as the roof progressively deteriorates. Based on a budgetary quote, the cost for this project is $100,000. A PM is needed for this project.

City Hall Retaining Wall Emergency Repair: This new, unanticipated project is identified as a high-priority emergency repair for the planter retaining wall on the south side of the City Hall building. The planter retaining wall not only supports the planter box but is also a structural element of the building wall and foundation. A structural repair plan is underway, but the cost for this project is unknown at this time. At this time, $100,000 is recommended for repairs. The project design is being overseen by the Building Official, and a PM will be needed for bidding and construction of this project.

Vista Lobos Interior Remodel Design: Several City departments have severe shortages of suitable workspace for existing staff, let alone new recruits. This proposed project would involve designing the remodel of the community room at Vista Lobos to be converted into staff workspaces (modular offices) after renovation, 61 Attachment 2
if funded in the subsequent FY 2023/24. Due to the urgent need of office space, this remodel would be limited to just the community room and kitchenette area, not the entire building. The community room needs new insulation, interior lighting, HVAC system, partition walls and door for a small meeting room, sheetrock, and painting. The main roof support beams may need to be structurally tied to the support columns. The cost to design this limited remodel is estimated to be $25,000. A request for Statements of Qualifications has been posted to hire a consultant to design this project. A PM is needed to implement this project.

Beautification Projects: The City has been working collaboratively for years with several community organizations such as Carmel Cares, Friends of the Forest, Friends of Mission Trail Nature Preserve, the Garden Club, and others to rectify deferred landscape maintenance and improve and beautify public spaces throughout the City. The purpose of this $25,000 project would be fund and provide materials and supplies, and potentially limited contracted landscape services, to support beautification projects and similar, volunteerled efforts across the City. This Beautification Project will be managed by the City Forester supported by the Volunteer Coordinator.

Key Projects and Funding Needs for the Subsequent Four (4) Fiscal Years, to be included as an Exhibit in the Budget as a 5-year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) A preliminary 5-year Capital Improvement Plan has been developed. Although only the first fiscal year (2022/23) would be funded as part of the City Budget, the remaining years serve as a planning tool to identify, well in advance, anticipated future projects. The 5-year CIP is a “snap shot” in time of anticipated needs for future infrastructure revitalization funding in the outer years.

As a dynamic planning document, the CIP for Years 2-5 is subject to change as updated information becomes available. Staff suggests that this year, should this 5-Year CIP be accepted by Council, staff could post this document on the City’s website.

The following are major projects, by asset category, and ballpark budget estimates (including probable grants), for Years 2-5:
• Drainage: pipe repairs, bottleneck reconfigurations, outfall repairs, and CDS design = $1.8 million • Streets: paving, sidewalk repairs, parking lot repairs, and bike routes = $4.0 million • Facilities: building repairs, renovations, resilience upgrades, equipment replacement = $3.9 million • Forest, Parks, Beach: beach wall stabilizations, MTNP and N. Dunes projects = $1.8 million • Fleet: outdated heavy equipment and vehicle replacements, electric vehicles = $1.2 million • Environmental: climate change improvements, program development = $195k • IT: equipment replacements, security upgrades, PD records, and GIS expansion = $430k • Libraries: renovations per master plan, roof replacement = $600k The grand total estimate of $13.9 million (the four-year term yr. 2 through yr. 5) clearly exceeds anticipated revenues and fund balance availability for projects in those future years. Since the noted infrastructure above will not repair itself and will simply continue to decline without adequate funding, additional revenue should be evaluated. Table 3 below, developed from a financial forecast, graphically represents how the Five-Year CIP would significantly draw upon available fund balances assuming the identified level of capital expenditures progress without alternative funding sources. Although important policy reserves would be preserved, the City would deplete its fund balance cushion taking away its ability to be nimble in the face of uncertainty and economic recession or crisis.
62 Attachment 2
Table 3: Five Year Budget/CIP Fiscal Forecast
* This chart assumes the execution of all capital expenditures (Over $19 million in the five-year term including FY 22-23) as outlined in the five-year CIP as the budget progresses with normalized revenue growth and operating cost parameters being closely controlled at prudent levels. This presumes the non-occurrence of another COVID or COVID like event and a steady state economy. This also presumes no additionally added revenue sources and/or debt financing. 63 Attachment 2
64 DEBT SERVICE
(FUND 401)
Attachment 2

DEBT SERVICE
Description: Fund 401
Debt service includes payments for the Next Generation Radio Project, the Sunset Center, and the Pension Obligation bonds. These payments total $878,000 as shown in Table 1, FY 22-23 Debt Service, below.

Countywide Radio Project: On April 7, 2009, City Council authorized the City’s participation in the Countywide Monterey County Next Generation Radio project (NGEN), including approving a pro-rata share of infrastructure costs and debt financing. The purpose of the project was to enhance communication among public safety agencies. The Certificate of Participation (COP), issued for $381,440, matures on June 30, 2023. 2020 Refunding Lease Revenue Bonds: On September 10, 2010, City Council approved the issuance and sale of certificates to finance improvements at the Sunset Center (the Sunset Theater Project), including the refinancing of the City’s lease payment obligation related to the preliminary financing of the Sunset Center (the 2010 Refunding Lease Revenue Bond). The COP of approximately $7.6 million included a maturity date of November 1, 2031. On September 3, 2020, the Public Improvement Authority and City Council determined that a refunding of the 2010 Bond was in the City’s best interest to take advantage of historically low interest rates and to achieve cash flow savings in light of the economic impact of COVID-19 on the City’s revenues. The 2020 Refunding Lease Revenue Bond of approximately $3.9 million matures on November 1, 2032. As part of the refinancing, the City will make significantly lower interest only payments in FY 22-23; however, payments will increase to approximately $500,000 annually beginning in FY 23-24. 2012 Taxable Pension Obligation Bonds: In 2003, the City’s pension plans were pooled with other small cities and agencies and the California Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS) estimated that the pension liabilities of the City’s two pension plans exceeded the plans’ assets by approximately $6 million. CalPERS sought to realign assets with liabilities and created the “side fund.” On July 3, 2012, the City Council authorized the issuance of pension obligation bonds to refinance the City’s side fund obligations to CalPERS, The COP of approximately $6.3 million matures on June 1, 2023.

Table 1: FY 22-23 City Total Debt Service
Debt Service: Total
Account Number Account Description FY21-22
Amended Budget
FY21-22
Estimated Actual
FY22-23
Recommended
401-411-00-44001 Principal $677,110 $677,110 $696,423
401-411-00-44002 Interest 200,546 200,546 176,880
401-411-00-44003 Administrative Fees 5,000 5,000 5,000
Total $882,656 $882,656 $878,303
Table 2: FY 22-23 Debt Service by Bond
Debt Service: by Bond
Bond Principal Interest Admin. Fee Total
NGEN Radio $16,423 $0 $0 $16,423
Sunset Center - 155,800 2,500 158,300
Pension Obligation 680,000 21,080 2,500 703,580
Total $696,423 $176,880 $5,000 $878,303
Funding Sources
General Fund revenues are the source of funding for debt service payments. The General Fund (Fund 101) will transfer $878,000 to Debt Service (Fund 401) in FY 22-23. 65 Attachment 2
66 OTHER FUNDS
Attachment 2
FUNDS
Description
The City uses a fund accounting structure, which is an accounting structure to record and track resources that are limited in use by law or governing agency. The major governmental funds are the General Fund, Measure D and Capital Projects. The first set of funds listed below are discretionary, meaning there are no legal or policyrelated restrictions on their use and can be used at the discretion of Council for services and projects.

General Fund (Fund 101)
Most of the City’s revenues and the expenditure budgets for City services and daily governmental operations are housed within the General Fund (Fund 101) and this is where the majority of the City’s financial activity occurs.

The major revenue sources associated with the General Fund include property tax, the City’s share of the statewide sales and use tax, charges for services, franchise fees, business tax, and intergovernmental revenue.

These revenues are considered to be general in nature. Throughout this budget document the GeneralFund is also referred to as the Operating Budget and City policy recommends a 15% Reserve.

Hostelry Fund (102)
This fund is used to account for the transient occupancy tax and is intended to fund the portion of the municipal budget covering community and cultural and recreation activities including but not limited to Sunset Center and the Forest Theater, parks, public facilities and municipal structures, and parking lots; acquisition and improvement of parks, recreation land and other municipal purposes as determined from time to time by the City Council; provided, that all such uses shall be in accordance with the General Plan of the City and General Fund for usual and current expenses. City financial policy recommends a reserve of 10% of revenues.

Measure C Sales Tax (Fund 206)
Carmel voters approved a temporary (10 year) 1% increase in the transactions and use tax in 2012 known as Measure D. On March 3, 2020, voters approved Measure C, which increases the tax to 1.5% for 20 years.

Measure C may be used for debt service, capital projects and general City services.

The next set of funds are restricted as there are requirements prescribed by the local, state or federal governmental agencies regarding how these funds may be used.

Gas Tax (Fund 201)
This fund is used to account for revenues collected in accordance with California Streets and Highway Code.

Transportation Safety (Fund 202)
Measure X, a 30 year 3/8 of one-percent transactions and use tax, was passed by the voters in November 2016 to fund transportation safety and mobility projects in Monterey County. This fund accounts for the expenditures for eligible transportation safety projects.

COPS Grant
This fund accounts for the expenditures for the Department of Justice Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) grant for public safety. This fund transfers into the General Fund for the Police Department budget.

Parking in Lieu (Fund 204)
This fund is used to account for activities associated with parking in-lieu fees as prescribed by Carmel Municipal Code Section 17.38.040.

Asset Seizure (Fund 205)
This fund accounts for expenditures related to asset seizures. 67 Attachment 2
FUNDS
The next two funds pertain to certain types of expenditures.

Capital Projects (Fund 301)
This fund accounts for resources utilized, committed, assigned or restricted for capital projects.

Debt Service (Fund 401)
This fund accounts for activities related to the repayment of the Certificate of Participation, Pension Obligation Bond and capital lease obligations.

The next set of funds are considered to be internal service funds.

Workers Compensation (Fund 501)
This fund accounts for workers’ compensation insurance provided to departments on a cost reimbursement basis.

Other Post-Employment Benefits (OPEB) Liability Reserve Fund This fund accounts for other post-employment benefits.

Vehicle and Equipment Replacement Fund
This fund is to set aside financial resources for future purchases of replacement equipment essential to the operations of the City.

There is one agency fund.

Refundable Deposits
This fund accounts for monies received that are unearned and required to be returned by the City.

The accompanying tables depicts the Projected Fund Balance for FY 21-22 and FY 22-23.

General Fund
The General Fund is estimated to start FY 22-23 with a fund balance of $11.3 million and end with $11.3 million on June 30, 2023 due to the General Fund budget being balanced with the use of estimated new revenue and transfers in from other funds, such as the Hostelry Fund. Fund balance is the accumulation of prior years’ savings and may also be considered a “rainy day fund”. Carmel Municipal Code Section 3.06.040 states that the City shall maintain a General Fund balance equivalent to at least 15% of the General Fund budget in each fiscal year and this is referred to as the reserve. A reserve may be considered as a minimum amount of savings that the City has available for emergency or other purposes.

Hostelry Fund
FY 22-23 assumes $6.7 million in new revenue that will be transferred to the General Fund to support citywide operations.

Gas Tax (Fund 201)
Revenue of $209,2001 is anticipated in FY 22-23 to be transferred to Capital Projects for street paving. 68 Attachment 2
FUNDS
Transportation Safety (Fund 202)
Revenue of $201,100 is anticipated in FY 22-23 to be transferred to Capital Projects for street paving.

COPS Grant
Revenue of $158,000 is anticipated in FY 22-23 and will be transferred to the General Fund for Police Department salaries for eligible positions.

Parking in Lieu (Fund 204)
There is no activity budgeted in this fund for FY 22-23.

Asset Seizure (Fund 205)
There is no activity budgeted in this fund for FY22-23.

Measure C Sales Tax (Fund 206)
Measure C has a projected fund balance of $1.6 million as of 7/1/22. The FY 22-23 projected revenue of $5.7 million will be transferred to the General Fund ($ 3.5 million), Capital Improvement Projects ($3.6 million), and Vehicle & Equipment Replacement ($285,000) There is no reserve requirement for Measure C.

Capital Projects (Fund 301)
This fund is projected to start and end FY 22-23 with $265,487 due to anticipated activity being covered by new revenue and transfers in.

Debt Service (Fund 401)
The FY 22-23 debt service activity is $878,000. Additional details on the bonds is found within the debt service section of this document. This fund includes a reserve required by the Sunset Center bond.

Workers Compensation (Fund 501)
The anticipated costs of claims payments, third party administrator services, and preventative costs are reflected in this fund. Previously, these expenses were accounted for in the General Fund. Based upon the auditor recommendation, they will be accounted for in this fund.

Other Post-Employment Benefits (OPEB) Liability Reserve Fund This fund was created by Council resolution to set aside funding to address OPEB liabilities. There is no reserve requirement. There is $1.8 million in the fund and no planned activity for FY 22-23.

Vehicle and Equipment Replacement Fund
The planned activity in this fund for FY 22-23 in the amount of $685,000 will be covered by new revenue and transfers in.
69 Attachment 2
Projected Fund Balance June 30, 2022
Fund Description
Audited Fund
Balance June 2021
Revenue and
Transfers In
Expenditures and
Transfers Out
Proposed Fund
Balance June 2022
Change in
Fund Balance
101 General Fund 5,556,178 25,588,779 23,186,184 7,958,773 2,402,595 101 General Fund Reserve 3,198,332 120,698 - 3,319,030 120,698 101 General Fund Total 8,754,510 25,709,477 23,186,184 11,277,803 2,523,293 102 Hostelry 3,326,958 6,972,100 6,438,700 3,860,358 533,400 102 Hostelry Reserve 533,400 - - 533,400
102 Hostelry Total 3,860,358 6,972,100 6,438,700 4,393,758 201 Gas Tax 212,823 167,400 306,564 73,659 (139,164)
202 Transportation Safety 237,709 250,600 319,000 169,309 (68,400) 203 COPS 55,866 154,600 154,600 55,866 -
204 Parking in Lieu 737,124 - - 737,124 -
205 Asset Seizure 5,455 - - 5,455 -
206 Local Measure Sales Tax 1,635,906 5,698,200 5,698,200 1,635,906 - 301 Capital Projects 539,863 2,953,676 3,228,052 * 265,487 (274,376) 401 Debt Service 393,133 882,656 882,656 393,133 -
501 Worker's Comp (20,344) 68,144 47,800 - 20,344
502 OPEB Reserve 1,845,329 - - 1,845,329 -
503 Veh & Eq Replacement 61,329 766,671 554,000 * 274,000 212,671 18,319,061 43,623,524 40,815,756 21,126,829 2,807,768
* Includes carry-over projects
70 PROJECTED FUND BALANCE
71 Proposed Fund Balance June 30, 2023
Estimated Fund Revenue and Expenditures and Proposed Fund Change in Fund Description Balance June 2022 Transfers In Transfers Out Balance June 2022 Fund Balance 101 General Fund 7,958,503 26,299,750 26,950,209 7,308,044 (650,459) 101 General Fund Reserve 3,319,300 650,459 3,969,759 650,459 101 General Fund Total 11,277,803 26,950,209 26,950,209 11,277,803 - 102 Hostelry 3,860,358 6,533,700 6,667,000 3,727,058 (133,300) 102 Hostelry Reserve 533,400 133,300 666,700 133,300
102 Hostelry Total 3,860,358 6,667,000 6,667,000 4,393,758 - 201 Gas Tax 73,659 209,200 209,200 73,659 -
202 Transportation Safety 169,309 202,100 202,100 169,309 - 203 COPS 55,866 158,000 158,000 55,866 -
204 Parking in Lieu 737,124 - - 737,124 -
205 Asset Seizure 5,455 - - 5,455 -
206 Local Measure Sales Tax 1,635,906 5,721,000 7,356,906 - (1,635,906) 301 Capital Projects 265,487 4,282,697 4,344,000 204,184 (61,303) 401 Debt Service 393,133 485,170 878,303 - (393,133)
501 Worker's Comp - 148,160 148,160 - -
502 OPEB Reserve 1,845,329 - - 1,845,329 -
503 Veh & Eq Replacement 274,000 680,000 685,000 269,000 (5,000) 21,126,829 45,503,536 47,598,878 19,031,487 (2,095,342)

PROJECTED FUND BALANCE
City of Carmel-by-the-Sea
FY22-23
Budget Questions and Responses

1. Question/Comment: Did we include funding for the pedestrian and bike improvements (design and build) for Ocean Avenue in the budget estimate for the concrete streets work?
Response: The project funding amount is based on the City's required Maintenance of Effort (minimum City funds) plus all anticipated external funding sources. Bicycle and pedestrian pathway options along Ocean are being explored. If we do install said pathway, there would be less funds to repair San Carlos Street, between Fifth and Sixth Avenues; however, all of the funds would qualify to install the bike improvements.

2. Question/Comment: Where are the fees for the Norton Garage, and why aren't they included in the fee table?
Response: In the upcoming year staff intend to refresh the cost of services study in line with City fiscal policy. That will be an opportune time to also bring, independent of the attached User Fee schedules, other fees the City charges, such as facility rental fees, and parking (contractor parking permits, tour bus parking, and Norton Garage rental). Regarding the Norton Garage, fees were increased various times in recent years, in 2019 to $375/Qtr, in 2020 to $400/qtr and most recently in June 2021 to $500/Qtr. At the present time all parking spots are full and a waiting list of eleven (11) interested parties is on file.

3. Question/Comment: Why aren't the CC priorities included as part of the Council Priorities narrative for 2022-23?
Response: The FY22-23 Recommended Budget book will be updated for the June 7 budget hearings, inclusive of including the sixteen CC strategic priorities.

4. Question/Comment: Is the new continuance fee only based on an applicant's request? What's the difference between a continuance fee and a time extension fee? Response: As documented in the Cost of services Study performed by the City in 2015 and updated in 2020, a time extension fee has to do with the review of a time extension request by an applicant to extend the life of a permit at the Planning Commission or City Council. A continuance fee deals with the additional processing of a public hearing that is continued to a future date at the request of the applicant.

5. Question/Comment: What happened to the Director of Contracts and Budgets? Response: The position was replaced with the revised Finance Manager position as approved at the City Council meeting on April 4, 2022. The Finance Department will be restructured with the following positions: Finance Manager, Accountant, Finance Analyst, Finance Specialist.

6. Question/Comment: Our latest Pine Cone (May 6-12, 2022) reported the following information about the need for repairs in our village: “Windows are falling out of an old city-owned building that also has lead paint and asbestos. Drainage pipes are broken.

Issued on 6/7/22
Attachment 3
City of Carmel-by-the-Sea
FY22-23
Budget Questions and Responses
Part of the street sweeper was fixed by welding a piece of old street sign to it. Spiders are living in electrical panels that are so old they can’t support electric car chargers. City hall’s 40 year old roof leaks all the time. The list goes on and on, public works director Bob Harary told the city council.”
A. First of all, this an outrageous and embarrassing situation/condition for our city to be in. How on earth, have these needed repairs and projects been ignored and passed over in the budgeting process for such a long time that they have resulted in such dire need of repairs.

B. Has there been no attention paid to ongoing capital improvements, maintenance of city owned properties and necessary infrastructure repairs? C. Does the General Plan and Strategic Plan not address and require planning for ongoing maintenance of city owned properties through a designated reserve fund? D. And, of course, this list does not even address the dilapidated Scout House and Flanders Mansion that are continuing to deteriorate daily.

Response:

A) Comment noted.

B) Please see response to Question #7 below.

C) Every year the City issues the budget but also its audited financial report known as the ACFR (Annual Comprehensive Financial Report). Much like private companies, the audit quantifies the capital asset holdings of the City. For this past year that number totalled $65 million for the infrastructure required to make the City function. It also reports annual depreciation, the one year useful life cost, of capital as $2.1 million. In essence this number represents the dollars needed to just maintain underlying assets. It is significant to note that this dollar amount falls well below the cost of the City’s identified improvement needs considering current replacement costs, identified upgrades and new initiatives. The FY 22-23 budget alone identifies $5 million in capital expenditures and another $4 million to be carried forward from the existing budget. A view of the five-year CIP beyond FY22-23 reveals average annual capital needs of $3.5 million. In a nutshell, limited funding requires balancing and prioritizing conflicting projects.

D) Flander’s Mansion has a long history of efforts by the City to renovate the property.

Several years ago, the City made a strong effort to enter into a curatorship with a private family to renovate Flanders Mansion, at their expense, and then enjoy rent-free living in the Mansion for a number of years after the renovation. Unfortunately, negotiations fell through due to the costs involved. The City does maintain the building and grounds, using limited available resources, to prevent further decay of the facility. However, the City has not identified funding at this time to conduct a major renovation which would allow the facility to be used regularly.

Issued on 6/7/22
Attachment 3
City of Carmel-by-the-Sea
FY22-23
Budget Questions and Responses
The City is currently in the process of soliciting private entities to renovate the Scout House, and the private entity’s expense, and then continue to use the Scout House to manage programs and events, and to maintain the facility for a number of years following the renovation. A Request for Proposals, and proposed Maintenance of Operations Agreement, are currently being prepared for this effort.

7. Question/Comment: You boast a huge budget of over $30 million dollars and appear to be looking for new ways to spend the money versus strategically scheduling the necessary and ongoing expenditure needs of these deteriorating properties, replacement of equipment and setting aside reserves for future necessary expenditures such as these. What is your plan to remedy this outrageous situation? Response: The City has developed a five-year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) that communicates the many infrastructure needs of the City. It is a forward looking projection of improvements needed to address both core maintenance as well as desired enhancements to infrastructure and city facilities. The scope of the CIP is quite extensive covering streets, sidewalks, buildings, drainage, public open spaces, vehicles, equipment and public safety (both police & fire) needs. It also addresses the important emerging issues of climate change and environmental stewardship. The plan purposefully presents needs first, followed by the important consideration of how so many needs can be funded.

This year's budget message, and the CIP section of the document, make it clear that there are more capital needs than available funding. This quandary gives the rise to difficult choices in addressing what we can complete in any one year. The past three years have been particularly challenging given the unprecedented COVID event.

FY19-20 saw a decline in revenues of over $2 million leading to a significant reduction in staffing and resources.In fact, capital project funding was eliminated in the early days of the pandemic.

It is only now, with the presentation of the FY 22-23 budget, that staffing has been restored and a pattern of operational normalcy can be anticipated. It is also in the FY22-23 budget that capital projects, that were necessarily deferred, have been proposed to be attended to. They have been introduced at accelerated levels to “catch-up” for the unavoidable interruptions COVID has presented us with. Particularly, the budget proposes the use of $2.1 million in available fund balance, beyond the amount that could be funded with new-year revenue only, to specifically address the deferred maintenance needs noted in your question.

Our City’s challenges are not unlike those shared by many others, and we cannot underscore more the importance of the tremendous and timely support our community afforded the CIty in the passage of Measure C in 2020. This funding source, along with difficult cost control measures taken, is and will continue to be fiscally foundational.

8. Question/Comment: I am a full time resident of Carmel and I cannot understand why we now have a 30 million dollar budget but cannot open our libraries full time. 20 years ago we had a 10 million dollar budget, according to the article. Both libraries were open 6 days a week providing services for all ages. Both libraries are so important to the locals that live here. Our grandchildren come and say can we go to the library for story

Issued on 6/7/22
Attachment 3
City of Carmel-by-the-Sea
FY22-23
Budget Questions and Responses
hour? Well, no and let me see what time and day it might be open. We are library patrons and we are having a hard time figuring out why libraries are not a top priority.

Response: At the beginning of the pandemic there were retirements and layoffs of Library staff. This is not a matter of funds, as the City Council approved the full restoration of funding for pre-pandemic levels of Library staff in November 2021. The City has been actively recruiting for additional Library staff. As with many other sectors of the job market at the present, recruiting new staff is competitive, and this compounded with the high cost of living makes recruitments City-wide increasingly challenging.

As of the writing of this response, the Library just began the first in what will be a series of expansion of hours made possible by the fact that there is a new full-time staff member now on our team. Expansions of hours will continue to be done incrementally as additional staff are onboarded.

Libraries are of the utmost importance and we hope that the full-restoration of hours will go as quickly as possible. Despite the restricted hours we continue to strive to provide excellent service to our community. However, understanding the challenges of the job market and cost of living on the peninsula, we are prepared to observe patience as a part of this process and hope that the community will join us in this observation.

9. Question/Comment: We love to have a beach fire and we accept the fire pits but where are they?
Response: Per Coastal Development Permit CDP 18-231, five (5) wood-burning fire pits will be put out on Monday, May 16th, south of Tenth Avenue. They will be removed on September 15th or sooner if the tides are high.

10. Questions/Comment: And now parklets are a thing of the past. Did you ever think about maybe allowing parklets for only those restaurants that didn’t have an outside capability? That’s a moot point now.

Response: No. When the parklet program was implemented, it was done as a level playing field for anyone who wanted to take advantage of it. This included restaurants with and without existing outdoor space. When the decision was made to remove the parklets, it was treated the same way, so that the opportunity remained equal. When development of a permanent program begins, the analysis will involve looking at site conditions, which includes existing outdoor seating.

11. Questions/Comment: For the budget I would like to see the city spend on fire prevention, cleaning up overgrowth and cutting dead wood from trees and dead trees.

It’s been a year since dead trees here were designated for removal and they are still here. If the city could have more equipment and staff to do this rather than contract it all out. Urban fire is very scary and the drought continues.

Response: City staff has removed dead, diseased, and hazardous trees, as well as pruned trees, for many years. In fact, over the past few years, staff has progressed from only removing and pruning small trees to now being able to perform tree work on

Issued on 6/7/22
Attachment 3
City of Carmel-by-the-Sea
FY22-23
Budget Questions and Responses
mid-sized trees. The City must continue to rely on tree service contractors for the very large tree removals and for removals and pruning in the vicinity of electric power lines, for which there are many, as the contractors must have a specialty license to perform this work.

Over the past few years, the City has also made significant progress in removing dead trees, weeds, dead wood, fire fuel, and invasive species in the Mission Trail Nature Preserve and in the North Dunes area. A moderate amount of work has also been done in the Forest Hill Park and around Pescadero Canyon.

In terms of budgeting, the proposed budget for FY 2022/23 recommends $497,500 for contractual tree care and landscape maintenance services, a 50% increase from the $330,000 allocated in the current fiscal year budget.

The increased potential for wildfires and extended drought as a result of climate change are of concern and have been incorporated into the City’s draft Climate Action and Climate Adaptation Plans. Considerable information on these issues can be found on the City’s website at: Climate Committee - City of Carmel

12. Questions/Comment: Is there at least $50,000 for the Scenic Pathway in the budget? If so, where?
Response: Yes. The $50,000 is a FY 2021/22 Capital Improvement Project which will be carried-forward into the new FY 2022/23 Capital Improvement Program. No funds have been expended to date.

13. Questions/Comment: Why are the radios for the PD in the CIP? Response: The Capital Improvement Plan for Fiscal Year 2021/22 included the purchase of 22 new radios for the Police Department so that these radios could be tied into the regional radio communications network. To qualify as a capital purchase, the item must have a value over $10,000 and a useful life of at least ten years.

Because of the large total cost of the 22 radios, $180,000, the project is based on making payments over a six year time frame at $30,000 per year. The FY 2022/23 CIP represents the second of those payments.

14. Questions/Comment: Is the outside funding for the footbridge in Mission Trails Nature Preserve guaranteed?
Response: No. Carmel Cares initiated the work. The footbridge design work is in progress on a pro-bono basis. The City’s consultant is folding in the environmental permitting for this proposed bridge with three other City and grant-funded projects in the MTNP. While the volunteers are anticipated to see this project through construction, there is no guarantee at this time.

Issued on 6/7/22
Attachment 3
City of Carmel-by-the-Sea
FY22-23
Budget Questions and Responses

15. Questions/Comment: Please explain the “leveraging” of additional funds for the City’s required investment in the libraries (i.e. painting and carpeting).

Response: Per the Memorandum of Agreement between the City Council and the Harrison Memorial Library Board of Trustees the City will fund the interior painting and carpeting of the Harrison Memorial Library and Park Branch Library every ten years, in addition to exterior painting. The City is currently overdue for funding the interior painting and carpeting project at the Harrison Library.

The Carmel Public Library Foundation(CPLF) raises funds to support the Library’s operating budget. In addition they have raised funds for additional projects, such as the Park Branch Lobby renovation, and more recently the Gathering Place project at the Harrison Library.

These projects are above and beyond the City’s required basic maintenance of the Library facilities (painting and carpeting, etc.) and may have never been funded by the City.

The Library Master Plan project included in the recommended Capital Improvement Plan is proposed to be funded by the City. This Master Plan will provide a blueprint for continued improvements to both Library buildings that will be funded through donations to the Carmel Public Library Foundation. It is important in order to instill confidence in donors and potential donors that the City not only uphold its part of the Memorandum of Agreement - scary pandemics notwithstanding, but that the community feels that the City has some “skin in the game” when it comes to supporting the Library.

16. Questions/Comment: Does the repaving of a portion of Ocean Avenue (the concrete portion) facilitate the opportunity for additional tree planting? Response: Possibly.

17. Questions/Comment: What has been done to explore the opportunity for additional surveillance cameras in the City’s downtown to further protect against crime? Response: While not budgeted, we do have plans to explore expanded camera infrastructure in the downtown area. An initial cost estimate for cameras and installation is about $70,000, but the actual parameters of such a project has not been defined, so budgeting funds is not appropriate at this early stage. In the upcoming year, staff will review available technology, further specify project parameters, and obtain more accurate quotes. If appropriate at that point, we would proceed with a separate action item for the City Council to consider incorporating this additional project into the Capital Improvement Plan.

18. Question/Comment: Please define the viewshed corridor over Vista Lobos (Block 37, Lots 3 and 5).

Response: The viewshed is defined in the Zoning Code. “Block 37” is the block that contains Vista Lobos, the gas station, the public parking lot, etc.:

17.12.050 Preservation of Public Viewshed.

Issued on 6/7/22
Attachment 3
City of Carmel-by-the-Sea
FY22-23
Budget Questions and Responses
The significant coastal view across Block 37, Lots 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 20, 21, 22, and 24 within this district shall be preserved for public benefit. All site improvements or buildings approved within the R-4 district shall be studied by the Planning Commission for their effect on this viewshed. Existing views from the intersection of Torres Street and Third Avenue and from Lots 3, 5, and 7 in Block 37 zoned as district P-Z and shown on the following illustration (Figure II-7) shall be preserved. No structure shall be approved for construction and no vegetation shall be planted or maintained within the viewshed at a height that exceeds the 350-foot contour elevation as referenced on the topographic survey dated June 1983 by Clayton B. Neill Jr. (W.O. #6415).

Figure II-7: Public Viewshed

19. Question/Comment: Does the Vista Lobos parking lot provide parking for development that has paid ‘parking in lieu’ fees?
Response: After researching this matter, staff was unable to find a connection between the public parking spaces at Vista Lobos and any previous development that paid in lieu parking fees. If a project was proposed for Vista Lobos or the parking lot in the future, additional research would be conducted.

20. Question/Comment: Please explain the purpose of the funding for Vista Lobos design services. Why can’t the City use volunteer services for this endeavor? Response: The design of the Vista Lobos community room to be converted for modular office space and possible small conference room, could be performed by volunteers so long as the agency providing the volunteers is a 501(c)(3) corporation. The Labor Code defines a

Issued on 6/7/22
Attachment 3
City of Carmel-by-the-Sea
FY22-23
Budget Questions and Responses
“Volunteer” as “an individual who performs work for civic, charitable, or humanitarian reasons, for a public agency or corporation qualified under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code as a tax-exempt organization, without promise, expectation, or receipt of any compensation for work performed.” (Labor Code § 1720.4(a)(1).) It may be challenging to identify a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization that has access to volunteers with the required qualifications to perform design services for the Vista Lobos project. For example, in order to obtain required building permits, the project must have a state licensed architect, mechanical engineer, electrical engineer, structural engineer, and CASp (ADA) professional to prepare and provide sealed design plans, specifications, and calculations as necessary. The design would also need to be in compliance with all Building Codes, federal, state, regional, and City requirements and standards, and be prepared in conformance with the requirements of a Public Works project suitable for public bidding.

Since there is already a need for suitable office space for City staff, volunteers willing to provide these services should also be willing to commit to a reasonable schedule.

Renovations are slated for FY 2023/24. If we are successful in obtaining these pro bono services, the $25,000 allocated in the CIP for design in the FY 2022/23 CIP budget should be rolled over for the construction phase.

21. Question/Comment: Please explain the City’s obligations under public contracting code and our obligations to pay prevailing wages.

Response: Public Contract Code Section 1101 defines a public works contract as “an agreement for the erection, construction, alteration, repair, or improvement of any public structure, building, road, or other public improvement of any kind.” For example, because the Scout House renovations project will be a public improvement built on public land, the construction contract will be a “public works contract” under the Public Contract Code.

The expenditure of public funds for project construction typically dictates that public agencies award contracts only after having engaged in an open and fair bidding process.

The requirements of competitive bidding are intended to guard against favoritism, fraud or corruption in the award of public contracts. Thus, with some exceptions, public works contracts may be awarded only after having engaged in the competitive bidding process.

Statutory exceptions to competitive bidding requirements are generally available only if the dollar value of the work involved is relatively small or where the nature of the work is not suited to competitive bidding, such as professional services contracts.

Labor Code §1771 requires that workers employed on public works be paid not less than the general prevailing rate of per diem wages for work of a similar character in the locality in which the public work is performed. The overall purpose of the prevailing wage law is to protect and benefit employees on public works projects.

Although California’s prevailing wage laws set specific wage and hour requirements for employees working on “public works” projects defined by Labor Code §1720(a) to include construction, alteration, demolition, installation, or repair work performed under contract and paid for in whole or in part out of public funds, these wage and hour requirements do not

Issued on 6/7/22
Attachment 3
City of Carmel-by-the-Sea
FY22-23
Budget Questions and Responses
apply to specified work performed by a volunteer, volunteer coordinator, or a member of the California Conservation Corps or a community conservation corps. Assembly Bill 327 extended these provisions to January 1, 2024.

Specifically, Labor Code § 1720.4 provides that the prevailing wage laws do not apply to work performed by a “volunteer.” However, there are additional details to these provisions which require close adherence to avoid an unintentional loss of volunteer status. “Volunteer” is defined as “an individual who performs work for civic, charitable, or humanitarian reasons, for a public agency or corporation qualified under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code as a tax-exempt organization, without promise, expectation, or receipt of any compensation for work performed.” (Labor Code § 1720.4(a)(1).) The exclusion does not apply to work performed by anyone other than those persons specifically falling within the definition.

The obligation to pay prevailing wages also does not apply to private works in which no public monies are expended. Using the example above, even if the Boy Scouts pay for some of the renovations to the Scout House, and do not perform all renovations using volunteer labor, so long as no public monies are expended on the renovations, the project will not be subject to the payment of prevailing wages since the Labor Code obligation only applies to projects on which more than $1,000 of public funds are spent.

22. Question/Comment: Is there funding for the Scenic Road Pathway and what is for? Response:Yes, there is limited City funding, but there are several upgrades planned along the Scenic Road Pathway for FY 2022/23.

First, Public Works is currently in the process of hiring a contractor to repair the irrigation system controller and clock for $4,959 using operating budget remaining for FY 2021/22.

Second, $50,000 of unspent Capital Improvement Program funds from FY 2021/22 will be carried forward into FY 2022/23 to fund a portion of the Scenic Road Pathway Barrier Rail Project. Carmel Cares has also expressed interest in replacing portions of the deteriorated Barrier Rails, and, in fact, has already installed a few, temporary post and cable railings at a few locations for public safety purposes. As noted in Question 22, if City funds are commingled with private donations, a combined single barrier rail replacement project would be subject to all State of California requirements for a Public Works Project including payment of prevailing wages to the selected contractor(s).

In addition, Carmel Cares, under guidance by the Public Works Department, has done an incredible job renovating nearly all aspects of the Scenic Road Pathway over the past two years. Work has included removal of weeds and invasive plants, pruning overgrowth, watering, raking, sweeping, fine grading, exposing the wooden pathway borders, repairing

Issued on 6/7/22
Attachment 3
City of Carmel-by-the-Sea
FY22-23
Budget Questions and Responses
stonework and stairs, raising some stone walls, cleaning out trash enclosures, removing graffiti and illegal stickers, cleaning up the signage, and much more.

Active and upcoming projects along the Pathway by Carmel Cares include installing upgraded signage at each trash enclosure in wooden frames, and upgrading edging along the planted islands adjacent to the Pathway with larger stones, subject to approval by the Forest and Beach Commission. Plans are also in the works to work with staff on changing the signage along the Pathway that may be more effective in increasing compliance with beach fires only in the fire pits restrictions.

23. Question/Comment: Please explain the City’s philosophy regarding opportunities for traffic calming and tree planting when road resurfacing occurs. Also, how does the City address pedestrian and bicycle safety improvements when resurfacing roadways? Response: Since the City’s asphalt and concrete street pavements are among the most valuable public infrastructure assets, the majority of our annual road resurfacing funding has been allocated for rehabilitation of the pavements based on optimizing public funds by the Pavement Management System. That said, over the past five years, the following issues have been considered during implementation of these projects:
● Traffic Calming Improvements. As often discussed by the Traffic Safety Committee, perceptions of speeding around the City do not match actual radar speed studies that find that the 85 percentile of traffic speeds falls below the (typical) 25 mph speed limits.

However, based on accident data and sight visibility concerns, over the past five years, we added new STOP signs where approved by Council, including at Mission and Ninth, Mission and Fourth, and upcoming Junipero at Seventh). Also, new SLOW signs were installed on Santa Lucia and Monte Verde, fog lines were placed along Junipero, and pedestrian crosswalk ahead signs were installed on Rio Road.

Another traffic calming measure could be to add curb bulb outs at arterial intersections, especially where there are crosswalks. However, bulb outs are costly, and most of Carmel’s streets are too narrow to include bulb outs. Also, the Police and Public Works Departments do not recommend installing other traffic calming devices such as speed humps or speed bumps anywhere in Carmel.
● Pedestrian Improvements. Some roadway projects have included new crosswalks and restriping of existing crosswalks, Americans with Disabilities Act ramps at intersection corners, repairs to adjacent uneven sidewalks, and some new speed limit and stop signs to enhance pedestrian safety. These improvements are noteworthy from the Ocean Avenue Paving Project completed a few years ago. However, many other roadway resurfacing projects are completed along narrow, residential streets that do not abut sidewalks or defined pedestrian paths of travel.
● Bicycle Safety Improvements. The City’s General Plan Circulation Element includes Figure 2.2 (attached) which identifies those streets which are slated for bicycle improvements. None of these streets were resurfaced over the past five years, with three notable exceptions.

Issued on 6/7/22
Attachment 3
City of Carmel-by-the-Sea
FY22-23
Budget Questions and Responses
First, both San Antonio, from Second to Fourth, as well as Camino del Monte, from Fourth to Junipero, are included in the Bicycle Routes included in the General Plan’s Circulation Element. These street segments were resurfaced several years ago by PG&E as mitigation for their new gas line installation. The City successfully pushed PG&E to pave both sides of these streets to mitigate impacts. While the pavement was new, PG&E was not receptive to including bike route improvements since they were not existing at the time of their project.

Second, we are about to advertise for bids for the FY 21 Annual Pavement Resurfacing Project which includes resurfacing San Carlos Street from Eighth to Thirteenth Avenues.

This project will include the City’s first bicycle route along this road segment. This location is also ideal as it is the City’s “center hub” for future bike route extensions.

Third, the upcoming FY 2022/23 Annual Street Project will focus on concrete street repairs, including along Ocean Avenue, between Monte Verde and San Antonio.

Preliminary sketches indicate that bike and pedestrian improvements can be included along this road segment - not within the vehicle lanes but along the sidewalk(s). During the design phase, upgrading pedestrian and bicycle improvements along this segment may require an Amendment to the Circulation Element, modifications at the intersections with residential streets, and the possible loss of parking spaces. ● Tree Plantings. Please see Question #26 below.

24. Question/Comment: Please identify the specific amounts of funding earmarked for fire fuel load reduction, and where it will be spent. Also, please identify the specific amounts of funding earmarked for downtown beautification, weeding, and invasives removal.

Response: The Public Works/Forestry operations budget for FY 2022/23 includes the following funding allocations for fire fuel reduction, weeding, invasives removal, and downtown beautification:
● $150,000 for removal of dead, hazardous, and diseased trees and stumps by tree contractors, City-wide. Dead and hazardous trees can burn quickly or fall onto power lines during high winds potentially sparking flames.
● $150,000 for pruning by contractors, City-wide. While pruning is associated with the health and structural shape of the tree, pruning is also considered a fire fuel reduction method as well as a beautification method.
● $125,000 for contracted landscape services at multiple parks, around City buildings, and in open space areas. These services include weed abatement, mowing, minor pruning, and clearing of dead brush.
● $20,000 for contracted weed abatement, typically spent for Forest Hill Park, MTNP, Pescadero Canyon, upper and lower portions of Ocean Avenue, and/or other open space areas.
● $25,000 for downtown beautification (Capital Improvement Project). This funding is intended to improve the aesthetics of downtown and could be used for tree planting, tree

Issued on 6/7/22
Attachment 3
City of Carmel-by-the-Sea
FY22-23
Budget Questions and Responses
well upgrades, additional landscape and hardscape materials to supplement the Ocean Avenue Median Island Landscaping project, materials to provide to volunteer groups for them to help us beautify downtown parks and streetscapes, etc.

In addition to funds for contracted services and to support volunteers, we have a four member forestry crew who also perform dead tree removals and prunings, weeding, mowing, invasive removals, overgrowth/visibility pruning, and beautification projects throughout the City. Due to their flexibility in quickly addressing urgent needs and cost-effectiveness, it has been our practice to utilize in-house staff crews to the maximum extent prior to utilizing contracted services.

Carmel Cares has been performing a significant amount of weeding, pruning, invasive plant removals, and fire fuel reduction in their project areas, specifically along the Scenic Pathway and beach bluffs, in the Forest Theater, Devendorf Park, Fourth Avenue drainage way and boardwalk, and around the grounds at Sunset Center and the Park Branch Library. Their successful Median Minders community engagement program has also been instrumental in removal of weeds and invasive plants in many median islands.

The Friends of Mission Trails Nature Preserve, Master Gardeners, and their Weedies program have supplemented grant-funded invasive plant removals and fire fuel reduction in the MTNP for years. Additionally, several volunteer groups have removed weeds and invasive plants in the North Dunes Habitat Restoration Area, and the Garden Club keeps the gardens at the Harrison Memorial Library, City Hall, and Piccadilly Park free of weeds and invasive plants.

Finally, the possibility of using goats for fire fuel reduction and weed eradication has been considered multiple times in Pescadero Canyon and in the MTNP. Unfortunately, we have been unable to find a single vendor who would be willing to provide goats for the steep southerly slope of Pescadero Canyon.

While there are flatter areas in MTNP, there are a number of logistical obstacles including sensitive habitats and endangered species such Yadon’s piperia and Hickman’s onion. Our MTNP biologist recommended against using goats in any area of the MTNP with the exception of the meadow behind Flander’s Mansion. However, the goat vendors stated that the meadow is too small to justify goats, so, instead, we mow the meadow at least annually to reduce fire fuel.

25. Question/Comment: Please identify the specific amounts of funding earmarked for tree planting.

Response:
● The FY 2022/23 operating budget for Forestry includes $15,000 for new trees. The average cost for new trees in the right-of-way, with soil amendments, stakes, and watering for the first year of the 3 to 5 year tree establishment period, is $150. This would allow for planting of up to 100 new trees.

Issued on 6/7/22
Attachment 3
City of Carmel-by-the-Sea
FY22-23
Budget Questions and Responses
● The $150k Cal Fire Grant, plus the City’s $20k match, for the Forest Management Plan (FMP) includes planting 108 new trees. It is unknown at this time if all, some, or none of those 108 trees will be planted during FY 2022/23, but it will certainly be part of community participation during development of the FMP. The FMP will also complete the much-needed, City-wide tree inventory, identify locations for new plantings in priority order, and recommend species most resilient for climate change in our area. ● Public Works/Forestry is currently growing about 80 seedlings of pine trees which will be ready for planting in FY 2023/24.
● In addition, several volunteer groups plant trees each year, but the quantity and locations are not well established in advance. For example, the Friends of Carmel Forest typically plant 6 to 12 trees per year in the downtown area and City parks, and they are in the process of funding $10,000 for watering City trees. The Friends of the Mission Trail Nature Preserve recently planted 65 native trees where invasive trees were removed, as part of habitat restoration in the Preserve. In addition, the Tree Tenders community engagement program under the Carmel Cares umbrella organization, has witnessed an increasing number of volunteers eager to adopt and care for seedlings for future establishment in the urban forest.

Obviously, there is sufficient funding to plant plenty of new trees; however, there has not been aggressive tree planting since the start of the Pandemic. Below are some key concerns submitted by the City Forester that should be considered before planting many new trees at this time:
● 56% of Carmel is already under tree canopy, which is an exceedingly high percentage for any community. Natural ecosystems are usually in the 15 to 25% canopy cover range. We believe that our high canopy cover has contributed to the decline of the health of the forest by blocking access to sunlight for nearby trees. Excessive crowding of trees has also been considered on private properties as part of tree removal permit conditions. ● New trees should only be planted in strategic locations where there is access to sunlight and no longer planted directly below power lines which, unfortunately, has been the historical practice. For most of the locations where dead/hazardous/diseased trees have been removed under power lines, we should only plant relatively short, ornamental trees to prevent future hazards.
● New trees require a lot of watering, and while this is most cost-effectively performed by Forestry staff, ongoing vacancies in the forestry crews over the past few years, including staffing reduction during the Pandemic, have hampered new tree planting and watering efforts. We have; however, also utilized tree contractors and Carmel Cares to supplement watering efforts.

26. Question/Comment: Please describe the City’s approach to address wildfire risks to include the wildfire assessment, Forest Management Plan, and the role of the Natural Resources Manager within this rubric.

Issued on 6/7/22
Attachment 3
City of Carmel-by-the-Sea
FY22-23
Budget Questions and Responses
Response: In addition to the fire fuel reduction efforts described in Question 25 above, the following list identifies other measures that are being undertaken to address the risk of wildfires.
● First, each spring, the Monterey Fire Department conducts an annual defensible space inspections around each residential property at no charge. This project is currently underway.
● Second, the draft Climate Adaptation and Climate Action Plans contains significant information about the risk of wildfires in Carmel and a number of measures that will be taken during the implementation phase of the Climate Change program to mitigate this risk. For details, please visit Climate Committee - City of Carmel References include:
o Action 1.1.1 – Maintain and Update Evacuation Plan
o Action 1.1.3 – Collaborate with Monterey Fire
o Action 2.1.2 – Increase Urban Forest Resilience
o Action 2.1.3 – Increase Resilience of the MTNP
o Action 3.1.1 – Underground Utilities in Fire Hazard Zones o Appendix B, Climate Vulnerability Assessment, Page 6, Wildfires o Appendix B, Climate Vulnerability Assessment, Page 22, MultiJurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan o Appendix B, Climate Vulnerability Assessment, Summary of Meeting of October 15, 2020, Community Wildfire Preparedness
● Third, the Fire Department operating budget includes $20,000 for a Wildfire Risk Assessment which is intended to be prepared as a regional agency project. This funding is being rolled over into the new FY 2022/23 budget.
● The job description for the proposed new position currently identified as “Natural Resources Manager” in the staffing plan in the FY 2022/23 budget has not been finalized at this time. While details are still being worked out, the purpose of such a position would be to provide greater emphasis on essential environmental and forestry components of the Public Works Department, as well as for opportunities to advance our environmental stewardship in our unique urban forest setting. Potential projects to be overseen by this position include:
● Climate Adaptation Plan and Action Plan measures long term implementation ● Coastal Engineering Report and subsequent beach armoring projects ● Energy efficiency initiatives
● Environmental permitting for CIP projects
● Fire fuel reduction, weed abatement, and invasive removal preventative maintenance programs
● Forest and Beach Commission agendas, reports, presentations, and action items ● Forest Management Plan implementation
● Forestry and stormwater/drainage plan reviews, encroachment permits, and conditioning improvement process
● Garbage Franchise Agreement enforcement and SB1383 implementation ● GIS applications and implementation

Issued on 6/7/22
Attachment 3
City of Carmel-by-the-Sea
FY22-23
Budget Questions and Responses
● Grant applications related to natural resources
● Habitat restoration-oriented projects at MTNP and North Dunes (long range) ● Implementing green infrastructure projects
● MTNP stream stability projects
● Oversight of volunteer groups (Carmel Cares, FOMTNP, FOCF, Garden Club) ● Stormwater management program and compliance with state regulations ● Tree service and landscape maintenance service contracting process improvements

27. Question/Comment: How would staff describe the City’s stance in this budget to placing a higher level of visibility on our natural resources.

Response: Please see responses to Questions 25, 26, and 27 above, and Questions 29 and 30 below.

28. Question/Comment: What is the job description for the Natural Resources Manager, what is the proposed salary, and how does it change the roles of the Environmental Compliance Manager and the City Forester?
Response: The Natural Resources Manager is a working title and placeholder in the upcoming FY 22/23 operating budget. Based on the increased workload, increase in staffing and City Council’s goals and objectives, there is a greater need and priority placed on the natural resources in the Village. Per all newly established job descriptions citywide, HR will bring the newly created job description that will include job title and salary range to City Council for approval once it has been completed. The review and assessment of this newly created position is on-going and still in progress, however, the newly created position will not change the roles of the Environmental Compliance Manager and the City Forester.

29. Question/Comment: Given that new position being filled it seems that there will be 3 managers supervising about 4 people. Is that necessary given the limited staffing of people who are actually doing work in the field in those departments? Response: As indicated above, based on the increased workload, increase in staffing and City Council’s goals and objectives, there is a greater need and priority placed on the natural resources in the Village and a newly created position will be recommended, still pending City Council approval.

30. Question/Comment: Do you plan on promoting someone from within to fill that position? If so, will the vacated position be filled?
Response: Pursuant to the City’s Municipal Code section 2.52.100, all recruitments that are funded in the operating budget must go through a recruitment selection procedure.

This may include an internal promotional or open competitive process which is determined by Human Resources. All employees citywide are notified of all job opportunities once they have been posted as active recruitments. As with every vacancy citywide, it provides the City an opportunity to review, assess and determine if the classification and work are aligned properly.

Issued on 6/7/22
Attachment 3
City of Carmel-by-the-Sea
FY22-23
Budget Questions and Responses

31. Question/Comment: What is the reasoning for the above organizational change and what process was conducted to make that decision?
Response: The organizational structure of the Public Works Department has been modified several times since the incumbent Public Works Director was hired in 2017.

Prior examples include adding a second position for Facility Maintenance, increased cross training for Street Maintenance and Forestry crews, increasing capacity in the Environmental Compliance Division with an Administrative Technician, increasing capacity in the Forestry Division with an Administrative Analyst, downsizing at the start of the Covid-19 Pandemic, re-establishing staffing levels as part of the FY 2022/23 budget, and hiring Project Management consultants in lieu of having an incumbent project manager.

All changes made to the organizational structure of the Public Works Department are recommended by the Director and Assistant City Administrator, approved by the City Administrator, and if position allocations and any financial impacts to the operating budget are required, these changes are subject to authorization of the City Council.

32. Question/Comment: I noticed that there was $25,000 allocated to design work for Vista Lobos. What is this for and, if Vista Lobos will be repurposed, should this go through a public process? It seems that there were public conversation sessions held regarding the Scout House and Vista Lobo a few years back, public discussion, and a decision was made to put money into the Scout House. I don't remember any other sessions being held regarding Vista Lobos.

Response: Please see Question 21 regarding the $25,000 allocated to design for the Vista Lobos facility. The Public was welcome to provide comments when this tentative project was announced at three prior City Council meetings which included the Capital Improvement Program and FY 2022/23 Budget, as well as the upcoming City Council meeting of June 7th at which time the Budget is slated to be adopted.

Issued on 6/7/22
Attachment 3

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA

CITY COUNCIL
Staff Report
June 7, 2022

ADJOURNMENT
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
SUBMITTED BY: Yashin Abbas, Interim City Clerk
APPROVED BY: Chip Rerig, City Administrator
SUBJECT: Correspondence Received
RECOMMENDATION:

BACKGROUND/SUMMARY:

FISCAL IMPACT:

PRIOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION:

ATTACHMENTS:

Correspondence Received - gift
Correspondence Received - design
Correspondence Received - wireless ordinance/cell tower Correspondence Received - wireless ordinance/cell tower #2 Correspondence Received - Item 1
Correspondence Received - Item 3
Correspondence Received - animal services
Attachment 1
Attachment 2
Attachment 2
Attachment 2
Attachment 2
Attachment 3
Attachment 3
Attachment 3
Attachment 3
Attachment 3
Attachment 3
Attachment 3
Attachment 3
Attachment 3
Attachment 3
Attachment 3
Attachment 3
Attachment 3
Attachment 3
Attachment 3
Attachment 3
Attachment 3
Attachment 3
Attachment 3
Attachment 3
Attachment 3
Attachment 3
Attachment 3
Attachment 3
Attachment 3
Attachment 3
Attachment 3
Carrnelby-the-Sea Yashin Abbas <[email protected]> Wireless Ordinance Update
1 message
Gary Sprung <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Dear Carmel City Clerk,
Wed, Jun 1, 2022 at 2:48 PM
I support the resident-funded wireless ordinance sent to the city and drafted by the nation's top telecom specialist, Andrew Campanelli, for Carmel-by-the-Sea as it is the strictest wireless ordinance. The ordinance drafted by Mr. Campanelli is designed to give our local government the maximum legal authority to be able to limit the number of cell towers and decide where they are to be located and is completely defensible from challenge by telecom companies.

As a 21-year resident of Carmel-by-the-Sea, I believe that cell towers in residential neighborhoods pose many problems:
* Out-of-character with our residential neighborhoods
* Out-of-scale with our residential neighborhoods (SO+ feet tall) * Creates visual blight
* Danger to properties within fall zone and from fires with no cell tower accident insurance available to homeowners
* Estimated 20% property devaluation to neighboring homes * Unpleasant, incessant noise of cell tower antennas and battery cooling fans * Negative impacts on view sheds
* Additional equipment can be added and cell tower height can be increased 10% after initial permit approval by over-the-counter permit, no additional Planning Commission review
* Overall aesthetic degradation of the scenic beauty and charm of our unique village * Just one cell tower permit approval in a residential zone can lead to multiple permits for cell towers from multiple telecom carriers
Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,
Gary Sprung
Attachment 3
Carrnelby-the-Sea
Wireless Ordinance
1 message
'Janice Bradner' via cityclerk <[email protected]> Reply-To: Janice Bradner <[email protected]>
To: City of Carmel-by-the-Sea <[email protected]> Cc: Tasha Witt <[email protected]>
Yashin Abbas <[email protected]>
Wed, Jun 1, 2022 at 4:27 PM
As a 23-year resident, I hope that utility wires will be buried underground, as fire is a real threat in our community. Cell towers on residential utility poles make it that much more difficult to bury the equipment, and increases the residents' exposure to dangerous, equipment-sparked conflagration.

It is for this reason that I support the resident-funded proposed wireless ordinance developed for the village by Andrew Campanelli. The proposed ordinance drafted by Mr. Campanelli was developed based on ordinances in other cities that have been successful in controlling the intrusion of telecommunication equipment, and would give the city the authority to limit the number and locations of cell towers and support equipment in the residential areas of the city. By restricting this equipment you are supporting the safety of the residents in your community.

Please consider the proposed ordinance in light of the residents' desires to protect our village from the dangers imposed by the proliferation of telecommunication equipment in our fragile neighborhoods. I would appreciate it if you would share this note with the city council.

Janice Bradner
Junipero 4th NE of 10th
"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has." Margaret Mead
Find out more about Carmel Cares at: https:/ /www.carmelcares.org/ Attachment 3
Carrnelby-the-Sea
cell tower(s) in Carmel
1 message
'Betty Van Wagenen' via cityclerk <[email protected]> Reply-To: Betty Van Wagenen <[email protected]>
To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Yashin Abbas <[email protected]>
Wed, Jun 1, 2022 at 4:47 PM
To Whom It May Concern:

I moved to Carmel BTS in 2014 to get away from all the craziness, busy-ness, growing congestion AND cell towers. To think that anyone would think that a cell tower in our little village is a good idea smacks of "who's making the money" on this. Even if Carmel makes some money "renting" the space, it's not worth it to have a looming cell tower in the town.

Betty Van Wagenen
PO BOX4903
Attachment 3
Carmelby-the-Sea Yashin Abbas <[email protected]> Wireless Ordinance Update- Please distribute this e-mail to the names listed below, Thank you!
1 message
'SHEILA GHOLSON' via cityclerk <[email protected]> Reply-To: SHEILA GHOLSON <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Mon, May 30, 2022 at 2:53 PM
Dear Mayor Potter, Commissioner D. Richards, Commissioner J Baron, Commissioner C Theis, & Commissioner K Ferlito,
Please update our wireless ordinance now, to protect ALL homes and 93921 residential zones from cell tower installations.

Thank you for your ongoing service to the Carmel community, Sheila Gholson
John Duhring
Claire Duhring
Torres, 4 NE of 8th
Attachment 3
1 Monday, May 23, 2022
Good morning Mayor Potter, City Council members, Brandon, and Planning Commissioners,
Attached is the draft wireless ordinance for Carmel-by-the-Sea formulated by specialist New York telecom attorney, Andrew Campanelli. The ordinance he has prepared is meant to protect a small, distinctive community such as ours from cell tower proliferation. This work product was paid for entirely by donations from the residents of Carmel-by-the-Sea.

We are presenting it to you as an educational document, as this is a complicated and technical issue, and ideally it could serve as a template of what a strong and comprehensive wireless ordinance for Carmel-by-theSea can be.

We hope at the very least you will read it to familiarize yourselves with this matter, which will be in the forefront in the coming months as the city updates its wireless ordinance. Portions of this comprehensive document could be incorporated into the wireless ordinance draft the city’s outside counsel has prepared. At best, Mr. Campanelli’s draft can be a substantive basis for the wireless ordinance update. Please be assured though that in no way is it meant to undermine the work of the city’s outside counsel.

Mr. Campanelli has offered to answer any questions by email or phone that city staff, Planning Commissioners, and City Council members may have.

He can be reached by phone at (516) 746-1600 (New York office, EST) or by email at [email protected]. There is no charge for this communication, and additionally we have also prepaid three hours for him to be available by Zoom at upcoming Planning Commission and City Council meetings. We look forward to working positively and productively with all of you in this process to do the most we can to protect our beautiful and unique community.

Sincerely,
Christy Hollenbeck
Tasha Witt
Alissandra Dramov
Bob Kavner
Stop Cell Towers in Carmel Neighborhoods
Attachment 3
2 INDEX
§17.46 Personal Wireless Service Facilities
§17.46.010 Purpose and Legislative Intent
§17.46.020 Definitions; Word Usage
§17.46.030 Application Types
§17.46.040 Shot Clock Periods
§17.46.050 Shot Clock Tolls, Extensions
& Reasonable Delay Periods
§17.46.060 Application Requirements
§17.46.070 Design Standards
§17.46.080 Planning Commission Initial Review
§17.46.090 Hearings and Public Notice
§17.46.100 Factual Determinations to be Rendered
by the Planning Commission
§17.46.110 Retention of Consultants
§17.46.120 Setback Requirements
§17.46.130 Height Restrictions
§17.46.140 Use Restrictions and Variances
§17.46.150 Environmental Impacts
§17.46.160 Historic Site Impacts
§17.46.170 Force Majeure
§17.46.180 Eleventh Hour Submissions
§17.46.190 Prohibition Against Illegally Excessive Emissions & RF Radiation Testing §17.46.200 Bond Requirements & Removal of Abandoned Facilities and Reclamation §17.46.210 ADA Accommodations
§17.46.220 General Provisions
Attachment 3
3 §17.46 Personal Wireless Service Facilities
This Chapter §17.46 is intended to repeal and replace all previous versions of, and amendments to, Chapter §17.46 of the Carmel-by-the-Sea Municipal Code (“Municipal Code”), all of which are hereby repealed and replaced in their entirety by this Chapter §17.46 et. seq., as of the effective date hereof.

No Personal Wireless Service Facility (PWSF) shall be sited, constructed, reconstructed, installed, materially changed or altered, expanded, or used unless in conformity with this Chapter.

For the installation, construction, erection, relocation, substantial expansion, or material alteration of any PWSF, the City shall require a conditional use permit pursuant to the provisions of this Chapter, which shall be applied for in accord with the procedure set forth in Section §17.52.020, unless otherwise provided herein below.

The performance of maintenance, routine maintenance, in-kind replacement of components, and/or repairs (as defined herein) to an existing PWSF and/or existing personal wireless service equipment shall not require a conditional use permit.

Each application for a conditional use permit under this Chapter and each individual PWSF for which an application for a conditional use permit is submitted shall be considered based upon the individual characteristics of each respective installation at each proposed location as an individual case. In other words, each installation, at each proposed location, shall be reviewed and considered independently for its own characteristics and potential impacts, irrespective of whether the proposed facility is designed and intended to operate independently or whether the installation is designed and/or intended to operate jointly as part of a Distributed Antenna System.
§17.46.010 Purpose and Legislative Intent
The purpose of this section is to promote the health, safety, and general welfare of the residents of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, to preserve, conserve and enhance the unique natural beauty and irreplaceable natural resources of the City consistent with the general purpose of, and Section G7-1 of the City’s General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan, while simultaneously providing standards for the safe provision, monitoring, and removal of cell towers and other personal wireless service facilities consistent with applicable federal, state and local laws and regulations.

Consistent with the balancing of interests which the United States Congress intended to embed with the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 (hereinafter “the TCA”), Chapter 17.46 is intended to serve as a Smart Planning Provision, designed to achieve the four (4) simultaneous objectives of: (a) enabling personal wireless service providers to provide adequate personal wireless services throughout the City so that City residents can enjoy the benefits of same, from any FCC-licensed wireless carrier from which they choose to obtain such services, while (b) Attachment 3
4 minimizing the number of cell towers and/or other personal wireless service facilities needed to provide such coverage, (c) preventing, to the greatest extent reasonably practical, any unnecessary adverse impacts upon the City’s communities, residential areas, and individual homes, (d) subordinating business and commercial uses of property to the interests of preserving the predominantly residential nature of the City, consistent with Ordinance No. 96 adopted in 1929, and maintained through Title 17 of the Municipal Code, and (d) complying with all of the legal requirements which the TCA imposes upon the City, when the City receives, processes and determines applications seeking approvals for the siting, construction and operation of cell towers and/or other personal wireless service facilities.

The City seeks to minimize, to the greatest extent possible, any unnecessary adverse impacts caused by the siting, placement, physical size, and/or unnecessary proliferation of, personal wireless service facilities, including, but not limited to, adverse aesthetic impacts, adverse impacts upon property values, adverse impacts upon the character of any surrounding properties and communities, adverse impacts upon historical and/or scenic properties and districts, and the exposure of persons and property to potential dangers such as structural failures, ice fall, debris fall, and fire.

The City also seeks to ensure that, in applying this section, the Planning Commission (“Commission”) is vested with sufficient authority to require applicants to provide sufficient, accurate, and truthful probative evidence, to enable the Commission to render factual determinations consistent with both the provisions set forth herein below and the requirements of the TCA when rendering decisions upon such applications.

To achieve the objectives stated herein, the City seeks to employ the “General Authority” preserved to it under Section 47 U.S.C.A. §332(c)(7)(A) of the TCA to the greatest extent which the United States Congress intended to preserve those powers to the City, while simultaneously complying with each of the substantive and procedural requirements set forth within the subsection 47 U.S.C.A. §332(c)(7)(B) of the TCA.
§17.46.020 Definitions; Word Usage
For purposes of this article, and where not inconsistent with the context of a particular section, the defined terms, phrases, words, abbreviations, and their derivations, shall have the meaning given in this section. When not inconsistent with the context, words in the present tense include the future tense, words used in the plural number include words in the singular number, and words in the singular number include the plural number. The word “shall” is always mandatory and not merely directory. The definitions set forth herein shall supersede any definitions set forth within the Municipal Code, and the definitions set forth herein below shall control and apply to Chapter 17.46 and all subsections herein.

ACCESSORY FACILITY OR ACCESSORY STRUCTURE
A facility or structure serving or being used in conjunction with a personal wireless services facility or complex and located on the same property or lot as the personal wireless services facility or complex, or an immediately adjacent lot including, but not limited to, utility or transmission equipment storage sheds or cabinets.

Attachment 3
5 ACHP
The Federal Advisory Council on Historic Preservation.

ADEQUATE COVERAGE
As determined by the Planning Commission, adequate coverage means that a specific wireless carrier’s personal wireless service coverage is such that the vast majority of its customers can successfully use the carrier’s personal wireless service the vast majority of the time, in the vast majority of the geographic locations within the City, that the success rate of using their devices exceeds 97%, and that any geographic gaps in a carrier’s gaps in personal wireless services are not significant gaps, based upon such factors including, but not limited to, lack of significant physical size of the gap, whether the gap is located upon a lightly traveled or lightly occupied area, whether only a small number of customers are affected by the gap, and/or whether or not the carrier’s customers are affected for only limited periods of time. A wireless carrier’s coverage shall not be deemed inadequate simply because the frequency or frequencies at which its customers are using its services are not the most preferred frequency of the wireless carrier.

ANTENNA
An apparatus designed for the purpose of emitting radiofrequency (RF) radiation, to be operated or operating from a fixed location, for the provision of personal wireless service.

APPLICANT
Any individual, corporation, limited liability company, general partnership, limited partnership, estate, trust, joint-stock company, association of two or more persons having a joint common interest, or any other entity submitting an application for a conditional use permit, site plan approval, variance, building permit, and/or any other related approval, for the installation, operation and/or maintaining of one or more personal wireless service facilities.

APPLICATION
Refers to all necessary and required documentation and evidence that an applicant must submit to receive a conditional use permit, building permit, or other approval for personal wireless service facilities from the City.

CELL TOWER
A free-standing, guy-wired, or otherwise supported pole, tower, or other structure designed to support or employed to support, equipment and/or antennas used to provide personal wireless services, including, but not limited to, a pole, monopole, monopine, slim stick, lattice tower or other types of standing structures.

CEQ
The Council on Environmental Quality was established under NEPA.

CEQA
Attachment 3
6 The California Environmental Quality Act, codified as Public Resources Code §21000, et seq., as amended.

CFR
The Code of Federal Regulations.

CITY
The City of Carmel-by-the-Sea.

COLOCATION and/or CO-LOCATE
To install, mount or add new or additional equipment to be used for the provision of personal wireless services to a pre-existing structure, facility, or complex which is already built and is currently being used to provide personal wireless services, by a different provider of such services, wireless carrier or site developer.

COMMISSION or PLANNING COMMISSION
The Planning Commission of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea.

COMPLETE APPLICATION, COMPLETED APPLICATION
An application that contains all the necessary and required information, records, evidence, reports, and/or data necessary to enable an informed decision to be made with respect to an application. Where any information is provided pursuant to the terms of this Chapter and the Planning Commission or the City’s expert or consultant or the Director determines, based upon information provided, that any additional, further or clarifying information is needed as to one or more aspects, then the application will be deemed incomplete until that further or clarifying information is provided to the satisfaction of the Planning Commission or the City’s expert or consultant or the Director.

COMPLEX
The entire site or facility, including all structures and equipment, located at the site.

CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
The official document or permit granted by the Planning Commission pursuant to which an applicant is allowed to file for and obtain a building permit to construct and use a personal wireless services facility, personal wireless service equipment, and/or any associated structures and/or equipment which are used to house, or be a part of, any such facility or complex, or to be used to provide personal wireless services.

DBM (dBm)
DBM stands for decibel milliwatts, which is a concrete measurement of the wireless signal strength of wireless networks. Signal strengths are recorded in negative numbers, and can range from approximately -30 dBm to -110 dBm. The closer the number is to 0, the stronger the cell signal.

DEPLOYMENT
Attachment 3
7 The placement, construction, or substantial modification of a personal wireless service facility.

DISTRIBUTED ANTENNA SYSTEM, DAS
A network of spatially separated antenna nodes connected to a common source via a transport medium that provides personal wireless service within a geographic area.

EFFECTIVE PROHIBITION
A finding by the Planning Commission that, based upon an applicant’s submission of sufficient probative, relevant, and sufficiently reliable evidence, and the appropriate weight which the Commission deems appropriate to afford same, an applicant has established that an identified wireless carrier does not have adequate coverage as defined hereinabove, but suffers from a significant gap in its personal wireless services within the City and that a proposed installation by that applicant would be the least intrusive means of remedying that gap, such that a denial of the application to install such facility would effectively prohibit the carrier from providing personal wireless services within the City. Any determination of whether an applicant has established, or failed to establish, both the existence of a significant gap and whether its proposed installation is the least intrusive means of remedying such gap, shall be based upon substantial evidence, as is hereinafter defined.

ELEVENTH HOUR SUBMISSIONS
An applicant’s submission of new and/or additional materials in support of an application within 48 hours of the expiration of an applicable shot clock, or at an otherwise unreasonably short period of time before the expiration of the shot clock, making it impracticable for the Planning Commission to adequately review and consider such submissions due to their complexity, volume, or other factors, before the expiration of the shot clock.

ENURE
To operate or take effect. To serve to the use, benefit, or advantage of a person or party.

EPA
The United States Environmental Protection Agency.

FAA
The Federal Aviation Administration, or its duly designated and authorized successor agency.

FACILITY
A set of wireless transmitting and/or receiving equipment, including any associated electronics and electronics shelter or cabinet and generator.

FCC
The Federal Communications Commission.

GENERAL POPULATION/UNCONTROLLED EXPOSURE LIMITS
Attachment 3
8 The applicable radiofrequency radiation exposure limits set forth within 47 CFR §1.1310(e)(1), Table 1 Section (ii), made applicable pursuant to 47 CFR §1.1310(e)(3).

HEIGHT
When referring to a tower, personal wireless service facility, or personal wireless service facility structure, the height shall mean the distance measured from the pre-existing grade level to the highest point on the tower, facility, or structure, including, but not limited to, any accessory, fitting, fitment, extension, addition, add-on, antenna, whip antenna, lightning rod or other types of lightning-protection devices attached to the top of the structure.

HISTORIC STRUCTURE
Any structure that is either listed on the National Register of Historic Places, or is eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places under 36 CFR §63.1.

ILLEGALLY EXCESSIVE RF RADIATION or ILLEGALLY EXCESSIVE RADIATION RF radiation emissions at levels that exceed the legally permissible limits set forth within 47 CFR §1.1310(e)(1), Table 1 Sections (i) and (ii), as made applicable pursuant to 47 CFR §1.1310(e)(3).

IN-KIND REPLACEMENT
The replacement of a malfunctioning component(s) with a properly functioning component of substantially the same weight, dimensions, and outward appearance.

MACROCELL
A cellular base station that typically sends and receives radio signals from large towers and antennas. These include traditionally recognized cell towers, which typically range from 50 to 199 feet in height.

MAINTENANCE or ROUTINE MAINTENANCE
Plumbing, electrical or mechanical work that may require a building permit but that does not constitute a modification to the personal wireless service facility. It is work necessary to assure that a wireless facility and/or telecommunications structure exists and operates: reliably and in a safe manner, presents no threat to persons or property, and remains compliant with the provisions of this chapter and FCC requirements.

MUNICIPAL CODE
The Municipal Code of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, as the term has been codified in Chapter

1.01, §1.01.010.

NECESSARY or NECESSITY or NEED
What is technologically required for the equipment to function as designed by the manufacturer, and that anything less will result in prohibiting the provision of service as intended and described in the narrative of the application. “Necessary” or “need” does not mean what may be desired, preferred, or the most cost-efficient approach and is not related to an applicant’s specific chosen design standards. Any situation involving a workable choice between or among alternatives or options is not a need or a necessity.

Attachment 3
9 NEPA
The National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. §4321 et seq.

NHPA
The National Historic Preservation Act, 54 U.S.C. 300101 et seq, and 36 CFR Part 800 et seq.

NODE, DAS NODE
A fixed antenna and related equipment installation that operates as part of a system of spatially separated antennas, all of which are connected through a medium through which they work collectively to provide personal wireless services, as opposed to other types of personal wireless facilities, such as macrocells, which operate independently.

NOTICE ADDRESS
An address, which is required to be provided by an applicant at the time it submits an application for a conditional use permit, at which the City, Planning Commission, Director and/or any City representative can mail notice, and the mailing of any notice to such address by first-class mail shall constitute sufficient notice to any and all applicants, co-applicants, and/or their attorneys, to satisfy any notice requirements under this Chapter, as well as any notice requirements of any other local, state and/or federal law.

NOTICE OF INCOMPLETENESS, NOTICE OF INCOMPLETE APPLICATION A written notice, mailed by first class mail, to an applicant seeking an approval for the installation of a PWSF, wherein the sender advises the applicant that its application is either incomplete, the wrong type of application, or is otherwise defective, and setting for the reason or reasons why the application is incomplete and/or defective.

NOTICE OF EFFECTIVE PROHIBITION CONDITIONS
A written notice which is required to be provided to the City at the time of the filing of any application, by all applicants at seeking any approval, of any type, for the siting, installation and/or construction of a PWSF, wherein the respective applicant asserts, claims or intends to assert or claim, that a denial of their respective application, by any agent, employee, board or body of the City, would constitute an “effective prohibition” within the meaning of the TCA, and concomitantly, that a denial of their respective application or request would violate Section 47 U.S.C. §332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II) of the TCA.

OCCUPATIONAL/CONTROLLED EXPOSURE LIMITS
The applicable radiofrequency radiation exposure limits set forth within 47 CFR §1.1310(e)(1), Table 1 Section (i), made applicable pursuant to 47 CFR §1.1310(e)(2).

OHP
The California Office of Historic Preservation

PERSONAL WIRELESS SERVICE/PERSONAL WIRELESS SERVICES
Commercial mobile services, unlicensed wireless services, and common carrier wireless exchange access services, within the meaning of 47 U.S.C. §332(c)(7)(c)(i), and as defined therein.

Attachment 3
10 PERSONAL WIRELESS SERVICE FACILITY, PERSONAL WIRELESS SERVICES FACILITY or PWSF
A facility or facilities used for the provision of personal wireless services, within the meaning of 47 U.S.C. §332(c)(7)(c)(ii). It means a specific location at which a structure that is designed or intended to be used to house or accommodate antennas or other transmitting or receiving equipment is located. This includes, without limitation, towers of all types and all kinds of support structures, including but not limited to buildings, church steeples, silos, water towers, signs, utility poles, or any other structure that is used or is proposed to be used as a telecommunications structure for the placement, installation and/or attachment of antennas or the functional equivalent of such. It expressly includes all related facilities and equipment such as cabling, radios and other electronic equipment, equipment shelters and enclosures, cabinets, and other structures enabling the complex to provide personal wireless services.

PROBATIVE EVIDENCE
Evidence which tends to prove facts, and the more a piece of evidence or testimony proves a fact, the greater its probative value, as shall be determined by the Planning Commission, as the finder-of-fact in determining whether to grant or deny applications for conditional use permits under this provision of the Municipal Code.

REPAIRS
The replacement or repair of any components of a wireless facility or complex where the replacement is substantially identical to the component or components being replaced, or for any matters that involve the normal repair and maintenance of a wireless facility or complex without the addition, removal, or change of any of the physical or visually discernible components or aspects of a wireless facility or complex that will impose new visible intrusions of the facility or complex as originally permitted.

RF
Radiofrequency.

RF RADIATION
Radiofrequency radiation, that being electromagnetic radiation which is a combination of electric and magnetic fields that move through space as waves, and which can include both Non-Ionizing radiation and Ionizing radiation.

SECTION 106 REVIEW
A review under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.

SETBACK
For purposes of conditional use permit applications, a setback shall mean the distance between (a) any portion of a personal wireless facility and/or complex, including but not limited to any and all accessory facilities and/or structures, and (b) the exterior line of any parcel of real property or part thereof which is owned by, or leased by, an applicant seeking a conditional use permit to construct or install a personal wireless facility upon such real property or portion thereof. In the event that an applicant leases only a portion of real property owned by a landlord, Attachment 3
11 the setback shall be measured from the facility to the line of that portion of the real property which is actually leased by the applicant, as opposed to the exterior lot line of the non-leased portion of the property owned by the landlord.

SHOT CLOCK
The applicable period which is presumed to be a reasonable period within which the City is generally required to issue a final decision upon an application seeking conditional use permit approval for the installation or substantial modification of a personal wireless services facility or structure, to comply with Section 47 U.S.C. §332(c)(7)(B)(ii) of the TCA.

SITE DEVELOPER or SITE DEVELOPERS
Individuals and/or entities engaged in the business of constructing wireless facilities and wireless facility infrastructure and leasing space and/or capacity upon, or use of, their facilities and/or infrastructure to wireless carriers. Unlike wireless carriers, site developers generally do not provide personal wireless services to end-use consumers.

SMALL CELL
A fixed cellular base station that typically sends and receives radio signals and which are mounted upon poles or support structures at substantially lower elevations than macrocell facilities.

SMALL WIRELESS FACILITY (SWF)
A personal wireless service facility that meets all of the following criteria (a) The facility does not extend the height of an existing structure to a total cumulative height of more than fifty (50) feet, from ground level to the top of the structure and any equipment affixed thereto;
(b) Each antenna associated with the deployment is no more than three (3) cubic feet in volume;
(c) All wireless equipment associated with the facility, including any pre-existing equipment and any proposed new equipment, cumulatively total no more than twenty-eight (28) cubic feet in volume;
(d) The facility is not located on tribal land; and
(e) The facility will not result in human exposure to radiofrequency radiation in excess of the applicable FCC safety standards set forth within Table 1 of 47 CFR §1.1310(E)(1).

STATE
The State of California.

STEALTH or STEALTH TECHNOLOGY
A design or treatment that minimizes adverse aesthetic and visual impacts on the land, property, buildings, and other facilities adjacent to, surrounding, and generally in the same area as the requested location of such personal wireless service facilities. This shall mean building the least visually and physically intrusive facility and complex under the facts and circumstances.

STRUCTURE
Attachment 3
12 A pole, tower, base station, or other building, physical support of any form used for, or to be used for, the provision of personal wireless service.

SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
Substantial Evidence means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. It means less than a preponderance but more than a scintilla of evidence.

TCA
The Telecommunications Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. §332(c)
TOLLING or TOLLED
The pausing of the running of the time period permitted under the applicable shot clock for the respective type of application for a personal wireless services facility. Where a shot clock is tolled because an application has been deemed incomplete and timely notice of incompleteness was mailed to the applicant, the submission of additional materials by the applicant to complete the application will end the tolling, thus causing the shot clock period to resume running, as opposed to causing the shot clock to begin running anew.

TOWER, TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWER
Any structure designed primarily to support one or more antennas and/or equipment used or designed for receiving and/or transmitting a wireless signal.

UNDERTAKING
Any application for a conditional use permit seeking Commission approval for the installation of a personal wireless services facility licensed under the authority of the FCC shall constitute an undertaking within the meaning of NEPA, in accord with 42 CFR §137.289 and 36 CFR §800.16.

WIRELESS CARRIERS or CARRIER
Companies that provide Personal Wireless Services to end-use consumers.

ZONING LAW A/K/A THE ZONING ORDINANCE
The Carmel-by-the-Sea Zoning Ordinance and Coastal Zone Implementation Plan, as entitled under Chapter 17.02, §17.02.020.
§17.46.030 Application Types
There shall be four (4) specific types of applications for conditional use permits under this section,
which shall include Type I, Type II, Type III, and Type IV applications. It shall be the obligation of any applicant to explicitly and correctly identify which type of application they are filing.

1. Type I Applications Colocations of Small Wireless Facilities Attachment 3
13 Type I applications shall be limited to applications wherein an applicant seeks to co-locate a new small wireless facility, as defined in this Chapter, by installing new personal wireless service equipment upon an already existing small personal wireless services facility structure.

If the completed facility would still meet the physical limits and requirements to meet the definition
of a small wireless facility after the installation of the new equipment, then the application to install
such new equipment is a Type I application.

Type I applications for co-location of a small wireless facility in Residential District (R4), Commercial Districts (CC, SC, RC), Public and Quasi-Public Districts (P-1, P-2, A-1, A-2, A-3), to the extent an already existing small personal wireless services facility structure already exists in these districts, shall be a permitted use with a building permit.

Type I applications for co-location of a small wireless facility in all other districts delineated in Chapter 17.04 of the Zoning Ordinance shall require an applicant to obtain a conditional use permit from the Planning Commission.

2. Type II Applications Co-locations which do not meet the definition of a Small Wireless Facility.

Type II applications shall be limited to applications wherein an applicant is seeking to co-locate new personal wireless service equipment by installing such new wireless equipment upon an already existing personal wireless services facility structure, tower, or complex, which does not meet the definition of a small wireless facility or which will not meet the definition of a small wireless facility if and when the proposed new personal wireless service equipment is installed upon the existing facility and/or structure. Type II applications for co-location of personal wireless service facility equipment in Residential District (R4), Commercial Districts (CC, SC, RC), Public and Quasi-Public Districts (P-1, P-2, A-1, A-2, A-3), to the extent an already existing personal wireless services facility structure already exists in these districts, shall either be a permitted use with a building permit, or a conditional use permit, as set forth below.

The co-location of personal wireless service facility equipment on an approved PWSF tower or PWSF structure on property within Commercial Districts (CC, SC, RC), Public and Quasi-Public Districts (P-1, P-2, A-1, A-2, A-3) is a permitted use subject to the issuance of a building permit, provided that the Planning Commission determines that the proposed co-location will not:
(a) Increase the approved height of the supporting structure by more than 15%; (b) Cause the original approved number of antennas to be exceeded by more than 50%;
(c) Increase the original approved square footage of accessory buildings by more than 200 square feet;
(d) Add new or additional microwave antenna dishes;
(e) expand the footprint of said support structure; or
Attachment 3
14 (f) potentially cause significant adverse impacts on the existing support structure or the surrounding area.

If the Planning Commission cannot make the findings above, conditional use permit and site plan approvals will be required in accord with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, and the application shall be referred to the Planning Commission, where it will be subject to the terms and conditions specified in the requirements and standards in this section as part of the conditional use permit and site plan review process.

3. Type III Applications New Small Wireless Facilities
Type III applications shall be limited to applications seeking to install and/or construct a new small
wireless facility as defined in Section §17.46.020 hereinabove.

Type III applications shall require applicants to obtain a conditional use permit and site plan approvals from the Planning Commission.

4. Type IV Applications New Towers and All Other Wireless Facilities Type IV applications shall include applications for the installation of a new telecommunications tower, personal wireless service facility, complex, structure, or equipment, which does not meet the criteria for Type I, Type II, or Type III applications.

Type IV applications shall require applicants to obtain a conditional use permit and site plan approvals from the Planning Commission.
§17.46.040 Shot Clock Periods
To comply with the requirements of Section 47 U.S.C. §332(c)(7)(B)(ii) of the TCA, the following shot clock periods set forth herein below shall be presumed to be reasonable periods within which the Planning Commission shall render determinations upon conditional use permit applications for personal wireless service facilities.

The Planning Commission shall render determinations upon such applications within the periods set forth hereinbelow, unless the applicable shot clock period list below is tolled, extended by agreement or the processing of the application is delayed due to circumstances beyond the Commission and/or City’s controls, as addressed within subsections §17.46.150, §17.46.160, §17.46.170 and §17.46.180 herein below.

1. Type I Applications Colocations of Small Wireless Facilities Sixty (60) Days
Unless extended by agreement, tolled, or subject to reasonable delays, the Planning Commission shall issue a written decision upon a Type I application within sixty (60) days from the date when the City receives a Type I application.

Attachment 3
15 Upon receipt of a Type I application, the Director shall review the application for completeness.

If the Director determines the application is: (a) incomplete, (b) missing required application materials, (c) is the wrong type of application, or (d) is otherwise defective, then, within ten (10) days of the City’s receipt of the application, the Director, or his designee, shall mail the applicant a Notice of Incompleteness by first class mail, to the Notice Address provided by the applicant.

Within such Notice of Incompleteness, the Director shall advise the applicant, with reasonable clarity, the defects within its application, including a description of such matters as what items are missing from the application and/or why the application is incomplete and/or defective.

The mailing of a Notice of Incomplete Application by the Director shall toll the 60-day shot clock, which shall not thereafter resume running unless and until the applicant tenders an additional submission to the Director to remedy the issues the Director identified in the Notice of Incomplete Application, which he had mailed to the applicant. The submission of any responsive materials by the applicant shall automatically cause the shot clock period to resume running.

If upon receipt of any additional materials from the applicant, the Director determines that the application is still incomplete and/or defective, then the Director shall, once again, mail a Notice of Incompleteness within ten (10) days of the applicant having filed its supplemental or corrected materials to the City and the shot clock shall once again be tolled, and the same procedure provided for hereinabove shall be repeated.

2. Type II Applications Colocations on existing Towers, Structures or other Facilities which do not meet the definition of a Small
Wireless Facility. Ninety (90) Days
Unless extended by agreement, tolled, or subject to reasonable delays, the Planning Commission shall issue a written decision upon a Type II application within ninety (90) days from the date when the City receives a Type II application.

Upon receipt of a Type II application, the Director shall review the application for completeness.

If the Director determines the application is: (a) incomplete, (b) missing required application materials, (c) is the wrong type of application, or (d) is otherwise defective, then, within thirty (30) days of the City’s receipt of the application, the Director, or his designee, shall mail the applicant a Notice of Incompleteness by first class mail, to the Notice Address provided by the applicant.

Within such Notice of Incompleteness, the Director shall advise the applicant, with reasonable clarity of the defects within its application, including a description of such matters as what items are missing from the application and/or why the application is incomplete and/or defective.

The mailing of a Notice of Incomplete Application by the Director shall toll the 90-day shot clock, which shall not thereafter resume running unless and until the applicant tenders an additional submission to the Director to remedy the issues the Director identified in the Notice of Incomplete Application, which he had mailed to the applicant.

Attachment 3
16 The submission of any responsive materials by the applicant shall automatically cause the shot clock period to resume running.

If upon receipt of any additional materials from the applicant, the Director determines that the application is still incomplete and/or defective, then the Director shall, once again, mail a Notice of Incompleteness within ten (10) days of the applicant having filed its supplemental or corrected materials to the City. The shot clock shall once again be tolled, and the same procedure provided hereinabove shall be repeated.

3. Type III Applications New Small Wireless Facilities
Ninety (90) Days
Unless extended by agreement, tolled, or subject to reasonable delays, the Planning Commission shall issue a written decision upon a Type III application within ninety (90) days from the date when the City receives a Type III application.

Upon receipt of a Type III application, the Director shall review the application for completeness. If the Director determines the application is: (a) incomplete, (b) missing required application materials, (c) is the wrong type of application, or (d) is otherwise defective, then, within ten (10) days of the City’s receipt of the application, the Director, or his designee, shall mail the applicant a Notice of Incompleteness by first class mail, to the Notice Address which the applicant has provided.

Within such Notice of Incompleteness, the Director shall advise the applicant, with reasonable clarity, the defects within its application, including a description of such matters as what items are missing from the application and/or why the application is incomplete and/or defective.

The mailing of a Notice of Incomplete Application by the Director shall toll the 90-day shot clock, which shall not thereafter resume running unless and until the applicant tenders an additional submission to the Director to remedy the issues the Director identified in the Notice of Incomplete Application, which he had mailed to the applicant.

The submission of any responsive materials by the applicant shall automatically cause the shot clock period to resume running.

If upon receipt of any additional materials from the applicant, the Director determines that the application is still incomplete and/or defective, then the Director shall, once again, mail a Notice of Incompleteness within ten (10) days of the applicant having filed its supplemental or corrected materials to the City and the shot clock shall once again be tolled, and the same procedure provided for hereinabove shall be repeated.

4. Type IV Applications New Towers and All Other Wireless Facilities One Hundred Fifty (150) Days
Attachment 3
17 Unless extended by agreement, tolled, or subject to reasonable delays, the Planning Commission shall issue a written decision upon a Type IV application within one hundred fifty (150) days from the date when the City receives a Type IV application.

Upon receipt of a Type IV application, the Director shall review the application for completeness. If the Director determines the application is: (a) incomplete, (b) missing required application materials, (c) is the wrong type of application, or (d) is otherwise defective, then, within thirty (30) days of the City’s receipt of the application, the Director, or his designee, shall mail the applicant a Notice of Incompleteness by first class mail, to the Notice Address provided by the applicant.

Within such Notice of Incompleteness, the Director shall advise the applicant, with reasonable clarity, the defects within its application, including a description of such matters as what items are missing from the application and/or why the application is incomplete and/or defective.

The mailing of a Notice of Incomplete Application by the Director shall toll the 150-day shot clock, which shall not thereafter resume running unless and until the applicant tenders an additional submission to the Director to remedy the issues the Director identified in the Notice of Incomplete Application, which he had mailed to the applicant.

The submission of any responsive materials by the applicant shall automatically cause the shot clock period to resume running.

If upon receipt of any additional materials from the applicant, the Director determines that the application is still incomplete and/or defective, then the Director shall, once again, mail a Notice of Incompleteness within ten (10) days of the applicant having filed its supplemental or corrected materials to the City and the shot clock shall once again be tolled, and the same procedure provided for hereinabove shall be repeated.
§17.46.050 Shot Clock Tolls, Extensions & Reasonable Delay Periods Consistent with the letter and intent of Section 47 U.S.C. §332(c)(7)(B)(ii) of the TCA, each of the shot clock periods set forth within Section §17.46.040 hereinabove shall generally be presumed to be sufficient periods within which the Planning Commission shall render decisions upon conditional use permit applications.

Notwithstanding same, the applicable shot clock periods may be tolled, extended by mutual agreement between any applicant and/or its representative and the Planning Commission, and the Planning Commission shall not be required to render its determination within the shot clock period, presumed to be reasonable for each type of application, where the processing of such application is reasonably delayed, as described hereinbelow.

1. Tolling of the Applicable Shot Clock Due
to Incompleteness and/or Applicant Error
Attachment 3
18 As provided for within Section §17.46.040 hereinabove, in the event that the Director deems an application incomplete, the Director shall send a Notice of Incompleteness to the applicant to notify the applicant that its application is incomplete and/or contains material errors, and shall reasonably identify the missing information and/or documents and/or the error(s) in the application.

If the Director mails a Notice of Incompleteness as described hereinabove, the applicable shot clock shall automatically be tolled, meaning that the applicable shot clock period within which the Planning Commission is required to render a final decision upon the application shall immediately cease running, and shall not resume running, unless and until the City receives a responsive submission from the applicant.

If and when the applicant thereafter submits additional information in an effort to complete its application, or cure any identified defect(s), then the shot clock shall automatically resume running, but shall not be deemed to start running anew.

The applicable shot clock period shall, once again, be tolled if the Director thereafter provides a second notice that the application is still incomplete or defective, despite any additional submissions which have been received by the City, from the applicant, up to that point.

2. Shot Clock Extension by Mutual Agreement
The Planning Commission, in its sole discretion, shall be free to extend any applicable shot clock period by mutual agreement with any respective applicant. This discretion on the part of the Commission shall include the Commission’s authority to request, at any time, and for any period of time the Planning Commission may deem reasonable or appropriate under the circumstances, consent from a respective applicant, to extend the applicable shot clock period, to enable the Commission, the applicant, or any relevant third party, to complete any type of Undertaking or task related to the review, analysis, processing, and determination of the particular application, which is then pending before the Commission, to the extent that any such Undertaking, task, or review is consistent with, or reasonably related to, compliance with any federal, state, or local law, and/or the requirements of any provision of the Municipal Code, including but not limited to this Chapter.

In response to any request by the Commission, the applicant, by its principal, agent, attorney, site acquisition agent, or other authorized representative can consent to any extension of any applicable shot clock, by affirmatively indicating its consent either in writing or by affirmatively indicating its consent on the record at any public hearing or public meeting. The Planning Commission shall be permitted to reasonably rely upon a representative of the applicant indicating that they are authorized to grant such consent on behalf of the respective applicant, on whose behalf they have been addressing the Commission within the hearing process.

3. Reasonable Delay Extensions of Shot Clock Periods
The City recognizes that there may be situations wherein, due to circumstances beyond the Attachment 3
19 control of the City and/or the Planning Commission, the review and issuance of a final decision upon a conditional use permit application for a personal wireless facility cannot reasonably be completed within the application shot clock periods delineated within Section §17.46.040 hereinabove.

If, despite the exercise of due diligence by the City and the Planning Commission, the determination regarding a specific application cannot reasonably be completed within the applicable shot clock period, the Commission shall be permitted to continue and complete its review, and issue its determination at a date beyond the expiration of the applicable period, if the delay of such final decision is due to circumstances including, but not limited to, those enumerated hereinbelow, each of which shall serve as a reasonable basis for a reasonable delay of the applicable shot clock period.

Reasonable delays which may constitute proper grounds for extending the presumed sufficient periods for rendering determinations under the applicable shot clock periods may include, but are not necessarily limited to, those set forth within Sections §17.46.150, §17.46.160, §17.46.170 and §17.46.180 herein below.
§17.46.060 Application Requirements
Applications for conditional use permits under this section shall be made to the Director, who shall initially determine whether or not the application is complete and/or free of defects upon receipt of the same.

If the Director determines that the application is defective or incomplete, they shall promptly mail a Notice of Incompleteness to the applicant, in accord with §17.46.040 to toll the applicable shot clock, to ensure that the City and the Planning Commission are afforded sufficient time to review and determine each respective application.

Each application shall include the following materials, the absence of any one of which listed hereinbelow, shall render the respective application incomplete:

1. Conditional use permit and site plan Applications
Completed applications for a conditional use permit and site plan that shall identify all applicants, co-applicants, site developer(s), and wireless carrier(s) on whose behalf the application is being submitted, as well as the property owner of the proposed site.

2. Filing Fees
The appropriate filing fees then being charged by the City for applications for conditional use applications, site plan applications, and other related applications.

3. A “Notice Address”
Attachment 3
20 A “Notice Address,” that being a specific address to which the City, Planning Commission, and/or Director may mail any type of notice, and that the mailing of same to such address shall constitute sufficient notice to any applicant, co-applicant, and/or their attorney, to comply with any requirement under this section as well as any local, state and/or federal law

4. Proof of Authorization for Site Occupancy
Where an applicant is not the owner of the real property upon which it seeks to install its equipment or facility, they shall submit proof of authorization to occupy the site at issue.

If the applicant is leasing all or a portion of real property upon which it intends to install its new facility or equipment, then the applicant shall provide a written copy of its lease with the owner of such property. The applicant may redact any financial terms contained within the lease, but it shall not redact any portion of the lease which details the amount of area leased nor the specific portion of the real property to which the applicant has obtained the right to occupy, access, or preclude others from entering.

Where an applicant is seeking to Co-Locate new equipment into an existing facility, it shall provide a copy of its written co-location agreement with the owner of such pre-existing facility, from which it may redact any financial terms.

5. A Drawn-To-Scale Depiction
The applicant shall submit drawn-to-scale depictions of its proposed wireless support structure and all associated equipment to be mounted thereon, or to be installed as part of such facility, which shall clearly and concisely depict all equipment and the measurements of same, to enable the Director to ascertain whether the proposed facility would qualify as a small wireless facility as defined under this Chapter.

If the applicant claims that its proposed installation qualifies as a small wireless facility within this Chapter, the drawn-to-scale depiction shall include complete calculations for all of the antennas and equipment of which the facility will be comprised, depicting that, when completed, the installation and equipment will meet the physical size limitations which enable the facility to qualify as a small wireless facility.

6. Site plan
The applicant shall submit a site plan and site plan application in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 17.52. The site plan shall show all existing and proposed structures and improvements, including antennas, roads, buildings, guy wires and anchors, parking, and landscaping, and shall include grading plans for new facilities and roads. Any methods used to conceal the modification of the existing facility shall be indicated on the site plan.

7. Engineer’s Report
Attachment 3
21 To the extent that an application proposes the co-location of new equipment onto an existing tower or facility, the applicant shall provide an engineer's report certifying that the proposed shared use will not diminish the structural integrity and safety of the existing structure and explaining what modifications, if any, will be required in order to certify to the above.

8. Environmental Assessment Form
A completed environmental assessment form (EAF) and a completed visual EAF addendum.

9. Visual Impact Analysis
A completed visual impact analysis, which, at a minimum, shall include the following:
(a) Small Wireless Facilities
For applications seeking approval for the installation of a small wireless facility, the applicant shall provide a visual impact analysis which shall include photographic images taken from the perspectives of the properties situated in closest proximity to the location being proposed for the siting of the facility, as well as those properties which would reasonably be expected to sustain the most significant adverse aesthetic impacts due to such factors as their close proximity to the site, their elevation relative to the site, the existence or absence of a “clear line of sight” between the tower location and their location.
(b) Telecommunications Towers and Personal Wireless Service Facilities which do not meet the definition of a Small Wireless Facility
For applications seeking approval for the installation of a telecommunications tower or a personal wireless service facility that does not meet the definition of a small wireless facility, the applicant shall provide:
(i) A “Zone of Visibility Map” to determine locations from where the new facility will be seen.
(ii) A visual impact analysis which shall include photographic images taken from the perspectives of the properties situated in closest proximity to the location being proposed for the siting of the facility, as well as those properties which would reasonably be expected to sustain the most significant adverse aesthetic impacts due to such factors as their close proximity to the site, their elevation relative to the site, the existence or absence of a “clear line of sight” between the tower location and their location.

Attachment 3
22 The photographic images shall depict the height at which the proposed facility shall stand when completed, including all portions and proposed attachments to the facility, including, but not limited to, the main support structure, all antennas, transmitters, whip antennas, lightning rods, t-bars, crossbars, and cantilever attachments which shall, in whole or in part, be affixed to it, any and all surrounding equipment compound(s), fencing, cellular equipment cabinets, transformers, transformer vaults and/or cabinets, sector distribution boxes, ice bridges, backup generators, including but not limited to equipment boxes, switch boxes, backup generators, ice bridges, etc., to the extent that any of such compound and/or equipment will be visible from properties other than the property upon which the proposed tower and compound are to be installed.

The visual impact analysis shall include an assessment of alternative designs and color schemes, as well as an assessment of the visual impact of the proposed facility, taking into consideration any supporting structure which is to be constructed, as well as its base, guy wires, accessory structures, buildings, and overhead utility lines from abutting properties and streets.

10. Alternative Site Analysis
A completed alternative site analysis of all potential less intrusive alternative sites which the applicant has considered, setting forth their respective locations, elevations, and suitability or unsuitability for remedying whatever specific wireless coverage needs the respective applicant or a specific Wireless Carrier is seeking to remedy by the installation of the new facility which is the subject of the respective application for a conditional use permit.

If, and to the extent that an applicant claims that a particular alternative site is unavailable, in that the owner of an alternative site is unwilling or unable to accommodate a wireless facility upon such potential alternative site, the applicant shall provide probative evidence of such unavailability, whether in the form of communications or such other form of evidence that reasonably establishes same.

The alternative site analysis shall contain:
(a) an inventory of all existing tall structures and existing or approved communications towers within a two-mile radius of the proposed site. (b) a map showing the exact location of each site inventoried, including latitude and longitude (degrees, minutes, seconds), ground elevation above sea level, the height of the structure and/or tower, and accessory buildings on the site of the inventoried location.
(c) an outline of opportunities for shared use of an existing wireless facility as opposed to the installation of an entirely new facility. (d) a demonstration of good-faith efforts to secure shared use from the owner of each potential existing tall structure and existing or approved communications tower, Attachment 3
23 as well as documentation of the physical, technical, and/or financial reasons why shared usage is not practical in each case.

11. FCC Compliance Report
An FCC compliance report, prepared by a licensed engineer, and certified under penalties of perjury, that the content thereof is true and accurate, wherein the licensed engineer shall certify that the proposed facility will be FCC compliant as of the time of its installation, meaning that the facility will not expose members of the general public to radiation levels that exceed the permissible radiation limits which the FCC has set.

If it is anticipated that more than one carrier and/or user is to install transmitters into the facility that the FCC compliance report shall take into account anticipated exposure from all users on the facility and shall indicate whether or not the combined exposure levels will, or will not exceed the permissible General Population Exposure Limits, or alternatively, the occupational Exposure Limits, where applicable.

Such FCC Compliance Report shall provide the calculation or calculations with which the engineer determined the levels of RF radiation and/or emissions to which the facility will expose members of the general public.

On the cover page of the report, the report shall explicitly specify: (a) Whether the applicant and their engineer are claiming that the appliable FCC limits based upon which they are claiming FCC compliance are the General Population Exposure Limits or the Occupational Exposure Limits. If the applicant and/or their engineer are asserting that the Occupational Exposure Limits apply to the proposed installation, they shall detail a factual basis as to why they claim that the higher set of limits is applicable, (b) The exact minimum distance factor, measured in feet, which the applicant’s engineer used to calculate the level of radiation emissions to which the proposed facility will expose members of the general public. The minimum distance factor is the closest distance (i.e., the minimum distance) to which a member of the general public shall be able to gain access to the transmitting antennas mounted upon, or which shall be a part of, the proposed facility.

12. FCC License
A copy of any applicable Federal Communications Commission license possessed by any carrier named as an applicant, co-applicant, or whose equipment is proposed for installation as of the time the application is being filed with the City.

13. Effective Prohibition Claims
The City is aware that applicants seeking approvals for the installation of new wireless Facilities often assert that federal law, and more specifically the TCA, prohibits the local government from denying their respective applications.

Attachment 3
24 In doing so, they assert that their desired facility is “necessary” to remedy one or more significant gaps in a carrier’s personal wireless service, and they proffer computergenerated propagation maps to establish the existence of such purported gaps.

The City is additionally aware that, in August 2020, driven by a concern that propagation maps created and submitted to the FCC by wireless carriers were inaccurate, the FCC caused its staff to perform actual drive tests, wherein the FCC staff performed 24,649 tests, driving nearly ten thousand (10,000) miles through nine (9) states, with an additional 5,916 stationary tests conducted at 42 locations situated in nine (9) states.

At the conclusion of such testing, the FCC Staff determined that the accuracy of the propagation maps submitted to the FCC by the wireless carriers had ranged from as little as 16.2% accuracy to a maximum of 64.3% accuracy.1
As a result, the FCC Staff recommended that the FCC no longer accept propagation maps from wireless carriers without supporting drive test data to establish their accuracy.

The City considers it of critical import that applicants provide truthful, accurate, complete, and sufficiently reliable data to enable the Planning Commission to render determinations upon applications for new wireless Facilities consistent with both the requirements of this Chapter and the statutory requirements of the TCA.

Consistent with same, if, at the time of filing an application under this Chapter, an applicant intends to assert before the Planning Commission or the City that: (a) an identified wireless carrier suffers from a significant gap in its personal wireless services within the City, (b) that the applicant’s proposed installation is the least intrusive means of remedying such gap in services, and/or (c) that under the circumstances pertaining to the application, a denial of the application by the Planning Commission would constitute an “effective prohibition” under Section 47 U.S.C. §332 the TCA, then, at the time of filing such application, the applicant shall be required to file a written statement which shall be entitled:
“Notice of Effective Prohibition Conditions”
If an applicant files a Notice of Effective Prohibition Conditions, then the applicant shall be required to submit Probative Evidence to enable the Planning Commission to reasonably determine: (a) whether or not the conditions alleged by the respective applicant exist, (b) whether there exists a significant gap or gaps in an identified wireless carrier’s personal wireless services within the City, (c) the geographic locations of any such gaps, and (d) the geographic boundaries of such gaps, to enable the Planning Commission to determine whether granting the respective application would be consistent with the requirements of this Chapter and the legislative intent behind same, and whether or not federal law would require the Planning Commission to grant the 1 See FCC Staff Report, GN Docket No. 19-367, https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC361165A1.pdf Attachment 3
25 respective application, even if it would otherwise violate the Municipal Code, including, but not limited to, this Chapter.

The additional materials which the applicant shall then be required to provide shall include the following:
(a) Drive Test Data and Maps
If, and to the extent that an applicant claims that a specific wireless carrier suffers from a significant gap in its personal wireless services within the City, the applicant shall conduct or cause to be conducted a drive test within the specific geographic areas within which the applicant is claiming such gap or gaps exist, for each frequency at which the carrier provides personal wireless services. The applicant shall provide the City and the Planning Commission with the actual drive test data recorded during such drive test, in a simple format which shall include, in table format:
(i) the date and time for the test or test,
(ii) the location, in longitude and latitude of each point at which signal strength was recorded and
(iii) each signal strength recorded, measured in DBM, for each frequency.

Such data is to be provided in a separate table for each frequency at which the respective carrier provides personal wireless services to any of its end-use customers. (iv) the applicant shall also submit drive test maps, depicting the actual signal strengths recorded during the actual drive test, for each frequency at which the carrier provides personal wireless services to its end-use customers.

If an applicant claims that it needs a “minimum” signal strength (measured in DBM) to remedy its gap or gaps in service, then for each frequency, the applicant shall provide three (3) signal strength coverage maps reflecting actual signal strengths in three (3) DBM bins, the first being at the alleged minimum signal strength, and two (2) additional three (3) DBM bin maps depicting signal strengths immediately below the alleged minimum signal strength claimed to be required.

By way of example, if the applicant claims that it needs a minimum signal strength of – 95 DBM to remedy its alleged gap in service, then the applicant shall provide maps depicting the geographic area where the gap is alleged to exist, showing the carrier’s coverage at – 95 to -98 DBM, -99 to -101 DBM and -102 to -104 DBM, for each frequency at which the carrier provides personal wireless services to its end-use customers. (b) Denial of Service and/or Dropped Call Records
Attachment 3
26 If and to the extent that an applicant claims that a specific wireless carrier suffers from a capacity deficiency, or a gap in service that renders the carrier incapable of providing adequate coverage of its personal wireless services within the City, then the applicant shall provide dropped call records and denial of service records evidencing the number and percentage of calls within which the carrier’s customers were unable to initiate, maintain and conclude the use of the carrier’s personal wireless services without actual loss of service, or interruption of service.

14. Estimate for Cost of Removal of Facility
A written estimate for the cost of the decommissioning, removal of the facility, including all equipment that comprises any portion or part of the facility, compound, and/or complex, as well as any accessory facility or structure, including the cost of the full restoration and reclamation of the site, to the extent practicable, to its condition before development in accord with the decommissioning and reclamation plan required herein

15. Property Owner Consent & Liability Acknowledgement
A signed written consent from each owner of the subject real property upon which the respective applicant is seeking installation of its proposed personal wireless service facility, wherein the owner or owners, both authorize the applicant to file and pursue its conditional use permit application and acknowledge the potential landowner’s responsibility, under section §17.46.110 for engineering, legal and other consulting fees incurred by the City.
§17.46.070 Design Standards
The following design standards shall apply to all applications for the siting, construction, maintenance, use, erection, movement, reconstruction, expansion, material change, or structural alteration of a personal wireless service facility.

1. Small Wireless Facilities
Small Wireless Facilities (SWF) shall be sited to inflict the minimum adverse impacts upon individual residential properties, and specifically, to minimize, to the greatest extent reasonably feasible, adverse aesthetic impacts upon residential homes or reductions in the property values of same.

SWFs attached to pre-existing wooden and non-wooden poles shall conform to the following criteria:
(a) Proposed antenna and related equipment shall meet:
(i) design standards which the City may maintain and update as needed, provided that the City makes its designed standards publicly available for review by any potential applicant seeking approval for the installation of an SWF within the City, and
Attachment 3
27 (ii) National Electric Safety Code (NESC) standards; and (iii) National Electrical Code (NEC) standards.
(b) Antennas and antenna equipment, including but not limited to radios, cables, associated shrouding, disconnect boxes, meters, microwaves, and conduit, which are mounted on poles, shall be mounted as close to the pole as technically feasible. They shall not be illuminated except as required by municipal, federal, or state authority, provided this shall not preclude deployment on a new or replacement street light.
(c) Antennas and associated equipment enclosures must be camouflaged to appear as an integral part of the pole or be mounted as close to the pole as feasible.

Conduits and cabinets shall cover all cables and wiring to the extent that it is technically feasible if allowed by the pole owner. The number of conduits shall be minimized to the extent technically feasible. To the extent technically feasible, antennas, equipment enclosures, and all ancillary equipment, boxes, and conduits shall match the approximate material and design of the surface of the pole or existing equipment on which they are attached.

SWFs attached to replacement poles and new poles shall conform to the criteria set forth herein above for SWF’s attached to pre-existing wooden and non-wooden poles, but shall additionally conform to the following criteria:
(a) The City prefers that wireless providers and site developers install SWF’s on existing or replacement poles instead of installing new poles, and accordingly, to obtain approval for the installation of a new pole, the provider shall be required to document that installation on an existing or replacement pole is not technically feasible.
(b) To the extent technically feasible, all replacement poles and new poles and polemounted antennas and equipment shall substantially conform to the material and design of the pole being replaced, or in the case of a new pole, it shall conform to the nearest adjacent pole or poles.
(c) The height of replacement poles and new poles shall conform with the height limitations applicable to the district within which the applicant seeks to install their proposed SWF unless the applicant obtains a variance to obtain relief from any such limitation(s).

2. Telecommunications Towers and Personal Wireless Service Facilities which do not meet the definition of a Small Wireless Facility
The design of a proposed new telecommunications tower or personal wireless service facility shall comply with the following:

Attachment 3
28 (a) The choice of design for installing a new personal wireless service facility or the substantial modification of an existing personal wireless service facility shall be chosen to minimize the potential adverse impacts that the new or expanded facility may, or is likely to, inflict upon nearby properties. (b) Any new telecommunications tower shall be designed to accommodate future shared use by other communications providers.
(c) Unless specifically required by other regulations, a telecommunications tower shall have a finish (either painted or unpainted) that minimizes its degree of visual impact.
(d) Notwithstanding the height restrictions listed elsewhere in this Chapter, the maximum height of any new telecommunications tower shall not exceed that which shall permit operation without artificial lighting of any kind or nature, in accordance with municipal, state, and/or federal law and/or regulation. (e) Accessory Structures
(i) Accessory structures shall maximize the use of building materials, colors, and textures designed to blend with the natural surroundings. The use of camouflage communications towers may be required by the Planning Commission to blend the communications tower and/or its accessory structures further into the natural surroundings. "Camouflage" is defined as the use of materials incorporated into the communications tower design that give communications towers the appearance of tree branches and bark coatings, church steeples and crosses, sign structures, lighting structures, or other similar structures.
(ii) Accessory structures shall be designed to be architecturally similar and compatible with each other and shall be no more than 12 feet high. The buildings shall be used only for housing equipment related to the particular site. Whenever possible, the buildings shall be joined or clustered so as to appear as one building.
(iii) No portion of any telecommunications tower or accessory structure shall be used for a sign or other advertising purpose, including but not limited to the company name, phone numbers, banners, and streamers, except the following. A sign of no greater than two square feet indicating the name of the facility owner(s) and a twenty-four-hour emergency telephone shall be posted adjacent to any entry gate. In addition, "no trespassing" or other warning signs may be posted on the fence. All signs shall conform to the sign requirements of the City.

Attachment 3
29 (f) Towers must be placed to minimize visual impacts. Applicants shall place towers on the side slope of the terrain so that, as much as possible, the top of the tower does not protrude over the ridgeline, as seen from public ways. (g) Existing vegetation. Existing on-site vegetation shall be preserved to the maximum extent possible. No cutting of trees shall take place on a site connected with an application made under this article prior to the approval of the conditional use permit use.
(h) Screening.
(i) Deciduous or evergreen tree plantings may be required to screen portions of the telecommunications tower and accessory structures from nearby residential property as well as from public sites known to include important views or vistas.
(ii) Where a site adjoins a residential property or public property, including streets, screening suitable in type, size and quantity shall be required by the Planning Commission.
(iii) The applicant shall demonstrate to the approving board that adequate measures have been taken to screen and abate site noises such as heating and ventilating units, air conditioners, and emergency power generators. telecommunications towers shall comply with all applicable sections of this chapter as it pertains to noise control and abatement. (i) Lighting. Telecommunications towers shall not be lighted except where FAA/FCC required lighting of the telecommunications towers necessary. No exterior lighting shall spill from the site in an unnecessary manner. (j) Access.
(a) Adequate emergency and service access shall be provided and maintained.

Maximum use of existing roads, public or private, shall be made. Road construction shall, at all times, minimize ground disturbance and vegetation cutting to the top of fill, the top of cuts, or no more than 10 feet beyond the edge of any pavement. Road grades shall closely follow natural contours to assure minimal visual disturbance and reduce soil erosion potential.
(b) To the extent feasible, all network interconnections to and from the telecommunications site and all power to the site shall be installed underground. At the initial construction of the access road to the site, Attachment 3
30 sufficient conduit shall be laid to accommodate the maximum possible number of telecommunications providers that might use the facility. (k) Parking. Parking shall be provided to assure adequate emergency and service access. The Planning Commission shall determine the number of required spaces, but in no case shall the number of parking spaces be less than two spaces. (l) Fencing. The telecommunications tower and any accessory structures shall be adequately enclosed by a fence, the design of which shall be approved by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission may waive this requirement if the applicant demonstrates that such measures are unnecessary to ensure the security of the facility.
§17.46.080 Planning Commission Initial Review

1. Initial Review
Upon the acceptance of an application that appears to be complete, the Director shall transmit the application to the Planning Commission for initial review.

The Planning Commission shall then conduct an initial review to consider whether or not to establish itself as Lead Agency pursuant to CEQA and/or NEPA and whether or not a use or area variance is required for the proposed application such that a referral for an application to the Planning Commission will be required to be made after the Planning Commission has declared itself to serve as Lead Agency and during the process of the Planning Commission considering a CEQA determination of environmental significance. That consideration of granting any required variances is done concurrently with the Planning Commission’s review and consideration of conditional use permit and site plan approval.

The Planning Commission shall then conduct a public hearing upon each application, and render its determinations in accord with Sections §17.46.090 and §17.46.100 herein below, and shall ultimately determine whether or not to grant each applicant a conditional use permit and/or site plan approval.
§17.46.090 Hearings and Public Notice

1. Public Hearings
The Planning Commission shall conduct a public hearing upon each conditional use permit application, consistent with the procedures in §17.52.110, except the Planning Commission shall have authority to schedule such additional or more frequent public hearings as may be necessary to comply with the applicable shot clocks imposed upon the City and the Planning Commission under the requirements of the TCA.

Attachment 3
31 2. Required Public Notices
The Planning Commission shall ensure that both the public and property owners whose properties might be adversely impacted by the installation of a wireless facility receive Notice of any public hearing pertaining to same and shall ensure that they are afforded an opportunity to be heard concerning same.

Before the date scheduled for the public hearing, the Planning Commission shall cause to be published a
“NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING FOR NEW WIRELESS FACILITY”
Each “Notice of Public Hearing for New Wireless Facility” shall state the name or names of the respective applicant or co-applicants, provide a brief description of the personal wireless facility for which the applicant seeks a conditional use permit, and the date, time, and location of the hearing.

Each “Notice of Public Hearing for New Wireless Facility” shall be published both: (a) once per week for two successive weeks in the official newspaper of the City as provided in §17.52.110(D); and (b) by mailing copies of such notice to property owners, as provided for herein below.

The face of each envelope containing the notices of the public hearing shall state, in all bold typeface, in all capital letters, in a font size no smaller than 12 point, the words:
“NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING FOR NEW WIRELESS FACILITY”
For Type I and Type III applications, notices of public hearing shall be mailed to all property owners whose real properties are situated within 300 feet of any property line of the real property upon which the applicant seeks to install its new wireless facility. If the site for the proposed facility is situated on, or adjacent to, a residential street containing twelve (12) houses or less, the Planning Commission shall additionally mail a copy of such notices to all homeowners on that street, even if their home is situated more than 300 feet from any property line of the property upon which the applicant proposes to install its facility.

For Type II and Type IV applications, the applicant shall mail such notices of public hearing to all property owners whose real properties are situated within 1,500 feet of any property line of the real property upon which the applicant seeks to install its new wireless facility.

The applicant shall additionally post a notice upon the proposed site advising the public of the public hearing.

Attachment 3
32 Prior to the date of the hearing, the respective applicant shall file an Affidavit of Mailing, attesting to whom such notices were mailed by the applicant, and the content of the notices which were mailed to such recipients.
§17.46.100 Factual Determinations to be Rendered by the Planning Commission

1. Evidentiary Standards
In determining conditional use permit applications for personal wireless service facilities, the Planning Commission shall have sole discretion to determine what probative evidence it shall require each applicant to produce in support of its application to enable the Commission to make each of the factual determinations enumerated below.

By way of common examples of the types of evidence which the Commission may require an applicant to produce, are the following:
(a) where an applicant is not the owner of the real property upon which it proposes to install a new wireless facility, the Commission can require the applicant to provide a copy of the applicant’s lease with the property owner (including any schedules, property descriptions, appendices or other attachments), from which the applicant may censor or delete any financial terms which would be irrelevant to the factual issues which the Commission is required to determine; (b) where the Commission deems it appropriate, the Commission can require the applicant to perform what is commonly known as a “balloon test” and to require the applicant to publish reasonably sufficient advance public notice of same, to enable the Commission, property owners, and the community, an opportunity to assess the actual adverse aesthetic impact which the proposed facility is likely to inflict upon the nearby properties and surrounding community; (c) where the applicant asserts a claim that a proposed facility is necessary to remedy one or more existing significant gaps in an identified wireless carrier’s personal wireless services, the Commission may require the applicant to provide drive-test generated coverage maps, as opposed to computer-generated coverage maps, for each frequency at which the carrier provides personal wireless services, to show signal strengths in bins of three (3) DBM each, to enable the Commission to assess the existence of such significant gaps accurately, and/or whether the carrier possesses adequate coverage within the geographic area which is the subject of the respective application.
(d) where the applicant asserts that a potential less intrusive alternative location for a proposed facility is unavailable because the owner of the potential alternative site is incapable or unwilling to lease space upon such site to the applicant, the Commission may require the applicant to provide proof of such unwillingness in the form of communications to and from such property owner, and/or a sworn affidavit wherein a representative of the applicant affirms, under penalty of Attachment 3
33 perjury, that they attempted to negotiate a lease with the property owner, what the material terms of any such offer to the property owner were, when the offer was tendered, and how, if at all, the property owner responded to such offer.

The Commission shall have sole discretion to determine, among other things, the relevance of any evidence presented, the probative value of any evidence presented, the credibility of any testimony provided, whether expert or otherwise, and the adequacy of any evidence presented.

The Commission shall not be required to accept, at face value, any unsupported factual claims asserted by an applicant but may require the production of evidence reasonably necessary to enable the Commission to determine the accuracy of any factual allegations asserted by each respective applicant.

Conclusory factual assertions by an applicant shall not be accepted as evidence by the Commission.

2. Factual Determinations
To decide applications for conditional use permits under this Section, the Planning Commission shall render factual determinations, which shall include two (2) specific types of factual determinations, as applicable.

First, the Commission shall render local zoning determinations according to Section (a) hereinbelow.

Then, if, and only if, an applicant asserts claims that:
(i) its proposed wireless facility or installation is necessary to remedy a significant gap in personal wireless services for an explicitly identified wireless carrier, and that its proposed installation is the least intrusive means of remedying a specifically identified significant gap or gaps, or
(ii) that a denial of their application would materially inhibit an identified wireless carrier from providing personal wireless services to its end-use customers, then the Commission shall additionally render TCA determinations, in accord with Section (b) hereinbelow.

The Commission shall separately record each factual determination it makes in a written decision and shall reference, or make note of, the evidence based upon which it rendered each of its factual determinations.

Each factual determination made by the Commission shall be based upon Substantial Evidence.

Attachment 3
34 For purposes of this provision, “Substantial Evidence” shall mean such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. It means less than a preponderance but more than a scintilla of evidence.

Evidence which the Commission may consider shall include any evidence submitted in support of an application, and any evidence submitted by anyone opposing a respective application, whether such evidence is in written or photographic form, or whether it is in the form of testimony by any expert, or any person who has personal knowledge of the subject of their testimony. The Commission may, of course, additionally consider as evidence any information or knowledge which they, themselves, personally possess, and any documents, records or other evidence which is a matter of public record, irrespective of whether such public record is a record of the City, or is a record of or is maintained by, another federal, state and/or other governmental entity and/or agency which maintains records which are available for, or subject to, public review.

The requirements for specific factual determinations set forth below are intended to enure to the benefit of the City, its residents, and property owners, and not applicants.

If, and to the extent that the Planning Commission fails to render one or more of such determinations, that omission shall not constitute grounds upon which the respective applicant can seek to annul, reverse or modify any decision of the Planning Commission. (a) Local Zoning Determinations
The Commission shall make the following factual determinations as to whether the application meets the requirements for granting a conditional use permit under this Chapter.
(i) Compliance with Chapter 17.64
Whether the proposed installation will meet each of the conditions and standards set forth within Chapter 17.64 in the absence of which the Planning Commission is not authorized to grant a conditional use permit.
(ii) Potential Adverse Aesthetic Impacts
Whether the proposed installation will inflict a significant adverse aesthetic impact upon properties that are located adjacent to, or in close proximity to, the proposed site, or any other properties situated in a manner that would sustain significant adverse aesthetic impacts by the installation of the proposed facility. (iii) Potential Adverse Impacts Upon Real Estate Values Whether the proposed installation will inflict a significant adverse impact upon the property values of properties that are located adjacent to, or in close proximity Attachment 3
35 to the proposed site, or properties that are otherwise situated in a manner that would cause the proposed installation to inflict a significant adverse impact upon their value.
(iv) Potential Adverse Impact Upon the Character of the Surrounding Community
Whether the proposed installation will be incompatible with the use and/or character of properties located adjacent to or in close proximity to the proposed site or other properties situated in a manner that would cause the proposed installation to be incompatible with their respective use. (v) Potential Adverse Impacts Upon Historic Properties or Historic Districts Whether the proposed installation will be incompatible with and/or would have an adverse impact upon, or detract from the use and enjoyment of, and/or character of a historic property, historic site, and/or historic district, including but not limited to historic structures, properties and/or districts which are listed on, or are eligible for listing on, the National Register of Historic Places. (vi) Potential Adverse Impacts Upon Ridgelines or Other Aesthetic Resources of The City
Whether the proposed installation will be incompatible with and/or would have an adverse aesthetic impact upon or detract from the use and enjoyment of, and/or character of, recognized aesthetic assets of the City including, but not limited to, scenic areas and/or scenic ridgelines, scenic areas, public parks, and/or any other traditionally or historically recognized valuable scenic assets of the City. (vii) Sufficient Fall Zones
Whether the proposed installation shall have a sufficient fall zone and/or safe zone around the facility to afford the general public safety against the potential dangers of structural failure, icefall, debris fall, and fire. (viii) Mitigation
Whether the applicant has mitigated the potential adverse impacts of the proposed facility to the greatest extent reasonably feasible. To determine mitigation efforts on the part of the applicant, the mere fact that a less intrusive site, location, or design would cause an applicant to incur additional expense is not a reasonable justification for an application to have failed to propose reasonable mitigation measures.

Attachment 3
36 If when applying the evidentiary standards set forth in subparagraph (a) hereinabove, the Planning Commission determines that the proposed facility would not meet the standards set forth within Chapter 17.64, or that the proposed facility would inflict one or more of the adverse impacts described hereinabove to such a substantial extent that granting the respective application would inflict upon the City and/or its citizens and/or property owners the types of adverse impacts which this provision was enacted to prevent, the Planning Commission shall deny the respective application for a conditional use permit unless the Commission additionally finds that a denial of the application would constitute an Effective Prohibition, as provided for in Sections (b) and (c) immediately hereinbelow. (b) TCA Determinations
In cases within which an applicant has filed a “Notice of Effective Prohibition Conditions,” the Planning Commission shall make three (3) additional factual determinations, as listed herein below:
(i) Adequate Personal Wireless Services Coverage
Whether the specific wireless carrier identified by the applicant has “adequate coverage” (as defined in §17.46.010) within the geographic areas which the applicant claims to need its proposed new facility to serve (ii) Significant Gap in Personal Wireless Services of an Identified Carrier Whether the applicant has established, based upon probative evidence provided by the applicant and/or its representative, that a specific wireless carrier suffers from a significant gap in its personal wireless services within the City.

In rendering such determination, the Commission shall consider factors including, but not necessarily limited to (a) whether the identified wireless carrier which is alleged to suffer from any significant gap in their personal wireless services has adequate service in its personal wireless services at any frequency being used by the carrier to provide personal wireless services to its end-use customers, (b) whether any such alleged gap is relatively large or small in geographic size, (c) whether the number of the carrier’s customers affected by the gap is relatively small or large, (d) whether or not the location of the gap is situated on a lightly traveled road, or sparsely or densely occupied area, and/or (d) overall, whether the gap is relatively insignificant or otherwise relatively de minimis.

A significant gap cannot be established simply because the carrier’s customers are currently using the carrier’s personal wireless services, but the frequency at which the customers are using such services is not the frequency most desired by the carrier.

Attachment 3
37 (iii) Least Intrusive Means of Remedying Gap(s) in Service Whether the applicant has established based upon probative evidence provided by the applicant and/or its representative, that the installation of the proposed facility, at the specific site proposed by the applicant, and the specific portion of the site proposed by the applicant, and at the specific height proposed by the applicant is the least intrusive means of remedying whatever significant gap or gaps which the applicant has contemporaneously proved to exist as determined by the Planning Commission based upon any evidence in support of, and/or in opposition to, the subject application.

In rendering such determination, the Commission shall consider factors including, but not necessarily limited to: (a) whether the proposed site is the least intrusive location at which a facility to remedy an identified significant gap may be located, and the applicant has reasonably established a lack of potential alternative less intrusive sites and lack of sites available for co-location, (b) whether the specific location on the proposed portion of the selected site is the least intrusive portion of the site for the proposed installation (c) whether the height proposed for the facility is the minimum height actually necessary to remedy an established significant gap in service, (d) whether or not a pre-existing structure can be used to camouflage the facility and/or its antennas, (e) whether or not, as proposed, the installation mitigates adverse impacts to the greatest extent reasonably feasible, through the employ of Stealth design, screening, use of color, noise mitigation measures, etc., and/or (f) overall whether or not there is a feasible alternative to remedy the gap through alternative, less intrusive substitute installations, such as the installation of multiple shorter installation, instead of a single microcell facility.
(c) Finding of Effective Prohibition or Lack of Effective Prohibition If, when applying the evidentiary standards set forth in subparagraph (a) hereinabove, the Planning Commission affirmatively determines that:
(i) The identified wireless carrier has adequate coverage, or (ii) the applicant has failed to establish either: (I) that an identified wireless carrier suffers from a significant gap(s) in its personal wireless services within the City, and/or (II) that the applicant has failed to establish that the proposed installation is the least intrusive means of remedying any such gap or gaps,
then the Planning Commission may deny the application pursuant to Section (a) hereinabove, and such denial shall not constitute an “Effective Prohibition.” §17.46.110 Retention of Consultants
Attachment 3
38 1. Use of Consultants
Where deemed reasonably necessary by the Planning Commission and/or the City, the Planning Commission and/or the City may retain the services of professional consultants to assist the Planning Commission in carrying out its duties in deciding conditional use permit applications for personal wireless service facilities. Where the Planning Commission uses the services of private engineers, attorneys, or other consultants for purposes of engineering, scientific, land use planning, environmental, legal, or similar professional reviews of the adequacy or substantive aspects of applications, or of issues raised during the course of review of applications for conditional use permit approvals of personal wireless service facilities, the applicant and landowner, if different, shall be jointly and severally responsible for payment of all the reasonable and necessary costs incurred by the City for such services. In no event shall that responsibility be greater than the actual cost to the City of such engineering, legal, or other consulting services.

2. Advance Deposits for Consultant Costs
The City and/or Planning Commission may require advance periodic monetary deposits held by the City on account of the applicant or landowner to secure the reimbursement of the City's consultant expenses. The City Council shall establish policies and procedures for the fixing of escrow deposits and the management of payment from them. After audit and approval of itemized vouchers by the City Administrator as to reasonableness and necessity of the consultant charges, the City may make payments from the deposited funds for engineering, legal or consultant services. Upon receiving a request by the applicant or landowner, the City shall supply copies of such vouchers to the applicant and/or landowner reasonably in advance of audit and approval, appropriately redacted where necessary to shield legally privileged communications between City officers or employees and the City's consultant. When it appears that there may be insufficient funds in the account established for the applicant or landowner by the City to pay current or anticipated vouchers, the City shall cause the applicant or landowner to deposit additional sums to meet such expenses or anticipated expenses in accordance with policies and procedures established by the City Council. Consultants shall undertake no review on any matter scheduled before the Planning Commission until the initial escrow deposit has been made or requested replenishment of the escrow deposit has been made. No reviewing agency shall be obligated to proceed unless the applicant complies with escrow deposit requirements.

3. Reasonable Limit Upon Consultant Expenses
A consultant expense or part thereof is reasonable in amount if it bears a reasonable relationship to the customary fee charged by engineers, attorneys, or planners within the region for services performed on behalf of applicants or reviewing boards in connection with comparable applications for land use or development.

The City may also take into account any special conditions for considerations as it may deem relevant, including but not limited to the quality and timeliness of submissions on Attachment 3
39 behalf of the applicant and the cooperation of the applicant and agents during the review process.

A consultant expense or part thereof is necessarily incurred if it was charged by the engineer, attorney or planner, or other consultants, for a service which was rendered to assist the Planning Commission in: (a) making factual determinations consistent with the goals of protecting or promoting of the health, safety or welfare of the City or its residents; (b) assessing potential adverse environmental impacts such as those identified within a CEQA process; (c) accessing potential adverse impacts to historic properties, structures and/or districts, and/or (d) assessing and determining factual issues relevant to Effective Prohibition claims, as addressed herein, to enable the Commission to best comply with the letter and intent of the provision of the TCA which is relevant thereto.

4. Audits Upon the Request of an Applicant
Upon request of the applicant or landowner, the City Council shall review and audit all vouchers and determine whether such engineering, legal and consulting expenses are reasonable in amount and necessarily incurred by the City in connection with the review and consideration of a conditional use permit application for personal wireless service facility. In the event of such a request, the applicant or landowner shall be entitled to be heard by the City Council on reasonable advance notice.

5. Liability for Consultant Expenses
For a land-use application to be complete, the applicant shall provide the written consent of all owners of the subject real property, both authorizing the applicant to file and pursue land development proposals and acknowledging potential landowner responsibility, under this section, for engineering, legal, and other consulting fees incurred by the City. If different from the applicant, the owner(s) of the subject real property shall be jointly and severally responsible for reimbursing the City for funds expended to compensate services rendered to the City under this section by private engineers, attorneys, or other consultants. The applicant and the owner shall remain responsible for reimbursing the City for its consulting expenses, notwithstanding that the escrow account may be insufficient to cover such expenses. No conditional use permit, building permit or other permit shall be issued until reimbursement of costs and expenses determined by the City to be due. In the event of failure to reimburse the City for such fees, the following shall apply:

The City may seek recovery of unreimbursed engineering, legal, and consulting fees by court action in an appropriate jurisdiction, and the defendant(s) shall be responsible for the reasonable and necessary attorney's fees expended by the City in prosecuting such action.

Alternatively, and at the sole discretion of the City, a default in reimbursement of such engineering, legal and consulting fees expended by the City shall be remedied by charging such sums against the real property that is the subject of the conditional use permit application, by adding that charge to and making it a part of the next annual real property tax assessment roll of the City. Such charges shall be levied and collected Attachment 3
40 simultaneously and in the same manner as City-assessed taxes and applied in reimbursing the fund from which the costs were defrayed for the engineering, legal and consulting fees. Prior to charging such assessments, the owners of the real property shall be provided written notice to their last known address of record, by certified mail, return receipt requested, of an opportunity to be heard and object before the City Council to the proposed real property assessment, at a date to be designated in the notice, which shall be no less than 30 days after its mailing.
§17.46.120 Setback Requirements

1. Small Wireless Facilities
(a) Within Commercial Districts (CC, SC, RC), Public and Quasi-Public Districts (P1, P-2, A-1, A-2, A-3), the minimum setback shall be fifty (50) feet, unless the facility is being installed upon a pre-existing utility pole or other utility structure.
(b) Within all residentially-zoned and other districts, all small wireless facilities shall be set back a minimum of three hundred (300) feet from any residential dwelling or structure, unless the facility is being installed upon a pre-existing utility pole or is being co-located upon a pre-existing personal wireless service facility.

2. Cell Towers and all Personal Wireless Service Facilities that do not meet the definition of a Small Wireless Facility (a) Each proposed wireless personal service facility and personal wireless service facility structure, compound, and complex shall be located on a single lot and comply with applicable setback requirements. Adequate measures shall be taken to contain on-site all icefall or debris from tower failure and preserve the privacy of any adjoining residential properties.
(b) Each lot containing a wireless personal service facility and personal wireless service facility structure, compound, and complex shall have the minimum area, shape, and frontage requirements generally prevailing for the zoning district where located, in the Schedules of Regulations for Nonresidential and Residential Districts of this Chapter, and such additional land if necessary to meet the setback requirements of this section.
(c) Cell towers and personal wireless service facilities that do not meet the definition of a small wireless facility, shall maintain a minimum setback of a distance equal to one hundred ten (110%) percent of the height of the facility, for front yard setbacks, rear yard setbacks and side yard setbacks, in all zoning districts. §17.46.130 Height Restrictions

1. Small Wireless Facilities
Attachment 3
41 Personal Wireless Service Facilities which meet the definition of a small wireless facility shall not exceed a maximum height of 60 feet above ground elevation in Commercial Districts (CC, SC, RC), Public and Quasi-Public Districts (P-1, P-2, A-1, A-2, A-3), and shall not exceed a maximum height of 45 feet within all other zoning districts.

2. Non-Small Wireless Facilities
Personal Wireless Service Facilities which do not meet the definition of a small wireless facility shall not exceed a maximum height of 150 feet above ground elevation in Commercial Districts (CC, SC, RC), Public and Quasi-Public Districts (P-1, P-2, A-1, A2, A-3), and 100 feet above ground level in all other zoning districts. §17.46.140 Use Restrictions and Variances

1. Use Restrictions by Application Type and Zoning District Type I applications No Use Variance Required
Type I applications for co-location of a small wireless facility in Commercial Districts (CC, SC, RC), Public and Quasi-Public Districts (P-1, P-2, A-1, A-2, A-3) shall be a permitted use with a building permit.

Type I applications for co-location of a small wireless facility in any residentially-zoned district shall be a conditional use permit use, requiring an applicant to obtain a conditional use permit from the Planning Commission.

Type II applications No Use Variance Required Unless Determined Otherwise Applications for colocations of a wireless personal services facility, which do not meet the definition of a small wireless facility, shall be considered a conditional use permit in all Districts and shall require a conditional use permit and a building permit, but shall not require a use variance, unless the Planning Commission, in its sole discretion, determines that the proposed colocation will increase the overall intrusiveness of the site to a sufficient extent that its presence would no longer be compatible with the surrounding properties and/or surrounding community, in which case the Planning Commission shall issue a decision determining that the applicant shall be required to obtain a variance from the Planning Commission pursuant to §17.52.070 and §17.64.210 of the Municipal Code.

In rendering a determination of whether or not a variance shall be required, the Planning Commission shall consider, among other things: (a) the physical size, number, and potential intrusiveness of each new item of equipment to be installed as part of the proposed colocation, (b) the extent to which the installation of such equipment is to require or effectuate a significant physical expansion of the size or area of the facility or complex, (c) the extent to which the addition of such additional equipment will likely increase the adverse aesthetic impact of the facility, and/or any other potentially significant adverse impacts which are likely to cause a significant increase in the overall intrusiveness of the wireless facility, and/or its compound or complex, such that it will no Attachment 3
42 longer be reasonably compatible with the use of nearby or surrounding properties and/or that its presence would be incompatible with the character and use of the nearby properties and/or surrounding community.

If the Planning Commission determines that a variance is required for a specific proposed facility, then the applicant shall be required to file an application for a variance to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission shall thereafter have the authority to (a) determine that no variance is necessary, (b) grant the application for a variance, or (c) deny the application for a variance.

Type III Applications No Use Variance Required
Applications for installing new Small Wireless Facilities that meet the criteria for Type III applications shall be considered a conditional use permit use in all Districts. They shall require a conditional use permit and building permit but shall not require a variance, unless they do not meet the applicable setback requirements or height limitation.

Type IV Applications Variance Requirements
Type IV applications seeking approval for the installation of a new cell tower and/or all other wireless facilities that are not a small wireless facility shall be a permitted use in Commercial Districts (CC, SC, RC), Public and Quasi-Public Districts (P-1, P-2, A-1, A2, A-3), which shall not need a use variance, but shall require a conditional use permit, building permit, and area variance if the proposed facility does not meet the applicable height limitation and/or setback requirements.

Type IV applications seeking approval for the installation of a new cell tower and/or all other wireless facilities that are not a small wireless facility in all other districts shall be a prohibited use which shall require a use variance, conditional use permit, building permit, and area variance if the proposed installation does not meet the applicable height limitation and/or setback requirements.
§17.46.150 Environmental Impacts
If, and to the extent that, the Planning Commission determines a proposed installation bears the potential for a significant adverse impact upon the environment within the meaning of CEQA and/or the NEPA, then the Commission shall be expected to comply with the requirements of CEQA in determining both (a) the extent of adverse impacts upon the environment and/or historic properties and (b) what mitigation measures the applicant should be required to undertake to minimize the adverse environmental impacts and/or adverse impacts upon historic sites, structures and/or districts.

If a respective applicant fails to obtain a review from the CalEPA and/or NEPA and opinion letters from the CalEPA and the FCC pertaining to its proposed installation prior to a first public hearing before the Planning Commission for the respective application, then the Planning Commission may make direct requests to the CalEPA and the FCC for their review of the Attachment 3
43 application. The Planning Commission may request OHP and the FCC’s review and input in completing the statutorily-required environmental impact analysis pursuant to CEQA and NEPA.

In addition, the Planning Commission shall comply with the statutory requirements of CEQA to complete a CEQA review, make determinations of significance, and where appropriate, require the applicant to complete a draft environmental impact statement, and if additionally appropriate, to thereafter complete a final environmental impact statement and analysis.

So long as the Planning Commission acts with reasonable diligence in completing its CEQA and NEPA review, if compliance with the statutory requirements for environmental review requires a period of effort that extends beyond the expiration of the applicable shot clock period, the delays beyond such period shall be deemed reasonable.
§17.46.160 Historic Site Impacts
The Planning Commission shall consider the potential adverse impacts of any proposed facility upon any historic site, district, or structure consistent with the requirements of the City’s historic preservation law and general plan and CEQA.

If, and to the extent that, the Planning Commission determines that a proposed installation bears the potential for a significant adverse impact upon a historic site or a historic district within the meaning of CEQA and/or the NHPA (especially if the historic site at issue is listed upon the national register of historic places), then the Commission shall comply with the requirements of both CEQA and City law in determining both: (a) the extent of adverse impacts upon the historic properties, and (b) what mitigation measure might the applicant be required to undertake to minimize the adverse environmental impacts and/or adverse impacts upon historic sites, structures and/or district.

Should a respective applicant fail to obtain a OHP and/or a Section 106 review under NHPA, and opinion letters from OHP and the FCC pertaining to its proposed installation prior to a first public hearing before the Planning Commission for the respective application, then the Planning Commission shall make direct requests to OHP and the FCC for their review of the application.

They shall request OHP and the FCC’s review and input in completing the statutorily-required environmental/historic impact analysis pursuant to SEQRA and NHPA.

This request shall include, but not be limited to, a request to the FCC for a Section 106 review, as defined in this Chapter, as the City recognizes each application for a conditional use permit for the installation of a personal wireless services facility shall constitute “an undertaking” for purposes of compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act.

In addition, the Planning Commission shall comply with the statutory requirements of CEQA to complete a CEQA review, make determinations of significance, and where appropriate, require the applicant to complete a draft environmental impact statement, and if additionally appropriate, to thereafter complete a final environmental impact statement and analysis.

Attachment 3
44 So long as the Planning Commission acts with reasonable diligence in completing its CEQA and NHPA review, if compliance with the statutory requirements for historic preservation review requires a period of effort that extends beyond the expiration of the applicable shot clock period, the delays beyond such period shall be deemed reasonable. §17.46.170 Force Majeure
In the event that the rendering of a final decision upon a conditional use permit application under this Chapter is delayed due to natural and/or unnatural events and/or forces which are not within the control of the City or the Planning Commission, such as the unavoidable delays experienced in government processes due to the COVID 19 pandemic, and/or mandatory compliance with any related federal or state government orders issued in relation thereto, such delays shall constitute reasonable delays which shall be recognized as acceptable grounds for extending the period for review and the rendering of final determinations beyond the period allotted under the applicable shot clock.
§17.46.180 Eleventh Hour Submissions
In the event that an applicant tenders eleventh-hour submissions to the City and/or the Planning Commission in the form of (a) expert reports, (b) expert materials, and/or (c) materials which require a significant period for review due either to their complexity or the sheer volume of materials which an applicant has chosen to provide to the Commission at such late point in the proceedings, the Planning Commission shall be afforded a reasonable time to review such latesubmitted materials.

If reasonably necessary, the Planning Commission shall be permitted to retain the services of an expert consultant to review any late-submitted expert reports which were provided to the Commission, even if such review or services extend beyond the applicable shot clock period, so long as the Commission completes such review and retains and secures such expert services within a reasonable period of time thereafter, and otherwise acts with reasonable diligence in completing its review and rendering its final decision. §17.46.190 Prohibition Against Illegally Excessive Emissions and RF Radiation Testing As disclosed upon the FCC’s public internet website, personal wireless services facilities erected at any height under 200 feet are not required to be registered with the FCC.

Of even greater potential concern to the City is the fact that the FCC does not enforce the RF radiation limits codified within the CFR by either: (a) testing the actual radiation emissions of wireless Facilities either at the time of their installation or at any time thereafter, or (b) requiring their owners to test them. See relevant excerpts from the FCC’s public internet website annexed as Appendix 2.

This means that when wireless Facilities are constructed and operated within the City, the FCC will have no idea where they are located and no means of determining, much less ensuring, that they are not exposing residents within the City and/or the general public to Illegally Excessive levels of RF Radiation.

Attachment 3
45 The City deems it to be of critical importance to the health, safety, and welfare of the City, its residents, and the public at large that personal wireless service facilities do not expose members of the general public to levels of RF radiation that exceed the limits which have been deemed safe by the FCC, and/or are imposed under CFR.

In accord with the same, the City enacts the following RF Radiation testing requirements and provisions set forth herein below.

No wireless telecommunications facility shall at any time be permitted to emit illegally excessive RF Radiation as defined in §17.46.020, or to produce power densities that exceed the legally permissible limits for electric and magnetic field strength and power density for transmitters, as codified within 47 CFR §1.1310(e)(1), Table 1 Sections (i) and (ii), as made applicable pursuant to 47 CFR §1.1310(e)(3).

To ensure continuing compliance with such limits by all owners and/or operators of personal wireless service facilities within the City, all owners, and operators of personal wireless service facilities shall submit reports as required by this section.

As set forth hereinbelow, the City may additionally require, at the owner and/or operator’s expense, independent verification of the results of any analysis set forth within any reports submitted to the City by an owner and/or operator.

If an operator of a personal wireless service facility fails to supply the required reports or fails to correct a violation of the legally permissible limits described hereinabove, following notification that their respective facility is believed to be exceeding such limits, any conditional use permit or other zoning approval granted by the Planning Commission or any other board or representative of the City is subject to modification or revocation by the Planning Commission following a public hearing.

1. Initial Certification of Compliance with Applicable RF Radiation Limits Within forty-five (45) days of initial operation or a substantial modification of a personal wireless service facility, the owner and/or operator of each Telecommunications antenna shall submit to the Director a written certification by a licensed professional engineer, sworn to under penalties of perjury, that the facility’s radio frequency emissions comply with the limits codified within 47 CFR §1.1310(e)(1), Table 1 Sections (i) and (ii), as made applicable pursuant to 47 CFR §1.1310(e)(3).

The engineer shall measure the emissions of the approved facility, including the cumulative impact from other nearby Facilities, and determine if such emissions are within the limits described hereinabove.

A report of these measurements and the engineer’s findings with respect to compliance with the FCC’s Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE) limits shall be submitted to the Director.

If the report shows that the facility does not comply with applicable limits, then the owner and/or operator shall cease operation of the facility until the facility is brought into Attachment 3
46 compliance with such limits. Proof of compliance shall be a certification provided by the engineer who prepared the original report. The City may require, at the applicant’s expense, independent verification of the results of the analysis.

2. Random RF Radiofrequency Testing
At the operator’s expense, the City may retain an engineer to conduct random unannounced RF Radiation testing of such Facilities to ensure the facility’s compliance with the limits codified within 47 CFR §1.1310(e)(1) et seq.

The City may cause such random testing to be conducted as often as the City may deem appropriate. However, the City may not require the owner and/or operator to pay for more than one test per facility per calendar year unless such testing reveals that one or more of the owner and/or operator’s facilities are exceeding the limits codified within 47 CFR §1.1310(e)(1) et seq., in which case the City shall be permitted to demand that the facility be brought into compliance with such limits, and to conduct additional tests to determine if, and when, the owner and/or operator thereafter brings the respective facility and/or facilities into compliance.

If the City at any time finds that there is good cause to believe that a personal wireless service facility and/or one or more of its antennas are emitting RF radiation at levels in excess of the legal limits permitted under 47 CFR §1.1310(e)(1) et seq., then a hearing shall be scheduled before the Planning Commission at which the owner and/or operator of such facility shall be required to show cause why any and all permits and/or approvals issued by the City for such facility and/or facilities should not be revoked, and a fine should not be assessed against such owner and/or operator.

Such hearing shall be duly noticed to both the public and the owner and/or operator of the respective facility or facilities at issue. The owner and/or operator shall be afforded not less than two (2) weeks written notice by first-class mail to its Notice Address.

At such hearing, the burden shall be on the City to show that, by a preponderance of the evidence, the Facilities emissions exceeded the permissible limits under 47 CFR §1.1310(e)(1) et seq.

In the event that the City establishes same, the owner and/or operator shall then be required to establish, by clear and convincing evidence, that a malfunction of equipment caused their failure to comply with the applicable limits through no fault on the part of the owner/operator.

If the owner and/or operator fails to establish same, the Planning Commission shall have the power to, and shall revoke any conditional use permit, variance, building permit, and/or any other form of zoning-related approval(s) which the Planning Commission, Director and/or any other representative of the City may have then issued to the owner and/or operator, for the respective facility.

Attachment 3
47 In addition, the Planning Commission shall impose a fine of not less than $1,000, nor more than $5,000 for such violation of subparagraph 1. hereinabove, or, in the case of a second offense within less than five (5) years, a minimum fine of $5,000, nor more than $25,000.

In the event that an owner or operator of one or more personal wireless service facilities is found to violate subparagraph 1. hereinabove, three or more times within any five (5) year period, then in addition to revoking any zoning approvals for the facilities which were violating the limits codified in 47 CFR §1.1310(e)(1) et seq., the Planning Commission shall render a determination within which it shall deem the owner/operator prohibited from filing any applications for any new wireless personal services facilities within the City for a period of five (5) years.
§17.46.200 Bond Requirements, Removal of Abandoned Facilities and Reclamation

1. Bond Requirement
At, or prior to the filing of an application for a conditional use permit for the installation of a new personal wireless service facility, each respective applicant shall provide a written estimate for the cost of the decommissioning and removal of the facility, including all equipment that comprises any portion or part of the facility, compound and/or complex, as well as any accessory facility or structure, including the cost of the full restoration and reclamation of the site, to the extent practicable, to its condition before development in accord with the decommissioning and reclamation plan required herein. The Planning Commission’s engineer shall review this estimate.

Upon receiving a conditional use permit approval from the Planning Commission, and a building permit, prior to the commencement of installation and/or construction of such facility or any part thereof, the applicant shall file with the City a bond for a length of no less than three years in an amount equal to or exceeding the estimate of the cost of removal of the facility and all associated structures, fencing, power supply, and other appurtenances connected with the facility. The bond must be provided within thirty (30) days of the approval date and before any installation or construction begins.

Replacement bonds must be provided ninety (90) days prior to the expiration of any previous bond.

At any time, the City has good cause to question the sufficiency of the bond at the end of any three-year period, the owner and/or operator of the facility, upon request by the City, shall provide an updated estimate and bond in the appropriate amount.

Failure to keep the bonds in effect is cause for removal of the facility at the owner's expense. A separate bond will be required for each facility, regardless of the number of owners or the location.

2. Removal of Abandoned Facilities
Attachment 3
48 Any personal wireless service facility that is not operated or used for a continuous period of twelve (12) consecutive months shall be considered abandoned. At the owner's expense, the owner of said facility shall be required to remove the facility and all associated equipment buildings, power supply, fence, and other items associated with such facility, compound and/or complex, and permitted with, the facility.

If the facility is not removed within ninety (90) days, the bond secured by the facility owner shall be used to remove the facility and any accessory equipment and structures. §17.46.210 ADA Accommodations
The City of Carmel By The Sea seeks to comply with the Americans With Disabilities Act, and shall comply with same in the event that any person who is disabled within the meaning of the Act seeks a reasonable accommodation, to the extent that they are entitled to same under the Act.
§17.46.220 General Provisions

1. Balancing of Interests
The City formally recognizes that, as has been interpreted by federal courts, when it enacted the TCA, Congress chose to preserve local zoning authority over decisions regarding the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless facilities (47 U.S.C. §332(c)(7)(A)) subject only to the limitations set forth in subsection §332(c)(7)(b), consistent with the holding of the United States Court of Appeals in Sprint Spectrum L.P. v. Willoth, 176 F3d 630 (2nd Cir.1999) and its progeny, and the City has relied upon such federal courts’ interpretations of the TCA in enacting this Chapter.

The City similarly embraces the federal courts’ determinations that the TCA was created to effectuate a balancing between the interests of facilitating the growth of wireless telephone service nationally and maintaining local control over the siting of wireless personal services facilities, as the Court additionally articulated in Omnipoint Communications Inc. v. The City of White Plains, 430 F3d. 529 (2nd Cir. 2005). This includes preserving to local governments, including the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, the power to deny applications for the installation of wireless personal services facilities, based upon traditional grounds of zoning denials, including, but not limited to, the potential adverse aesthetic impacts or a reduction in property values which the construction of any proposed structure may inflict upon nearby properties or the surrounding community.

This additionally includes the recognition that, under this balancing of interest test, “once an area is sufficiently serviced by a wireless service provider, the right to deny applications (for new wireless facilities) becomes broader” Crown Castle NG East LLC v. The City of Hempstead, 2018 WL 6605857.

It is the intent of the City that this Chapter be applied in a manner consistent with the balancing of interests codified within the TCA.

Attachment 3
49 Consistent with same, the City rejects and shall reject any current and/or future FCC interpretations of any provision of the TCA which are clearly inconsistent with, and/or are clearly contrary to, both the language of the TCA and binding decisions of the United States Court of Appeals and United States District Courts within this Circuit.

This includes a rejection of any FCC interpretations inconsistent with Willoth and any claims that the FCA legally prohibits the Planning Commission from denying a permit application, based solely upon a claim that an applicant desires the installation of its new facility for “densification” of its existing personal wireless services, or to offer a new service, irrespective of whether or not the carrier already possesses adequate coverage within the City, and irrespective of the potential adverse impact which the installation of such new facility or facilities would inflict upon the City, its property owners, citizens and/or communities.

2. Conflict With Federal or State Laws
To the extent that any provision of this Chapter is found to conflict with any applicable federal or State law, it is the intent of the City that the remaining portion of this Chapter which has not been found to conflict with such law be deemed to remain valid and in full force and effect.

Attachment 3
Attachment 4
Attachment 4
Attachment 4
Attachment 4
Attachment 4
Bruce Hollenbeck
Resident
Carmel, CA 93921
June 3, 2022
Carmel City Planning Commission
City Hall
Carmel, CA 93921
Reference Planning Case: New Wireless Ordinance Meeting Dear Planning Commission,
There is no reason to have cell towers in Carmel residential zones. Carmel’s municipal code for telecommunications needs to be strengthened. Andrew Campanelli, considered one of the best telecommunications lawyers in the country, rates Carmel’s current wireless ordinance a 1 out of 10; the least effective ordinance to protect our beautiful city.

Much of the assumed power that companies like Verizon think gives them an almost unlimited authority to place cell towers, comes from interpretations by the FCC of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. These are interpretations of a law-not actual law.

Courts have ruled that it is not up to the FCC to put words in the Telecommunications Act to say something it does not say. The city has more power than I think they realize.

From the Telecommunication Act of 1996 Section 332 (c) paragraph A:

GENERAL AUTHORITY- Except as provided in this paragraph, nothing in this Act shall limit or affect the authority of a State or local government over decisions regarding the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities.

This gives the city the right to determine municipal codes such as setbacks, aesthetic requirements, placement of towers, etc.. If a company files an application for a cell tower, the planning commission must make factual determinations and decide if the new tower will have an adverse aesthetic impact, reduce property values, or if it is out of character with the neighborhood.

Big picture- If a wireless ordinance is written correctly, the city’s planning commission determines the placement of cell towers or if new towers are even required. The ordinance clearly states what evidence is required to deny an application. Grounds for denial of an application does not come from Federal law, it comes from the local codes.

Attachment 4
Andrew Campanelli has written a wireless ordinance that accomplishes these goals. It is not designed to stop all wireless facilities, it is designed to give maximum ability to control where they go.

Additionally, telecom carriers must prove a significant gap in coverage. However, Carmel and the surrounding areas have five cell tower nodes approved already but not in service.

A significant gap in coverage can only be reliably ascertained by actual dropped call data, not propagation maps or drive by tests which are easy to manipulate.

Wireless carries are most likely trying to compete with hard-line cable providers and therefore would eventually require many more towers.

Please listen to the citizens. The majority of Carmel’s citizens want to keep cell towers away from residential neighborhoods. Please consider the Campanelli ordinance. //Signed//
Bruce Hollenbeck
Attachment 4
June 3, 2022
Dear Planning Commissioners,
In a world full of division, it has been heartwarming to see people coming together to support our beautiful village. We are all so blessed to live in this idyllic seaside community and we are willing to do what it takes to maintain our quality of life here. I have literally been brought to tears many times by the kindness, love, and generosity of the people who live here. I feel very lucky to be a part of this amazing community that stands together and helps each other during difficult times.

The Stop group is truly trying to be of service to the community by protecting it from cell tower proliferation. We all want good cell service, but noisy, ugly, bulky, and perhaps unsafe towers do not need to be located outside peoples’ homes.

With generous donations (large and small) from the entire community, we were able to hire one of the best telecom attorneys in the country. Carmel deserves nothing less than the best! Mr. Campanelli has written an ordinance that protects all of Carmel-by-the-Sea neighborhoods. This 48 page ordinance is a gift to the city. I hope you will all take the time to read this incredible piece of work because your decisions will shape the future of our community.

Mr. Campanelli’s says, “my ordinance is not designed to stop all wireless facilities, it designed to give the city maximum ability to control where they go.”
Thank you,
Christy Hollenbeck
Full-time resident of Carmel-by-the-Sea
Attachment 4
Planning Commissioners,
Notes from Andrew Campanelli:
• Most likely everything you’ve heard about the 1996 Telecommunications Act is wrong. Paragraph C7a general authority—there is misinformation about the act throughout wireless industry. Local governments have ability to control local siting, placement, construction and maintenance of wireless facilities in their jurisdictions. You want to minimize number of facilities needed to provide coverage. Avoid adverse impacts- insufficient fall zones, adverse aesthetic impacts. Congress created a balancing of country’s interest in roll out of wireless infrastructure and local government’s interest enforcing local zoning codes
• Your hands are not tied!
• New guidelines—September 2018 FCC said we are going to come up with a new interpretation because congress has not updated Telecommunications Act to keep up with new technology. District courts are bound by superior decisions of circuit courts. (9th circuit in California) According to the 2nd circuit court, It’s not up to the FCC to put words in the Telecommunications Act to say something it does not say. • City of Portland (9th circuit). Did not directly address effective prohibition. In my opinion Portland case has very little affect on effective prohibition. • T-mobile NE vs city of Wilmington (3rd circuit) avoided issue of effective prohibition.
• Crown Castle city of Hempstead interlocutory decision from 2nd circuit. — we don’t have to ask FCC, we are are a district court, we are bound by 2nd circuit. 2nd circuit has already determined what effective prohibition means.

FCC has no power to come up with new interpretation. 9 of 13 circuit courts have ruled on this issue. That’s what’s binding on district courts. • 24 years of precedent. Supposed to be a balancing.
• Site developers want to build every 100-150 ft
• At least once a month cell tower catches fire! Google it-cell tower burns to ground—Wellesley, MA.
• https://youtu.be/0cT5cXuyiYY
• Oswego cell tower crushes fire chiefs vehicle https:// www.google.com/url?
sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjwL64tfL3AhUcoY4IHS1cBCgQFnoECCEQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.fire house.com%2Fhome%2Fnews%2F10530195%2Foswego-new-york-cellulartower-crushes-chiefs-vehicle&usg=AOvVaw2_p8aJWRn4mpOxho-y11Nl Attachment 4
• Most prove significant gap. Must show that proposed installation on the site they want, on the section they want, at the height they want is least intrusive means of remedying that gap. Most carriers cannot meet these standards.

Must prove no possible alternative location. You have a significant gap and no way of remedying that
• Must get permit. Most local codes don’t provide guidance. • If I was to rate Carmel’s ordinances on a scale of 1-10 I would say Carmel is about a one for its ability to control placement of wireless facilities. If crown if If Crown Castle (sophisticated site developer) and said, “I want tower every 150 ft in residential neighborhoods” , the city of Carmel would be powerless to stop them.
• Planning commission has no guidance and no idea how to deal with these applications.
• Telecommunications Act imposes 5 procedural constraints on how you process these applications. Telecommunications Act says, “Local governments have to act on wireless applications within a reasonable time” this has been interpreted by the FCC to mean shot clocks. After application filed, you have a deadline if you blow the deadline they will file a federal lawsuit and win. Any denial of a wireless facility must be based on substantial evidence. This means more than a shred of evidence to support denial.

Local boards have no idea what to do. They need guidance. • Grounds for denial of an application doesn’t come from federal law, it comes from your code local board. Local zoning board, if the code says so, has the power to make factual determinations. If someone files an application for a cell tower, your planning commission must make factual determinations. They get to decide if will have adverse aesthetic impact, it will reduce property values, if it’s out of character with the neighborhood, will adversely impact aesthetic resources. They get to decide what evidence they have to produce what weight to give evidence- they have tremendous power.
• Cannot prohibit or effectively prohibit. Wireless carrier must prove: 1) significant gap in services. 2) proposed site is least intrusive means. • Propagation maps. 95% applicants are submitting false misleading information. False FCC compliance report— might as well be written in Sanskrit—need to know how to spot it is false. They file materially misleading visual impact reports.
• Gap in service use Atoll or program like that. The problem with this software is it is subject to easy manipulation. They can make it look like this is the only place they can build.
• Capacity deficiency- you want denial of service records.

Attachment 4
• Use of propagation maps—Most are false. Computer generated map. No probitive data. Easily manipulated. FCC did drive tests. FCC said accuracy ranges from 16.4% to a max 64%. Must provide actual drop call data. • Verizon wants to do streaming service. Code must address this. • I put in my code guidance to request probative evidence. Want actual drop call data. Code must demand what evidence it needs. Capacity deficiency.

My code tells you what evidence to demand, how to demand. • Most denials are due to:
• 1) Shot clock
• 2) Decisions not based on substantial evidence
• 3) Denial effective prohibition
• Addressed at lengthy in my code so you won’t make those mistakes. It’s not designed to stop all wireless facilities, it designed to give the city maximum ability to control where they go.

Attachment 4
Dear Planning Commissioners,
Please watch the following YouTube videos by
Andrew Campanelli for more information on how he designs his wireless ordinances:

Andrew Campanelli’s Advice for Updating Local Wireless
Ordinance March 30, 2021 (44:20)
https://youtu.be/bKqB8wYY7cA
Lawyer Andrew Campanelli on Cell Tower Ordinances, Setbacks, and Zoning of Wireless Facilities. (11:10)
https://youtu.be/TF2XlZvxmPM
Andrew Campanelli: How to Control Placement of Cell Towers, Small Cells, and DAS Facilities (4:55)
https://youtu.be/D2z-ab5Ks_8
Attachment 4
Attachment 4
Captured Agency
How the Federal Communications Commission Is Dominated
by the Industries It Presumably Regulates
By Norm Alster
--
Copyright:

This ebook is available under the Creative Commons 4.0 license. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
Published by:

Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics
Harvard University
124 Mount Auburn Street, Suite 520N
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA
http://www.ethics.harvard.edu/
Attachment 4

CONTENTS

1. The Corrupted Network

2. Just Don‘t Bring Up Health

3. Wireless Bullies and the Tobacco Analogy

4. You Don‘t Need Wires To Tie People Up

5. $270 Billion . . . and Looking for Handouts

6. The Cable Connection

7. What about Privacy?

8. Dependencies Power the Network of Corruption

9. A Modest Agenda for the FCC

10. Stray Thoughts
Appendix – Survey of Consumer Attitudes
Endnotes
Attachment 4
Chapter One: The Corrupted Network
Renee Sharp seemed proud to discuss her spring 2014 meeting with the Federal Communications Commission.

As research director for the non-profit Environmental Working Group, Sharp doesn‘t get many chances to visit with the FCC. But on this occasion she was able to express her concerns that lax FCC standards on radiation from wireless technologies were especially hazardous for children.

The FCC, however, should have little trouble dismissing those concerns.

Arguing that current standards are more than sufficient and that children are at no elevated risk from microwave radiation, wireless industry lobbyists don‘t generally have to set up appointments months in advance. They are at the FCC‘s door night and day.

Indeed, a former executive with the Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association (CTIA), the industry‘s main lobbying group, has boasted that the CTIA meets with FCC officials ―500 times a year.‖1
Sharp does not seem surprised. ―There‘s no question that the government has been under the influence of industry. The FCC is a captured agency,‖ she said.2 Captured agency.

That‘s a term that comes up time and time again with the FCC. Captured agencies are essentially controlled by the industries they are supposed to regulate. A detailed look at FCC actions—and non-actions—shows that over the years the FCC has granted the wireless industry pretty much what it has wanted. Until very recently it has also granted cable what it wants. More broadly, the FCC has again and again echoed the lobbying points of major technology interests.

Money—and lots of it—has played a part. The National Cable and Telecommunications Association (NCTA) and CTIA have annually been among Washington‘s top lobbying spenders.

CTIA alone lobbied on at least 35 different Congressional bills through the first half of 2014.

Wireless market leaders AT&T and Verizon work through CTIA. But they also do their own lobbying, spending nearly $15 million through June of 2014, according to data from the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP). In all, CTIA, Verizon, AT&T, T-Mobile USA, and Sprint spent roughly $45 million lobbying in 2013. Overall, the Communications/Electronics sector is one of Washington‘s super heavyweight lobbyists, spending nearly $800 million in 2013-2014, according to CRP data.

But direct lobbying by industry is just one of many worms in a rotting apple. The FCC sits at the core of a network that has allowed powerful moneyed interests with limitless access a variety of ways to shape its policies, often at the expense of fundamental public interests.

Attachment 4
As a result, consumer safety, health, and privacy, along with consumer wallets, have all been overlooked, sacrificed, or raided due to unchecked industry influence. The cable industry has consolidated into giant local monopolies that control pricing while leaving consumers little choice over content selection. Though the FCC has only partial responsibility, federal regulators have allowed the Internet to grow into a vast hunting grounds for criminals and commercial interests: the go-to destination for the surrender of personal information, privacy and identity.

Most insidious of all, the wireless industry has been allowed to grow unchecked and virtually unregulated, with fundamental questions on public health impact routinely ignored.

Industry controls the FCC through a soup-to-nuts stranglehold that extends from its wellplaced campaign spending in Congress through its control of the FCC‘s Congressional oversight committees to its persistent agency lobbying. ―If you‘re on a committee that regulates industry you‘ll be a major target for industry,‖ said Twaun Samuel, chief of staff for Congresswoman Maxine Waters.3Samuel several years ago helped write a bill aimed at slowing the revolving door. But with Congress getting its marching orders from industry, the bill never gained any traction.

Industry control, in the case of wireless health issues, extends beyond Congress and regulators to basic scientific research. And in an obvious echo of the hardball tactics of the tobacco industry, the wireless industry has backed up its economic and political power by stonewalling on public relations and bullying potential threats into submission with its huge standing army of lawyers. In this way, a coddled wireless industry intimidated and silenced the City of San Francisco, while running roughshod over local opponents of its expansionary infrastructure.

On a personal level, the entire system is greased by the free flow of executive leadership between the FCC and the industries it presumably oversees. Currently presiding over the FCC is Tom Wheeler, a man who has led the two most powerful industry lobbying groups: CTIA and NCTA. It is Wheeler who once supervised a $25 million industry-funded research effort on wireless health effects. But when handpicked research leader George Carlo concluded that wireless radiation did raise the risk of brain tumors, Wheeler‘s CTIA allegedly rushed to muffle the message. ―You do the science. I‘ll take care of the politics,‖ Carlo recalls Wheeler saying.4 Wheeler over time has proved a masterful politician. President Obama overlooked Wheeler‘s lobbyist past to nominate him as FCC chairman in 2013. He had, after all, raised more than $700,000 for Obama‘s presidential campaigns. Wheeler had little trouble earning confirmation from a Senate whose Democrats toed the Presidential line and whose Republicans understood Wheeler was as industry-friendly a nominee as they could get. And while Wheeler, at the behest of his Presidential sponsor, has taken on cable giants with his plans for net neutrality and shown some openness on other issues, he has dug in his heels on wireless.

Attachment 4
Newly ensconced as chairman of the agency he once blitzed with partisan pitches, Wheeler sees familiar faces heading the industry lobbying groups that ceaselessly petition the FCC. At CTIA, which now calls itself CTIA - The Wireless Association, former FCC commissioner Meredith Atwell Baker is in charge.

And while cell phone manufacturers like Apple and Samsung, along with wireless service behemoths like Verizon and AT&T, are prominent CTIA members, the infrastructure of 300,000 or more cellular base stations and antenna sites has its own lobbying group: PCIA, the Wireless Infrastructure Association. The President and CEO of PCIA is Jonathan Adelstein, another former FCC commissioner. Meanwhile, the cable industry‘s NCTA employs former FCC chairman Michael Powell as its president and CEO. Cozy, isn‘t it? FCC commissioners in 2014 received invitations to the Wireless Foundation‘s May 19th Achievement Awards Dinner. Sounds harmless, but for the fact that the chief honoree at the dinner was none other than former wireless lobbyist but current FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler. Is this the man who will act to look impartially at the growing body of evidence pointing to health and safety issues?
The revolving door also reinforces the clout at another node on the industry-controlled influence network. Members of congressional oversight committees are prime targets of Attachment 4
industry. The cable industry, for example, knows that key legislation must move through the Communications and Technology Subcommittee of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Little wonder then that subcommittee chairman Greg Walden was the second leading recipient (after Speaker John Boehner) of cable industry contributions in the last six years (through June 30, 2014). In all, Walden, an Oregon Republican, has taken over $108,000 from cable and satellite production and distribution companies.5 But he is not alone. Six of the top ten recipients of cable and satellite contributions sit on the industry‘s House oversight committee. The same is true of senators on the cable oversight committee. Committee members were six of the ten top recipients of campaign cash from the industry.6 Attachment 4
Attachment 4
The compromised FCC network goes well beyond the revolving door and congressional oversight committees. The Washington social scene is one where money sets the tone and throws the parties. A look at the recent calendar of one current FCC commissioner shows it would take very disciplined and almost saintly behavior on the part of government officials to resist the lure of lavishly catered dinners and cocktail events. To paraphrase iconic investigative journalist I.F.

Stone, if you‘re going to work in Washington, bring your chastity belt.

All that free liquor, food and conviviality translates into the lobbyist‘s ultimate goal: access. ―They have disproportionate access,‖ notes former FCC commissioner Michael Copps. ―When you are in a town where most people you see socially are in industry, you don‘t have to ascribe malevolent behavior to it,‖ he added.7
Not malevolent in motive. But the results can be toxic. And blame does not lie solely at the feet of current commissioners. The FCC‘s problems predate Tom Wheeler and go back a long way.

Indeed, former Chairman Newton Minow, enduringly famous for his 1961 description of television as a ―vast wasteland,‖ recalls that industry manipulation of regulators was an issue even back then. ―When I arrived, the FCC and the communications industry were both regarded as cesspools. Part of my job was to try to clean it up.‖8 More than 50 years later, the mess continues to pile up.

Attachment 4
Chapter Two: Just Don’t Bring Up Health
Perhaps the best example of how the FCC is tangled in a chain of corruption is the cell tower and antenna infrastructure that lies at the heart of the phenomenally successful wireless industry.

It all begins with passage of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, legislation once described by South Dakota Republican senator Larry Pressler as ―the most lobbied bill in history.‖ Late lobbying won the wireless industry enormous concessions from lawmakers, many of them major recipients of industry hard and soft dollar contributions. Congressional staffers who helped lobbyists write the new law did not go unrewarded. Thirteen of fifteen staffers later became lobbyists themselves.9
Section 332(c)(7)(B)(iv) of the Act remarkably—and that adverb seems inescapably best here—wrests zoning authority from local governments. Specifically, they cannot cite health concerns about the effects of tower radiation to deny tower licenses so long as the towers comply with FCC regulations.

In preempting local zoning authority—along with the public‘s right to guard its own safety and health— Congress unleashed an orgy of infrastructure build-out. Emboldened by the government green light and the vast consumer appetite for wireless technology, industry has had a free hand in installing more than 300,000 sites. Church steeples, schoolyards, school rooftops, even trees can house these facilities.

Is there any reason to believe that the relatively low level radiofrequency emissions of these facilities constitute a public health threat? Certainly, cell phones themselves, held close to the head, have been the focus of most concern on RF emissions. Since the impact of RF diminishes with distance, industry advocates and many scientists dismiss the possibility that such structures pose health risks.

Attachment 4
But it‘s not really that simple. A troubling body of evidence suggests exposure to even low emission levels at typical cellular frequencies between 300 MHz and 3 GHz can have a wide range of negative effects.

In a 2010 review of research on the biological effects of exposure to radiation from cell tower base stations, B. Blake Levitt and Henry Lai found that ―some research does exist to warrant caution in infrastructure siting.‖10 They summarized the results on one 2002 study that compared the health of 530 people living at various distances within 300 meters of cell towers with a control group living more than 300 meters away. ―Results indicated increased symptoms and complaints the closer a person lived to a tower. At <10 m, symptoms included nausea, loss of appetite, visual disruptions, and difficulties in moving. Significant differences were observed up through 100 m for irritability, depressive tendencies, concentration difficulties, memory loss, dizziness, and lower libido.‖11
A 2007 study conducted in Egypt found similar results. Levitt and Lai report, ―Headaches, memory changes, dizziness, tremors, depressive symptoms, and sleep disturbance were significantly higher among exposed inhabitants than controls.‖ 12 Beyond epidemiological studies, research on a wide range of living things raises further red flags. A 2013 study by the Indian scientists S. Sivani and D. Sudarsanam reports: ―Based on current available literature, it is justified to conclude that RF-EMF [electro magnetic fields] radiation exposure can change neurotransmitter functions, blood-brain barrier, morphology, electrophysiology, cellular metabolism, calcium efflux, and gene and protein expression in certain types of cells even at lower intensities.‖13
The article goes on to detail the effects of mobile tower emissions on a wide range of living organisms: ―Tops of trees tend to dry up when they directly face the cell tower antennas. . . . A study by the Centre for Environment and Vocational Studies of Punjab University noted that embryos of 50 eggs of house sparrows were damaged after being exposed to mobile tower radiation for 5-30 minutes. . . . In a study on cows and calves on the effects of exposure from mobile phone base stations, it was noted that 32% of calves developed nuclear cataracts, 3.6% severely.‖
14 Does any of this constitute the conclusive evidence that would mandate much tighter control of the wireless infrastructure? Not in the estimation of industry and its captured agency. Citing other studies—often industry-funded—that fail to establish health effects, the wireless industry has dismissed such concerns. The FCC has typically echoed that position.

Keep in mind that light regulation has been one factor in the extraordinary growth of wireless—CTIA says exactly that in a Web post that credits the Clinton Administrations light regulatory touch.

Attachment 4
Obviously, cellular technology is wildly popular because it offers many benefits to consumers. But even allowing for that popularity and for the incomplete state of science, don‘t some of these findings raise enough concern to warrant some backtracking on the ham-fisted federal preemption of local zoning rights?
In reality, since the passage of the 1996 law, the very opposite has occurred. Again and again both Congress and the FCC have opted to stiffen—rather than loosen—federal preemption over local zoning authority. In 2009, for example, the wireless industry convinced the FCC to impose a ―shot clock‖ that requires action within 90 days on many zoning applications. ―My sense is that it was an industry request,‖ said Robert Weller, who headed up the FCC‘s Office of Engineering and Technology when the shot clock was considered and imposed. 15 And just last November, the FCC voted to further curb the rights of local zoning officials to control the expansion of antenna sites Again and again, Congress and the FCC have extended the wireless industry carte blanche to build out infrastructure no matter the consequences to local communities.

The question that hangs over all this: would consumers‘ embrace of cell phones and Wi-Fi be quite so ardent if the wireless industry, enabled by its Washington errand boys, hadn‘t so consistently stonewalled on evidence and substituted legal intimidation for honest inquiry? (See Appendix for online study of consumer attitudes on wireless health and safety.) Document searches under the Freedom of Information Act reveal the central role of Tom Wheeler and the FCC in the tower siting issue. As both lobbyist and FCC chairman, Wheeler has proved himself a good friend of the wireless industry.

In January of 1997, CTIA chieftain Wheeler wrote FCC Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Chief Michele C. Farquhar citing several municipal efforts to assert control over siting.

Wheeler, for example, asserted that one New England state had enacted a law requiring its Public Service Commissioner to issue a report on health risks posed by wireless facilities.16 He Attachment 4
questions whether such a study—and regulations based on its results—would infringe on FCC preemption authority.

FCC bureau chief Farquhar hastily reassured Wheeler that no such study could be consulted in zoning decisions. ―Therefore, based on the facts as you have presented them, that portion of the statute that directs the State Commissioner to recommend regulations based upon the study‘s findings would appear to be preempted,‖
17 the FCC official wrote to Wheeler. She emphasized
that the state had the right to do the study. It just couldn‘t deny a siting application based on anything it might learn.

The FCC in 1997 sent the message it has implicitly endorsed and conveyed ever since: study health effects all you want. It doesn‘t matter what you find. The build-out of wireless cannot be blocked or slowed by health issues.

Now let‘s fast forward to see Wheeler on the other side of the revolving door, interacting as FCC chairman with a former FCC commissioner who is now an industry lobbyist.

A March 14, 2014 letter18 reveals the chummy relationship between Wheeler and former commissioner Jonathan Adelstein, now head of PCIA, the cellular infrastructure lobbying group.

It also references FCC Chairman Wheeler seeking policy counsel from lobbyist Adelstein:
“Tom – It was great to see you the other night at the FCBA event, and wonderful to see how much fun you’re having (if that’s the right word). I know I enjoyed my time there (thanks to your help with Daschle in getting me that role in the first place!).” “Thanks for asking how we think the FCC can help spur wireless broadband deployment,” the wireless lobbyist writes to the ex-wireless lobbyist, now running the FCC.

Attachment 4
Adelstein‘s first recommendation for FCC action: “Amend its rules to categorically exclude DAS and small deployments [Ed. note: these are compact tower add-ons currently being widely deployed] from environmental and historic review.” Adelstein outlined other suggestions for further limiting local antenna zoning authority and the FCC soon did its part. Late last year, the agency proposed new rules that largely (though not entirely) complied with the antenna industry‘s wish list.

James R. Hobson is an attorney who has represented municipalities in zoning issues involving the FCC. He is also a former FCC official, who is now of counsel at Best, Best and Krieger, a Washington-based municipal law practice. ―The FCC has been the ally of industry,‖ says Hobson. Lobbyist pressure at the FCC was intense even back in the 70s, when he was a bureau chief there. ―When I was at the FCC, a lot of my day was taken up with appointments with industry lobbyists.‖ He says of the CTIA that Wheeler once headed: ―Their reason for being is promoting the wireless industry. And they‘ve been successful at it.‖19 The FCC‘s deferential compliance has allowed industry to regularly bypass and if necessary steamroll local authorities. Violation of the FCC-imposed ―shot clock,‖ for example, allows the wireless license applicant to sue.

The FCC‘s service to the industry it is supposed to regulate is evidently appreciated. The CTIA web site, typically overflowing with self-congratulation, spreads the praise around in acknowledging the enabling contributions of a cooperative FCC. In one brief summation of its own glorious accomplishments, CTIA twice uses the word ―thankfully‖ in describing favorable FCC actions.

In advancing the industry agenda, the FCC can claim that it is merely reflecting the will of Congress. But the agency may not be doing even that.

Remember the key clause in the 96 Telecom Act that disallowed denial of zoning permits based on health concerns? Well, federal preemption is granted to pretty much any wireless outfit on just one simple condition: its installations must comply with FCC radiation emission standards. In view of this generous carte blanche to move radiation equipment into neighborhoods, schoolyards and home rooftops, one would think the FCC would at the very least diligently enforce its own emission standards. But that does not appear to be the case.

Indeed, one RF engineer who has worked on more than 3,000 rooftop sites found vast evidence of non-compliance. Marvin Wessel estimates that ―10 to 20% exceed allowed radiation standards.‖20 With 30,000 rooftop antenna sites across the U.S. that would mean that as many as 6,000 are emitting radiation in violation of FCC standards. Often, these emissions can be 600% or more of allowed exposure levels, according to Wessel.

Antenna standards allow for higher exposure to workers. In the case of rooftop sites, such workers could be roofers, painters, testers and installers of heating and air conditioning Attachment 4
equipment, to cite just a few examples. But many sites, according to Wessel, emit radiation at much higher levels than those permitted in occupational standards. This is especially true of sites where service providers keep adding new antenna units to expand their coverage. ―Some of these new sites will exceed ten times the allowable occupational radiation level,‖ said Wessel.21 Essentially, he adds, this means that nobody should be stepping on the roof. ―The FCC is not enforcing its own standard,‖ noted Janet Newton, who runs the EMF Policy Institute, a Vermont-based non-profit. That group several years ago filed 101 complaints on specific rooftop sites where radiation emissions exceeded allowable levels. ―We did this as an exercise to hold the FCC‘s feet to the fire,‖ she said. But the 101 complaints resulted in few responsive actions, according to Newton.22
Former FCC official Bob Weller confirms the lax—perhaps negligible is the more appropriate word—FCC activity in enforcing antenna standards. ―To my knowledge, the enforcement bureau has never done a targeted inspection effort around RF exposure,‖ he said.23 Budget cuts at the agency have hurt, limiting the FCC‘s ability to perform field inspections, he added. But enforcement, he adds, would do wonders to insure industry compliance with its limited regulatory compliance requirements. ―If there were targeted enforcement and fines issued the industry would pay greater attention to ensuring compliance and self-regulation,‖ he allowed.

Insurance is where the rubber hits the road on risk. So it is interesting to note that the rating agency A.M. Best, which advises insurers on risk, in 2013 topped its list of ―emerging technology-based risks‖ with RF Radiation:
“The risks associated with long-term use of cell phones, although much studied over the past 10 years, remain unclear. Dangers to the estimated 250,000 workers per year who come in close contact with cell phone antennas, however, are now more clearly established. Thermal effects of the cellular antennas, which act at close range essentially as open microwave ovens can include eye damage, sterility and cognitive impairments.

While workers of cellular companies are well trained on the potential dangers, other workers exposed to the antennas are often unaware of the health risks. The continued exponential growth of cellular towers will significantly increase exposure of these workers and others coming into close contact with high-energy cell phone antenna radiation,” A.M. Best wrote.24
So what has the FCC done to tighten enforcement? Apparently, not very much. Though it does follow up on many of the complaints filed against sites alleged to be in violation of standards it takes punitive actions very rarely. (The FCC did not provide answers to written questions on details of its tower enforcement policies.) The best ally of industry and the FCC on this (and other) issues may be public ignorance.

Attachment 4
An online poll conducted for this project asked 202 respondents to rate the likelihood of a series of statements.25 Most of the statements were subject to dispute. Cell phones raise the risk of certain health effects and brain cancer, two said. There is no proof that cell phones are harmful, another declared. But among the six statements there was one statement of indisputable fact: ―The U.S. Congress forbids local communities from considering health effects when deciding whether to issue zoning permits for wireless antennae,‖ the statement said.

Though this is a stone cold fact that the wireless industry, the FCC and the courts have all turned into hard and inescapable reality for local authorities, just 1.5% of all poll respondents replied that it was ―definitely true.‖
Public ignorance didn‘t take much cultivation by the wireless industry on the issue of local zoning. And maybe it doesn‘t matter much, considering the enormous popularity of wireless devices. But let‘s see how public ignorance has been cultivated and secured—with the FCC‘s passive support—on the potentially more disruptive issue of mobile phone health effects.

Attachment 4
Chapter Three: Wireless Bullies and the Tobacco Analogy Issues of cable and net neutrality have recently attracted wide public attention (more on that in Chapter Six). Still, the bet here remains that future judgment of the FCC will hinge on its handling of wireless health and safety issues.

And while the tower siting issue is an egregious example of an industry-dominated political process run amuck, the stronger health risks appear to reside in the phones themselves. This is an issue that has flared up several times in recent years. Each time, industry has managed to beat back such concerns. But it‘s worth noting that the scientific roots of concern have not disappeared. If anything, they‘ve thickened as new research substantiates older concerns.

The story of an FCC passively echoing an industry determined to play hardball with its critics is worth a further look. The CTIA‘s own website acknowledges the helpful hand of government‘s ―light regulatory touch‖ in allowing the industry to grow.26 Former congressman Dennis Kucinich ventures one explanation for the wireless industry‘s success in dodging regulation: ―The industry has grown so fast its growth has overtaken any health concerns that may have gained attention in a slow growth environment. The proliferation of technology has overwhelmed all institutions that would have attempted safety testing and standards,‖ Kucinich said.
27 But the core questions remain: Is there really credible evidence that cell phones emit harmful radiation that can cause human health problems and disease? Has the FCC done an adequate job in protecting consumers from health risks? Or has it simply aped industry stonewalling on health and safety issues?
Before wading into these questions, some perspective is in order.

First, there‘s simply no denying the usefulness and immense popularity of wireless technology. People depend on it for safety, information, entertainment and communication. It doesn‘t take a keen social observer to know that wireless has thoroughly insinuated itself into daily life and culture.

The unanswered question, though, is whether consumers would embrace the technology quite so fervently if health and safety information was not spun, filtered and clouded by a variety of industry tactics.

To gain some insight into this question, we conducted an online survey of 202 respondents, nearly all of whom own cell phones, on Amazon‘s Mechanical Turk Web platform (see Appendix). One striking set of findings: many respondents claim they would change behavior— reduce wireless use, restore landline service, protect their children—if claims on health dangers of wireless are true.

Attachment 4
It is not the purpose of this reporter to establish that heavy cell phone usage is dangerous.

This remains an extremely controversial scientific issue with new findings and revised scientific conclusions repeatedly popping up. Just months ago, a German scientist who had been outspoken in denouncing the view that cell phones pose health risks reversed course. In an April 2015 publication, Alexander Lerchl reported results confirming previous research on the tumorpromoting effects of electromagnetic fields well below human exposure limits for mobile phones. ―Our findings may help to understand the repeatedly reported increased incidences of brain tumors in heavy users of mobile phones,‖ the Lerchl team concluded.28 And in May 2015, more than 200 scientists boasting over 2,000 publications on wireless effects called on global institutions to address the health risks posed by this technology.

But the National Cancer Institute still contends that no cell phone dangers have been established. A representative of NCI was the sole known dissenter among the 30 members of the World Health Organization‘s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) when it voted to declare wireless RF ―possibly carcinogenic.‖29 If leading scientists still can‘t agree, I will not presume to reach a scientific conclusion on my own.

Attachment 4
But let‘s at least look at some of the incriminating clues that health and biology research has revealed to date. And let‘s look at the responses of both industry and the FCC.

The most widely cited evidence implicating wireless phones concerns gliomas, a very serious type of brain tumor. The evidence of elevated risk for such tumors among heavy cell phone users comes from several sources.

Gliomas account for roughly half of all malignant brain tumors, which are relatively rare.

The annual incidence of primary malignant brain tumors in the U.S. is only 8.2 per 100,000 people, according to the International Radio Surgery Association.

Still, when projected over the entire U.S. population, the public health impact is potentially very significant.

Assuming roughly four new glioma cases annually in the U.S. per 100,000 people, yields over 13,000 new cases per year over a total U.S. population of 330 million. Even a doubling of that rate would mean 13,000 new gliomas, often deadly, per year. A tripling, as some studies have found, could mean as many as 26,000 more new cases annually. Indeed, the respected online site Medscape in January 2015 reported results of Swedish research under the headline:

Risk for Glioma Triples With Long-Term Cell Phone Use.
30 And here‘s some eye-opening quantitative perspective: the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, waged now for more than a decade each, have together resulted in roughly 7,000 U.S. deaths.

Preliminary—though still inconclusive—research has suggested other potential negative health effects. Swedish, Danish and Israeli scientists have all found elevated risk of salivary gland tumors. One Israeli studied suggested elevated thyroid cancer risk. Some research has found that men who carry their phones in their pockets may suffer sperm count damage. One small study even suggests that young women who carry wireless devices in their bras are unusually vulnerable to breast cancer.

And while industry and government have never accepted that some portion of the population is unusually sensitive to electromagnetic fields, many people continue to complain of a broad range of symptoms that include general weakness, headaches, nausea and dizziness from exposure to wireless.

Some have suggested that the health situation with wireless is analogous to that of tobacco before court decisions finally forced Big Tobacco to admit guilt and pay up. In some ways, the analogy is unfair. Wireless research is not as conclusively incriminating as tobacco research was.

And the identified health risks with wireless, significant as they are, still pale compared with those of tobacco.

But let‘s not dismiss the analogy outright. There is actually a very significant sense in which the tobacco-wireless analogy is uncannily valid.

Attachment 4
People tend to forget that the tobacco industry—like the wireless industry—also adopted a policy of tone-deaf denial. As recently as 1998, even as evidence of tobacco toxicity grew overwhelming, cigarette maker Phillip Morris was writing newspaper advertorials insisting there was no proof smoking caused cancer.

It seems significant that the responses of wireless and its captured agency—the FCC— feature the same obtuse refusal to examine the evidence. The wireless industry reaction features stonewalling public relations and hyper aggressive legal action. It can also involve undermining the credibility and cutting off the funding for researchers who do not endorse cellular safety. It is these hardball tactics that look a lot like 20th century Big Tobacco tactics. It is these hardball tactics—along with consistently supportive FCC policies—that heighten suspicion the wireless industry does indeed have something to hide.

Begin with some simple facts issuing from meta-analysis of cellular research. Dr. Henry Lai, emeritus professor of bioengineering at the University of Washington, has reviewed hundreds of published scientific papers on the subject. He wanted to see how many studies demonstrated that non-ionizing radiation produces biological effects beyond the heating of tissue. This is critical since the FCC emission standards protect only against heating. The assumption behind these standards is that there are no biological effects beyond heating.

But Dr. Lai found that just over half—actually 56%—of 326 studies identified biological effects. And the results were far more striking when Dr. Lai divided the studies between those that were industry-funded and those that were independently funded. Industry-funded research identified biological effects in just 28% of studies. But fully 67% of non-industry funded studies found biological effects (Insert Slide—Cell Phone Biological Studies).

A study conducted by Swiss and British scientists also looked at how funding sources affected scientific conclusions on the possible health effects of cell phone usage. They found that of studies privately funded, publicly funded and funded with mixed sponsorship, industry-funded studies were ―least likely to report a statistically significant result.‖ 31 ―The interpretation of
results from studies of health effects of radiofrequency radiation should take sponsorship into account,‖ the scientists concluded.32
So how does the FCC handle a scientific split that seems to suggest bias in industrysponsored research? In a posting on its Web site that reads like it was written by wireless lobbyists, the FCC chooses strikingly patronizing language to slight and trivialize the many scientists and health and safety experts who‘ve found cause for concern. In a two page Web post titled ―Wireless Devices and Health Concerns,‖ the FCC four times refers to either ―some health and safety interest groups,‖ ―some parties,‖ or ―some consumers‖ before in each case rebutting their presumably groundless concerns about wireless risk.33 Additionally, the FCC site references the World Health Organization as among those organizations who‘ve found that ―the weight of scientific Attachment 4
evidence‖ has not linked exposure to radiofrequency from mobile devices with ―any known health problems.‖
Yes, it‘s true that the World Health organization remains bitterly divided on the subject. But it‘s also true that a 30 member unit of the WHO called the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) was near unanimous in pronouncing cell phones ―possibly carcinogenic‖ in 2011. How can the FCC omit any reference to such a pronouncement? Even if it finds reason to side with pro-industry scientists, shouldn‘t this government agency also mention that cell phones are currently in the same potential carcinogen class as lead paint? Now let‘s look a bit more closely at the troublesome but presumably clueless crowd of ―some parties‖ that the FCC so cavalierly hastens to dismiss? Let‘s begin with Lennart Hardell, professor of Oncology and Cancer Epidemiology at the University Hospital in Oreboro, Sweden.

Until recently it was impossible to gain any real sense of brain tumor risk from wireless since brain tumors often take 20 or more years to develop. But the cohort of long-term users has been growing. In a study published in the International Journal of Oncology in 2013, Dr. Hardell and Dr. Michael Carlberg found that the risk of glioma—the most deadly type of brain cancer—rose with cell phone usage. The risk was highest among heavy cell phone users and those who began to use cell phones before the age of 20.34
Indeed, those who used their phones at least 1640 hours (which would be roughly 30 minutes a day for nine years) had nearly three times the glioma incidence. Drs. Hardell and Carlberg also found that gliomas tend to be more deadly among heavy wireless callers.35 Perhaps of greatest long-term relevance, glioma risk was found to be four times higher among those who began to use mobile phones as teenagers or earlier. These findings, along with the established fact that it generally takes decades for tumors induced by environmental agents to appear, suggest that the worst consequences of omnipresent wireless devices have yet to be seen.

In a 2013 paper published in Reviews on Environmental Health, Drs. Hardell and Carlberg argued that the 2011 finding of the IARC that identified cell phones as a ―possibly carcinogenic‖ needs to be revised. The conclusion on radiofrequency electromagnetic fields from cell phones should now be ―cell phones are not just a possible carcinogen.‖ They can now be ―regarded as carcinogenic to humans‖ and the direct cause of gliomas (as well as acoustic neuromas, a less serious type of tumor).36 Of course, these views are not universally accepted.

The usual spin among industry supporters when presented with research that produces troubling results is along the lines of: ―We might pay attention if the results are duplicated.‖ In fact, the Hardell results were echoed in the French CERENAT study, reported in May of 2014.

The CERENAT study also found higher risk among heavy users, defined as those using their phones at least 896 hours (just 30 minutes a day for five years). ―These additional data support Attachment 4
previous findings concerning a possible association between heavy mobile phone use and brain tumors,‖ the study concluded.
37 Cell phones are not the only wireless suspects. Asked what he would do if he had policymaking authority, Dr. Hardell swiftly replied that he would ―ban wireless use in schools and preschools. You don‘t need Wi-Fi,‖ he noted.38 This is especially interesting in view of the FCC‘s sharply hiked spending to promote and extend Wi-Fi usage, as well as its consistent refusal to set more stringent standards for children (more on all this later). But for now let‘s further fill out the roster of the FCC‘s unnamed ―some parties.‖
Martin Blank is a Special Lecturer in Physiology and Cellular Biophysics at Columbia University. Unlike Dr. Hardell, who looks at broad epidemiological effects over time, Dr. Blank sees cause for concern in research showing there is biological response at the cellular level to the type of radiation emitted by wireless devices. ―The biology tells you unequivocally that the cell treats radiation as a potentially damaging influence,‖ Dr. Blank said in a late 2014 interview.39 ―The biology tells you it‘s dangerous at a low level,‖ he added. Though some results have been difficult to replicate, researchers have identified a wide range of cellular responses including genetic damage and penetration of the blood brain barrier. Dr. Blank specifically cited the ―cellular stress response‖ in which cells exposed to radiation start to make proteins.

It is still not clear whether biological responses at the cellular level translate into human health effects. But the research seems to invalidate the basic premise of FCC standards that the only biological effect of the type of radiation produced by wireless devices is tissue heating at very high power levels. But the standards-setting agencies ―ignore the biology,‖ according to Dr.

Blank. He describes the FCC as being ―in industry‘s pocket.‖40 Sweden‘s Lund University is annually ranked among the top 100 universities in the world.

Leif Salford has been chairman of the Department of Neurosurgery at Lund since 1996. He is also a former president of the European Association for Neuro-Oncology. In the spring of 2000, Professor Salford told me that wireless usage constituted ―the world‘s largest biological experiment ever.‖41
He has conducted numerous experiments exposing rats to cellular-type radiation. Individual experiments have shown the radiation to penetrate the blood-brain barrier, essential to protecting the brain from bloodstream toxins. Professor Salford also found that rats exposed to radiation suffered loss of brain cells. ―A rat‘s brain is very much the same as a human‘s. They have the same blood-brain barrier and neurons. We have good reason to believe that what happens in rat‘s brains also happens in humans,‖ he told the BBC in 2003. Dr. Salford has also speculated that mobile radiation could trigger Alzheimer‘s disease in some cases but emphasized that much more research would be needed to establish any such causal relationship. Does this man deserve to be dismissed as one of a nameless and discredited group of ―some parties?‖ Attachment 4
And what about the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), which represents 60,000 American doctors who care for children? In a December 12, 2012 letter to former Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich, AAP President Dr. Thomas McInerny writes: ―Children are disproportionately affected by environmental exposures, including cell phone radiation. The differences in bone density and the amount of fluid in a child‘s brain compared to an adult‘s brain could allow children to absorb greater quantities of RF energy deeper into their brains than adults.‖42
In a subsequent letter to FCC officials dated August 29, 2013, Dr. McInerny points out that ―children, however, are not little adults and are disproportionately impacted by all environmental exposures, including cell phone radiation.‖ Current FCC exposure standards, set back in 1996, ―do not account for the unique vulnerability and use patterns specific to pregnant women and children,‖ he wrote. (Insert slide: A Plea from Pediatricians). Does an organization representing 60,000 practitioners who care for children deserve to be brushed off along with ―some health and safety interest groups?‖
So what is the FCC doing in response to what at the very least is a troubling chain of clues to cellular danger? As it has done with wireless infrastructure, the FCC has to this point largely relied on industry ―self-regulation.‖ Though it set standards for device radiation emissions back in 1996, the agency doesn‘t generally test devices itself. Despite its responsibility for the safety of cell phones, the FCC relies on manufacturers‘ good-faith efforts to test them. Critics contend that this has allowed manufacturers undue latitude in testing their devices.

Critics further contend that current standards, in place since cell phones were barely in use, are far too lax and do not reflect the heavy usage patterns that have evolved. Worse still, industry is allowed to test its own devices using an imprecise system that makes no special provision for protecting children and pregnant women. One 2012 study noted that the procedure widely used by manufacturers to test their phones ―substantially underestimates‖ the amount of RF energy absorbed by 97% of the population, ―especially children.‖ A child‘s head can absorb over two times as much RF energy. Other persons with smaller heads, including women, are also more vulnerable. The authors recommend an alternative computer simulation technique that would provide greater insight into the impact of cellular radiation on children and on to the specific RF absorption rates of different tissues, which vary greatly.43 Acting on recommendations of the General Accounting Office, the FCC is now reconsidering its standards for wireless testing and allowed emissions. On the surface, this may seem to represent an effort to tighten standards to promote consumer health and safety. But many believe the FCC‘s eventual new standard will actually be weaker, intensifying any health risk from industry‘s self-reported emission levels. ―They‘re under great pressure from industry to loosen the criteria,‖ notes Joel Moskowitz, director of the Center for Family and Community Health at UC Berkeley‘s School of Public Health.44 One fear is that the FCC could measure the allowed radiation absorption level (SAR) over a wider sample of tissue, effectively loosening the Attachment 4
standard allowable energy absorption. One FCC official, who asked that his name not be used, contended that a decision had not yet been made to loosen the standard.

But to this point, there is little evidence the FCC is listening to anyone beyond its familiar friends in the wireless industry. Carl Blackman, a scientist at the Environmental Protection agency until retiring in 2014, notes that the FCC does rely to some degree on an inter-agency governmental group for advice on health matters. The group includes, for example, representatives from the EPA and the FDA.

Blackman served on that advisory group and he says that it has been divided. Though some government advisers to the FCC find evidence of wireless health risks convincing, others remain skeptical, said Blackman. Root of the skepticism: even though numerous researchers have found biological and health effects, the mechanism for action by non-ionizing radiation on the human body has still not been identified. ―I don‘t think there‘s enough of a consensus within the Radio Frequency Inter-agency Working Group for them to come out with stricter standards,‖ he says.45 But political pressures also figure mightily in all this. The EPA, notably, was once a hub of research on RF effects, employing as many as 35 scientists. However, the research program was cut off in the late 80s during the Regan presidency. Blackman says he was personally ―forbidden‖ to study health effects by his ―supervisory structure.‖46 He termed it ―a political decision‖ but recognized that if he wanted to continue to work at the EPA he would have to do research in another area.

Blackman is cautious in imputing motives to the high government officials who wanted his work at EPA stopped. But he does say that political pressure has been a factor at both the EPA and FCC: ―The FCC people were quite responsive to the biological point of view. But there are also pressures on the FCC from industry.‖ The FCC, he suggests, may not just be looking at the scientific evidence ―The FCC‘s position—like the EPA‘s—is influenced by political considerations as well.‖47
Still, the FCC has ultimate regulatory responsibility and cannot indefinitely pass the buck on an issue of fundamental public health. Remarkably, it has not changed course despite the IARC classification of cell phones as possibly carcinogenic, despite the recent studies showing triple the glioma risk for heavy users, despite the floodtide of research showing biological effects, and despite even the recent defection of core industry booster Alex Lerchl. It is the refusal of both industry and the FCC to even acknowledge this cascade of warning signs that seems most incriminating.

Of course, industry behavior goes well beyond pushing for the FCC‘s willful ignorance and inaction. Industry behavior also includes self-serving public relations and hyper aggressive legal action. It can also involve undermining the credibility of and cutting off the funding for researchers who do not endorse cellular safety. It is these hardball tactics that recall 20th century Big Tobacco tactics. It is these tactics that heighten suspicion that the wireless industry does Attachment 4
indeed have a dirty secret. And it is those tactics that intensify the spotlight on an FCC that so timidly follows the script of the fabulously wealthy, bullying, billion-dollar beneficiaries of wireless.

Attachment 4
Chapter Four: You Don’t Need Wires To Tie People Up
So let‘s look a little more deeply at some of the actions of an industry group that boasts of 500 meetings a year with the FCC. Lobbying is one thing. Intimidation is another. CTIA has shown its skill at—and willingness to use—both.

Outright legal bullying is a favored tactic. The City of San Francisco passed an ordinance in 2010 that required cell phone manufacturers to display more prominently information on the emissions from their devices. This information was already disclosed—but often buried—in operator manuals and on manufacturer websites. The idea was to ensure that consumers saw information already mandated and provided.

Seeing this as a threat to its floodtide of business, the industry sued the City of San Francisco. The City, fearing a prolonged legal fight with an industry that generates hundreds of billions of dollars in annual revenue, backed down.

On May 12, 2015, Berkeley, California‘s City Council unanimously passed a similar ordinance. Joel Moskowitz, director of the Center for Family and Community Health at the University of California-Berkeley‘s School of Public Health, has been involved in the effort.

Berkeley, he says, didn‘t want to run into the same legal threats that paralyzed San Francisco. So it tried to draft the most inoffensive and mild language possible. The proposed Cell Phone Right to Know ordinance: ―To assure safety, the Federal Government requires that cell phones meet radio frequency (RF) exposure guidelines. If you carry or use your phone in a pants or shirt pocket or tucked into a bra when the phone is ON and connected to a wireless network, you may exceed the federal guidelines for exposure to RF radiation. This potential risk is greater for children. Refer to the instructions in your phone or user manual for information about how to use your phone safely.‖
48 Sounds pretty inoffensive, no? Not to the CTIA, which indicated that it was prepared to sue, according to Berkeley City Attorney Zach Cowan.
49 (On June 8th, CTIA did indeed sue the City
of Berkeley.)
Well, from the industry point of view, why not throw around your weight? Smash mouth legal tactics have been highly successful thus far as industry has managed to throttle several efforts to implicate manufacturers in cases where heavy users suffered brain tumors.

But one current case has advanced in district court in Washington to the point where the judge allowed plaintiffs to present expert witness testimony. The industry response: file a legal action seeking to invalidate long-held court methods for qualifying expert witnesses.

This is a very rich industry that does not hesitate to outspend and bully challengers into submission. Meanwhile, amidst the legal smoke and medical confusion, the industry has Attachment 4
managed to make the entire world dependent on its products. Even tobacco never had so many hooked users.

Such sustained success in the face of medical doubt has required industry to keep a lid on critics and detractors. Many scientists who‘ve found real or potential risk from the sort of microwave radiation emanating from wireless devices have learned there is a price to be paid for standing up to the industry juggernaut. A few prominent examples:
--
In 1994, University of Washington researchers Henry Lai and N.P. Singh found that rats exposed to microwave radiation suffered DNA damage to their brain cells. This was a scary finding since DNA damage can lead to mutations and possibly cancer.

The reaction from industry was swift. Motorola was at that time the U.S. market leader in cell phones. In a memorandum obtained by the journal Microwave News, Motorola PR honcho Norm Sandler outlined how the company could ―downplay the significance of the Lai study.‖ One step: ―We have developed a list of independent experts in this field and are in the process of recruiting individuals willing and able to reassure the public on these matters,‖ Sandler wrote.

After outlining such measures, he concluded that Motorola had ―sufficiently war-gamed‖ the issue. The practices of lining up industry-friendly testimony and ―war-gaming‖ researchers who come up with unfavorable results have been persistent themes with this industry. --
After Lai‘s results were published, Motorola decided to sponsor further research on microwaves and DNA damage. Oftentimes, lab results cannot be reproduced by other Attachment 4
researchers, particularly if experiments are tweaked and performed a bit differently. Nonconfirming studies raise doubt, of course, on the original work.

Motorola lined up Jerry Phillips, a scientist at the Veteran‘s Administration Medical Center in Loma Linda, California, and Phillips tested the effect of radiation at different frequencies from those tested by Lai and Singh. Nevertheless, Phillips found that at some levels of exposure, DNA damage increased, while at other levels it decreased. Such findings were ―consistent‖ with the sorts of effects produced by chemical agents, Phillips said in an interview.50 In some cases, the radiation may have activated DNA repair mechanisms, reducing the overall microwave effect.

But what was important, Phillips explained, is that there were any biological effects at all. The wireless industry has long contended—and the FCC has agreed—that there is no evidence that non-ionizing radiation at the frequencies and power levels used by cell phones is biologically active.

Understanding the potential impact of ―biological effect‖ findings, Motorola again turned to damage control, said Phillips. He recalls receiving a phone call from a Motorola R&D executive. ―I don‘t think you‘ve done enough research,‘‖ Phillips recalls being told. The study wasn‘t ready for publication, according to the Motorola executive. Phillips was offered more money to do further research without publishing the results of what he‘d done.

But Phillips felt he‘d done enough. Despite warnings for his own boss to ―give Motorola what it wants,‖ Phillips went ahead and published his findings in 1998. Since then, Phillips‘ industry funding has dried up. Meanwhile, as many other researchers report, government funding to do independent research on microwave radiation has dried up, leaving the field at least in the U.S. to industry-funded scientists. ―There is no money to do the research,‖ Said Phillips. ―It‘s not going to come from government because government is controlled by industry.‖51 --
Om P. Gandhi is Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering at the University of Utah and a leading expert in dosimetry—measurement of non-ionizing radiation absorbed by the human body. Even before cell phones were in wide use, Professor Gandhi had concluded that children absorb more emitted microwave radiation. ―The concentration of absorbed energy is 50 to 80% greater,‖ he explained.52
These conclusions were not acceptable to Professor Gandhi‘s industrial sponsors. In 1998, he recalls, an executive from a cell phone manufacturer—which he did not want to identify—told him directly that if he did not discontinue his research on children his funding would be cut off.

Professor Gandhi recalled replying: ―I will not stop. I am a tenured professor at the University of Utah and I will not reject my academic freedom.‖ Professor Gandhi also recalled some of his thought process: ―I wasn‘t going to order my students to alter their results so that I can get funding.‖ His industry sponsors cancelled his contract and asked for a return of funds.

Attachment 4
Professor Gandhi believes that some cell phone users require extra protection because their heads are smaller and more absorptive. ―Children, as well as women and other individuals with smaller heads absorb more concentrated energy because of the proximity of the radiating antenna to the brain tissue,‖ he said. And yet the FCC has not acted to provide special protection for these groups. Asked why not, Professor Gandhi conceded that he doesn‘t know. He does note, however, that recent standards-setting has been dominated by industry representatives.53 --
While the mobile industry refuses to admit to even the possibility that there is danger in RF radiation, giant insurance companies see things differently. Several insurers have in recent years issued reports highlighting product liability risk with cell phones. This is important because it is evidence that where money is on the line professionals outside the industry see the risk of legal liability.

Legal exposure could be one reason—perhaps the central one—the industry continues to stonewall. Should legal liability be established, one key question will be how much wireless executives knew—and at what point in time. Meanwhile, the combination of public relations denials, legal intimidation and the selective application of pressure on research follows a familiar pattern. ―The industry is basically using the tobacco industry playbook,‖ UC Berkeley‘s Moskowitz said in a recent radio interview.
54 That playbook has thus far been highly successful in warding off attention, regulation and legal incrimination.

Attachment 4
Chapter Five: $270 Billion . . . and Looking for Handouts The FCC‘s network of corruption doesn‘t just shield industry from needed scrutiny and regulation on matters of public health and safety. Sometimes it just puts its hand directly into the public pocket and redistributes that cash to industry supplicants.

Such is arguably the case with the Universal Service Fund. Originally established to extend telephone service to rural and urban areas that industry would find difficult or uneconomical to wire, the USF is now shifting from subsidizing landline phone service to subsidizing the extension of broadband Internet. USF monies also support the Lifeline program, which subsidizes cell phone service to low-income consumers, and the E-Rate program, which subsidizes Internet infrastructure and service to schools and libraries.

Since 1998, more than $110 billion has been allocated to Universal Service programs, notes Charles Davidson, director of the Advanced Communications Law & Policy Institute at New York Law School. The FCC has allocated over $40 billion to the E-Rate program alone.

Who pays the freight for these high-cost programs? You do.

Technically, landline and wireless phone companies are assessed for the Universal Service fund‘s expenditures. But the FCC also allows those companies to pass on such charges to their subscribers, which they do. Both landline and wireless subscribers pay a monthly Universal Service charge that is tacked on to their phone bills. That charge has been rising and recently amounted to a 16% surcharge on interstate calls.

Consumers who pay for these programs might be interested to learn that both the E-Rate and Lifeline programs have been riddled with fraud. Government watchdogs have repeatedly found the programs to be inefficient and prone to inflated and fraudulent claims. But the programs have been a windfall for tech and telecom industry beneficiaries. Wherever the FCC presides, it seems, these industries reap a windfall.

The General Accounting Office (GAO) has issued several reports citing fraud, waste and mismanagement, along with inadequate FCC oversight of the subsidy program. Bribery, kickbacks and false documentation can perhaps be expected in a handout program mandated by Congress and only indirectly supervised by the FCC.

But the scope of fraud has been impressive. The most striking corruption has marred the ERate program, which subsidizes Internet hardware, software and service for schools and libraries, and the Lifeline cell phone subsidies.

In recent years, several school districts have paid fines to settle fraud cases involving bribery, kickbacks, non-competitive bidding of contracts and false documentation in the E-Rate Attachment 4
program. More eye opening perhaps are the settlements of fraud claims by tech giants like IBM, Hewlett Packard and AT&T. The HP case, for example, involved some colorful bribery allegations, including gifts of yachts and Super Bowl tickets. HP settled for $16 million. An HP official and a Dallas Independent School District official both received jail sentences.

The Lifeline program has also been riddled with fraud. A Wall Street Journal investigation of the five top corporate beneficiaries of Lifeline showed that 41% of more than 6 million subsidy claimants ―couldn‘t demonstrate their eligibility or didn‘t respond to requests for certification.‖55 AT&T, Verizon, and Sprint Nextel were three of the major Lifeline beneficiaries.

The FCC has initiated several efforts to clean up USF programs and seems honestly determined to bring greater accountability and efficiency to its subsidy efforts. Nevertheless, problems with fraud persist, as reported recently by the FCC‘s own top investigator.

Congress established the FCC‘s Office of Inspector General in 1989 to ―provide objective and independent investigations, audits and reviews of the FCC‘s programs and operations.‖ Here‘s what the FCC‘s internal investigative unit said in a September 30, 2014 report to Congress about its Office of Investigation (OI): ―The bulk of the work of OI involves investigating and supporting civil and criminal investigations/prosecutions of fraud in the FCC’s federal universal service program.‖56
Fraud—as pervasive and troubling as it has been—is just one of the problems with the programs of universal service. It may not even be the fundamental problem. More fundamental issues concern the very aim, logic and efficiency of programs to extend broadband and wireless technology at public expense. Though the aims of extending service to distant impoverished areas seem worthy on the surface, there are many reasons to think the major beneficiaries of these programs are the technology companies that win the contracts.

Attachment 4
Lobbyists have long swarmed over the FCC looking to get an ever-growing piece of the USF honeypot. An FCC report on meetings with registered lobbyists details a 2010 meeting with representatives of the International Society for Technology in Education and other education lobbyists. Topics discussed, according to the FCC report, included ―the need to raise the ERate‘s annual cap.‖57 The CTIA, leaving no stone unturned in its efforts to pump up member revenues, last year responded to a House hearing on the USF by grousing that ―current USF-supported programs skew heavily toward support of wireline services. . . . The concentration of USF monies to support wireline services is inconsistent with technological neutrality principles and demonstrated consumer preferences,‖ CTIA wrote..58 An industry that generates hundreds of billions of dollars in equipment and service revenues annually bellies up for a bigger slice of the $8 billion a year USF.

The grousing has paid off. The FCC recently announced that it will raise spending on E-Rate from what had been a cap of $2.4 billion a year to $3.9 billion. A significant portion of new outlays will go to Wi-Fi—yet another wireless industry victory at the FCC. But the CTIA is by no means the only industry group pressing the FCC.

Leading the roster of active lobbyists on E-Rate issues is the Software and Information Industry Association. Beginning in 2006, SIAA led all lobbyists with 54 mentions of E-Rate in its filings, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. SIAA board members include executives from tech heavyweights Google, Oracle and Adobe Systems.

Tech business leaders—many of them direct beneficiaries of FCC programs—made a direct pitch to FCC Chairman Wheeler last year to hike E-Rate funding. ―The FCC must act boldly to modernize the E-Rate program to provide the capital needed to upgrade our K-12 broadband connectivity and Wi-Fi infrastructure within the next five years,‖ the executives wrote.59 There were dozens of corporate executive signees to this letter, including the CEOs of many Fortune 500 giants. But let‘s just consider the participation of three: top executives of Microsoft, Google and HP all joined the call to expand E-Rate subsidies. Consider the simple fact that these three tech giants alone had revenues of $270 billion—more than a quarter of a trillion dollars—in a recent four-quarter period. Together, they produced nearly $40 billion in net income. And yet their top executives still thought it necessary to dun the FCC—and really, they were surreptitiously hitting up the public—for ramped-up spending on what was then a $2.4 billion a year program.

Is that greed? Arrogance? Or is it simply behavior conditioned by success in repeatedly getting what they want at the public trough? Almost never mentioned in these pleas for higher subsidies is the fact that ordinary American phone subscribers are the ones footing the bill for the E-Rate program—not the FCC or the telecom industry.

Attachment 4
Much of the added spending, as noted, will go towards the installation of wireless networks.

And yet Wi-Fi does not have a clean bill of health. When Lennart Hardell, professor of Oncology and Cancer Epidemiology at the University Hospital in Orebro, Sweden, was asked what he would do if given policy authority over wireless health issues, he replied swiftly that he would ―ban wireless use in schools and pre-school.‖ Noting that there are wired alternatives, Professor Hardell flatly stated: ―You don‘t need Wi-Fi.‖
60 And yet the FCC, prodded by an industry ever
on the lookout for incremental growth opportunities, is ignoring the health of youngsters to promote expanded Wi-Fi subsidies in schools across the U.S.

And what about the merit of the program itself? Overlooking the fraud and lobbying and WiFi safety issues for a moment, shouldn‘t schools and libraries across the country be equipped with the best electronic gear, accessing the Internet at the fastest speeds? Doesn‘t the government owe that to its younger citizens, especially those disadvantaged by the long-referenced digital divide?
Well, maybe. But answers to these questions hinge on even more fundamental question: Do students actually learn more or better with access to the latest high-speed electronic gadgetry? It would be foolish to argue that nobody benefits from access to high-speed Internet. But the benefits are nowhere near as broad or rich as corporate beneficiaries claim. Some researchers, for example, have concluded that computers don‘t seem to have positive educational impact—they may even have negative impact—when introduced into the home or freely distributed to kids from low income backgrounds.

Duke University researchers Jacob Vigdor and Helen Ladd studied the introduction of computers into North Carolina homes. They found that the academic performance of youngsters given computers actually declined. “The introduction of home computer technology is associated with modest but statistically significant and persistent negative impacts on student math and reading test scores,” the authors wrote in a National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper.61 The impact was actually most negative on the poorer students.

A study in the Journal of International Affairs examined the impact of the global One Laptop Per Child Program (OLPC), which has distributed millions of computers to children around the world. Researchers Mark Warschauer and Morgan Ames conclude: “The analysis reveals that provision of individual laptops is a utopian vision for the children in the poorest countries, whose educational and social futures could be more effectively improved if the same investments were instead made on more proven and sustainable interventions. Middle- and high-income countries may have a stronger rationale for providing individual laptops to children, but will still want to eschew OLPC’s technocratic vision. In summary, OLPC represents the latest in a long line of technologically utopian schemes that have unsuccessfully attempted to solve complex social problems with overly simplistic solutions.‖62
Attachment 4
Access to computers in the home may not work educational magic. But what about computers in the classroom? Don‘t they have educational value there? The anecdotal evidence is mixed at best. Consider how students in Los Angeles, newly equipped with flashy iPads at a mind-boggling taxpayer cost of more than $1 billion, went about using the new tools to improve their educational performance. ―Instead of solving math problems or doing English homework, as administrators envisioned, more than 300 Los Angeles Unified School District students promptly cracked the security setting and started tweeting, posting to Facebook and playing video games.‖63
But let‘s cut through the self-serving corporate claims and the troubling anecdotes to hear from someone who actually has had extensive and unique field experience. Kentaro Toyama was co-founder of Microsoft‘s research lab in India. Over more than five years he oversaw at least a dozen projects that sought to address educational problems with the introduction of computer technology. His conclusion: ―The value of technology has been over-hyped and over-sold.‖ The most important factor in improving schools, says Toyama, now the W.K Kellogg Associate Professor of Community Information at the University of Michigan, is good teachers.

Without good, well-trained teachers, adequate budgets and solid school administration, technology does little good. ―Technology by itself never has any kind of positive impact,‖ he said.64
The only schools in his experience that benefited from increased technology investment were those where ―the teachers were very good, the budgets adequate.‖ The richer schools, in essence.

But as both Vigdor and Warschauer found, the introduction of technology has by itself little if any positive effect. For a public conditioned to believe in the virtues of new technology, such testimony is a bracing dose of cold reality.

Attachment 4
But what about cost? Doesn‘t technology in the schools more efficiently replace alternative investments? Cost reductions are often the most persuasive argument for technology, Toyama agrees. But even these have been overstated. The costs of introducing new technology run far beyond initial hardware and software investments, said Toyama. In reality, the total costs of ownership—including maintenance, training, and repair—typically run to five or ten times the initial cost, according to Toyama. He said of the investment in technology for cost benefits: ―I would say that in the long run—and even in the medium run and the short-run—that‘s probably the worst and most misguided conclusion to come to.‖65
He adds: ―The inescapable conclusion is that significant investments in computers, mobile phones and other electronic gadgets in education are neither necessary nor warranted for most school systems. In particular, the attempt to use technology to fix underperforming class rooms . . . is futile. And for all but wealthy, well-run schools, one-to-one computer programs cannot be recommended in good conscience.‖66
But that doesn‘t keep industry lobbyists from recommending them. And it hasn‘t kept the FCC for spending scores of billions subsidizing technology to the very groups least likely to benefit from it.

Unmoved by the arguments of researchers and educators like Vigdor, Warschauer, and Toyama, the FCC keeps moving to increase technology subsidies. Ignoring research that disputes the value of technology in closing the so-called ―digital divide,‖ the FCC has even pioneered a new slogan: ―the Wi-Fi gap.‖
In announcing that it was lifting E-Rate‘s annual budget from $2.4 billion to $3.9 billion and stepping up investment in wireless networking, FCC chairman Wheeler exulted that ―10 million students are going to experience new and better opportunities.‖67 The impact on consumer pocketbooks (and potentially on youngsters‘ health from daily Wi-Fi exposure) were not mentioned.

The two Republican members of the FCC did at least recognize the pocketbook impact. ―It always seems easier for some people to take more money from the American people via higher taxes and fees rather than do the hard work,‖ said Commissioner Michael O‘Reilly.68 The subsidized provision of high-speed Internet service is yet another pet project of the FCC.

Julius Genachowski, chairman from 2009 to 2013, championed the transition of the USF from landline phone service to broadband. Universal broadband Internet connections would begin to absorb the monies collected from consumers to extend basic phone service.

As with government subsidies for cell phone service, classroom technology, and Wi-Fi, there are basic questions about the wisdom of subsidizing broadband. Charles Davidson and Michael Santorelli of the New York Law School found that spending billions to extend broadband is a flawed approach since there are many largely ignored reasons people choose not to adopt Attachment 4
broadband. ―Everybody is pushing broadband non-stop,‖ noted Davidson, director of the Law School‘s Advanced Communications Law and Policy Institute. ―I think the FCC is focused on the wrong set of issues,‖ he said.69
Already, he explained, over 98% of Americans have access to wired or wireless broadband.

The issue is not one of supply. It‘s one of demand. Many people—for a variety of reasons— don‘t really care about broadband, he contends. Price is one issue. Also powerful factors—but given almost no attention—are privacy and security concerns. ―In our view, they should be focused on barriers to meaningful broadband utilization: privacy and security,‖ said Davidson.70 But consumer privacy (more on this subject in Chapter Seven) has no well-funded lobby with limitless access to the FCC.

Attachment 4
Chapter Six: The Cable Connection
The network has also been active in diluting FCC control of the cable television industry.

Over the years, cable has devolved into major de facto local monopolies. Comcast and Time Warner Cable, whose merger proposal was dropped in April, are dominant forces in both cable television and broadband Internet subscriptions. Somehow, though, they have managed to steer clear of one another in specific markets, giving each pricing power where it faces little local competition.

It‘s interesting that cable companies annually rank in consumer polls among the ―most hated‖ or ―most disliked‖ American corporations. Indeed, Comcast and Time Warner Cable often top the ―most hated‖ list.71 Why would these companies—providers of the TV programming that has so expanded consumer options in recent decades—be so widely scorned? After all, the U.S. has been a leader in developing both cable technology and diverse television programming.

The problem is that it hasn‘t been anything close to a leader in bringing down subscriber prices. Industry consultants typically measure pricing by the metric of average revenue per subscriber. Industry trackers at IHS compared the price of U.S. pay television (which includes satellite services) to those in more than 60 other countries. U.S. prices were the highest, with only Australia even coming close. The average revenue per subscriber in the U.S. in 2013 was $81. But in France it was just $18.55. In Germany it was $19.68. In Japan it was just over $26.

Pay TV Monthly Revenue Per Person:

Attachment 4
And U.S. cable prices have risen in recent years at rates three or more times the rate of inflation. This has been going on for some time. From 1995 to 2013 cable rates increased at a

6.1% annual clip. The Consumer Price Index, by contrast, rose by just 2.4% annually. Former FCC commissioner Michael Copps says the FCC shares a major part of the blame. ―The FCC is as culpable for allowing that as much as the companies for imposing it,‖ he said.72 One area where the FCC has contributed to the problem is in its traditional rubber-stamping of merger agreements. The proposed Comcast/Time Warner Cable deal has been shelved, largely because of Justice Department reservations. But a long run of earlier FCC-sanctioned deals allowed Comcast and Time Warner Cable to grow to the market dominance—and attendant pricing power—they currently command.

Lofty monthly cable bills pinch consumers. But it‘s more than that. Subscribers paying $80 a month are often paying for a lot of channels they don‘t watch and don‘t want. The FCC has never required cable operators to charge for what consumers actually want to watch. Kevin Martin, who chaired the FCC from 2005 to 2009, pushed to ―debundle‖ programming in hopes of lowering bills. But the issue was never resolved. Only recently have viable competitive alternatives to cable‘s ―bundled‖ packages become available. The satellite service Dish, for example, months ago introduced its Sling offering that enables consumers to opt for smaller and cheaper packages.

In fairness to cable operators, it should be pointed that programmers often require operators to take unwanted or fledgling channels along with their stars. New York cable operator Cablevision Systems filed suit against Viacom in 2013, charging that in order to get popular channels like MTV and Nickelodeon it was also forced to take low-rated channels like Nicktoons and VH1 Soul. But the simple truth is that no matter who is to blame, the cable consumer pays high prices, typically for some programming he doesn‘t want. As it often does when powerful interests pursue dubious practices, the FCC has for the most part idly stood by.

Still, the FCC isn‘t entirely to blame. Some factors in the growth of the cable giants cannot be laid at its doorstep. Local municipalities often granted monopoly or duopoly status in granting franchises to cable network builders. With the huge capital investments required to cable metropolitan areas, this once seemed to make sense.

And over the years, the cable giants have used a variety of tactics to weaken what little local competition they may have had. Active lobbyists on the local level, the cable giants have managed to convince a growing number of states to outlaw municipal systems that could threaten private corporate incumbents. The FCC for many years declined to tangle with the states in this matter, partly due to the opposition of Republican commissioners. But the Wheeler-led Commission did vote recently to override state laws that limit the build-out of municipal cable systems.

Attachment 4
Still, many years of industry subservience will be difficult to swiftly undo. One linchpin merger shows how FCC decision-making has been thoroughly undermined by the revolving door, lobbying, and carefully targeted campaign contributions. All conspired in Comcast‘s pivotal 2011 buyout of NBC Universal, a deal which reinforced Comcast‘s domination of both cable and broadband access. This deal also set the stage for the recent headline-grabbing acrimony over the issue of net neutrality.

In 2011, mighty Comcast proposed to acquire NBC Universal. A series of mergers including the 1986 acquisition of Group W assets and the 2002 acquisition of AT&T‘s cable assets had already vaulted Comcast into cable market leadership. In bidding for NBC Universal, a huge step towards vertical integration, Comcast was once again raising the stakes. NBC Universal would give Comcast a treasure trove of programming, including valued sports content like NFL football and the Olympics.

Suddenly, the issue was not just cable subscriber base size—where Comcast had already bought its way to dominance. NBC Universal would also allow Comcast to consolidate its growing power as a broadband Internet provider. And with NBC Universal‘s programming assets, Comcast would gain new leverage when negotiating prices to carry the competing programming content of rivals. This would prompt a new round of debate over net neutrality.

Couldn‘t a programming-rich Comcast slow down rival services—or charge them more to carry their programming?
To short-circuit any potential opposition to the merger, Comcast assembled a superstar cast of lobbyists. As Susan Crawford reports in her 2013 book, ―Comcast hired almost eighty former government employees to help lobby for approval of the merger, including several former chiefs of staff for key legislators on congressional antitrust committees, former FCC staffers and Antitrust Division lawyers, and at least four former members of Congress. 73 Such ―profligate
hiring,‖ Crawford observes, pretty much silenced the opposition to the deal. If Comcast had already retained one member of a lobbying firm, the firm could not under conflict of interest rules object to the deal. And Comcast had locked up key lobbying shops. Money was both weapon and silencer.

Of course, Comcast had always been a big spender on lobbying, with outlays exceeding $12 million every year since 2008. Lobbying costs peaked in 2011 at $19.6 million, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

For its part, the FCC had a long history of approving most media mergers. So it was hardly a great surprise when the agency, after exacting some relatively minor concessions from Comcast, rubber-stamped the deal. Comcast would thus broaden its footprint as local monopoly distributor of cable. And with its new programming assets, it would enhance its leverage in negotiating deals to carry its rivals‘ programming. It would also fortify its position of growing strength as broadband Internet gatekeeper.

Attachment 4
The most telling footnote to the deal would come just four months later. FCC Commissioner Meredith Atwell Baker, who voted to approve the merger in January 2011, left the FCC to become a top-tier Comcast lobbyist in May. It was the ultimate—and perhaps most telling— glide of the revolving door.

Baker‘s was a high-profile defection. But it was neither the first nor the last. Comcast had successfully convinced other FCC officials to take their expertise and government contacts to the cable giant. Comcast has long been a master at spinning the revolving door to its own advantage. ―Comcast has been very good at hiring everyone who is very smart,‖ said Crawford.74 Approval of the NBC Universal deal was another in the long string of FCC merger approvals that made Comcast a nationwide monopolist that could dictate both pricing and viewer programming choice.

But the deal may have had another unintended consequence. It set the stage for Comcast‘s subsequent battles on net neutrality. ―Those mergers gave additional oomph to the issue of net neutrality,‖ noted former commissioner Copps. Speaking specifically of Comcast‘s buyout of NBC Universal, IHS senior analyst Eric Brannon agreed. ―That merger laid the grounds for net neutrality.‖
In allowing Comcast to acquire major programming assets, the deal would sharpen questions about the power of gatekeepers like Comcast to control the flow of traffic from rival Web services. So in bowing to lobbyist pressure, the FCC would bring on itself a whole new set of pressures by focusing public attention on the issue of net neutrality.

With activists rounding up comments from the public and hip TV personalities like HBO‘s John Oliver also beating the drums, net neutrality quickly grew into a popular issue that won the support of President Obama, and by proxy, his hand-picked appointee Tom Wheeler. When the FCC ruled in February of 2015 that it would seek Title II authority to regulate the Internet and presumably block any favoritism by broadband gatekeepers, it seemed to finally cast its lot with the public against steamrolling corporate interests
The issue had simmered for years but reached full boil when movie purveyor Netflix, which had argued that its service was slowed down by Comcast, signed a side deal ensuring better download speeds for its wares. This triggered an outburst of public concern that Comcast was now in position to operate ―fast‖ and ―slow‖ lanes, depending on whether a rival programmer could afford to ensure that Comcast provide adequate download speed.

With nearly 4 million comments—many supplied or encouraged by public interest groups— filed to the FCC, net neutrality was a bankable political issue. And there‘s no question, net neutrality attracted public interest because it gave cable viewers—long furious at the treatment by the monopolists who send them monthly bills—issues of both viewing pleasure and economics.

Attachment 4
But it also fed into the longstanding sentimental but increasingly unrealistic view of the Internet as the last bastion of intellectual freedom. Internet romanticists have long seen the Web as a place that somehow deserves special rules for breaking the stranglehold of traditional media and offering exciting new communications, information retrieval and shopping efficiencies.

Yes, the Internet is a modern marvel. This is beyond dispute. But some of the favors it has won from government over the years have had unfortunate unintended consequences.

In the 1990s, for example, net access providers were repeatedly exempted as an ―infant industry‖ from paying access charges to the Baby Bells even though they had to connect users through local phone networks. The long distance companies were then paying as much as $30 billion a year for the privilege. But the Internet was exempted.

As the late 90s approached, the Internet was no longer an infant industry. Still, the exemption from access charges was extended. That exemption essentially allowed AOL in the late 90s to offer unlimited unmetered online time, a key factor in boosting usage and siphoning advertisers from print media. Why buy an ad in print that might get viewed with the transitory flip of a page when you can get round-the-clock attention online?75 FCC decisions to grant the Internet access-charge exemptions arguably accelerated the decline of print media and much of the quality journalism print advertising could once support.

Meanwhile, retailers on the Internet were making inroads into brick and mortar retail business with the help of a Supreme Court-sanctioned exemption from collecting sales tax. 76 This judicial coddling of the Internet was the death knell for many smaller mom and pop local businesses, already challenged to match online pricing. And that‘s not all. The special favors continue virtually every year, as Congress proposes and/or passes legislation to extend special tax exemptions to Internet services.

Well, maybe tax breaks aren‘t such a bad idea for such an innovative and transformational emerging technology. For all its faults, the Internet—gateway to all goods, repository of all things, wizardly guide to all knowledge, enabler of universal self-expression—is undeniably cool.

But let‘s not deny that the combination of tax advantages and deregulation was toxic. Allow an industry to emerge with advantages over useful existing industries that largely play by the rules—well, maybe that can be rationalized. But then fail to hold the upstart industry to the same rules, allowing it more leeway to trample fundamental rights because it has the technical capacity to do so. Well, then you have a cruel Faustian bargain.

With the see-no-evil deregulatory gospel loosing all constraints, the Web would devolve into a playground for corporate snoops and criminals. For all its wonders, the Internet comes at a cost: the loss of control over personal data, the surrender of personal privacy, sometimes even the confiscation of identity.

Attachment 4
Perhaps the most favorable consequence of net neutrality—and one that has gotten surprisingly little attention—is that it could set the stage for privacy reform. (More on this in Chapter Seven). The FCC can now choose to exercise its Title II powers to enforce privacy standards over broadband Internet. Privacy is one area where the FCC has done a pretty good job in the past.

Worth remembering, though, is that the hard-fought public victory over Net Neutrality may be transitory. AT&T and others have threatened to go to court to upend the FCC rules. And there‘s a fair chance a Republican Congress will legislate against Title II.

Meanwhile, though, one supreme irony has begun to unfold in the marketplace.

Modern-day laissez fair ideologues love to invoke the wisdom of markets as represented by the ―mysterious hand‖ of Adam Smith. Unfortunately, in the absence of effective regulation, the putatively wise ―mysterious hand‖ generally seems to work its magic for those with huge financial resources and the political access it buys.

In the current cable situation, however, the mysterious hand may actually be working in consumer-friendly ways. Years of regulation that favored the cable companies have now backfired as the market reacts to monopolistic pricing and content control.

Whereas cable giants have commanded premium monthly subscriber prices to deliver packages of largely unwatched channels, the market is now beginning to burst with new ―debundled‖ options that are whittling away at cable‘s vast subscriber base.

Satellite service Direct TV, as noted, now offers its streaming video Sling TV package of popular networks that includes live sports and news. Amazon, Apple, CBS, HBO, Netflix, Sony, and others offer a variety of streaming video options that allow viewers to cut the cable cord.

Suddenly, consumers have the cherry-picking capability that bundled—and expensive—cable packages have never allowed.

In this case, at least, the unintended consequences of the FCC‘s pro-industry policies may be producing an unexpected pro-consumer twist.

Attachment 4
Chapter Seven: What about Privacy?
Has any issue gotten as much lip service—and as little meaningful action? For all the various congressional bills, corporate self-regulatory schemes and presidential Privacy Bill of Rights proposals, the simple truth remains that no personal information is safe on the Internet. Data brokers have built a multi-billion dollar business exchanging information used to build profiles of Net users. Your shopping and surfing habits, your health history, your banking data, your network of social ties, perhaps even your tax filings are all potentially exposed online. Both legal and criminal enterprises amass this information. And it doesn‘t go away.

At any given moment people you don‘t know somehow know where you are. They may very well know when you made your last bank deposit, when you had your last asthma attack or menstrual period. Corporations encourage and pay for every bit of information they can use or sell. Creepy? Perhaps, but as Jeff Chester, president of the Center for Digital Democracy points out: ―The basic business model that drives online is advertising.‖77 The FCC largely escapes blame on this one. It is the Federal Trade Commission that has had primary responsibility for protecting Internet privacy. The FCC does have some limited authority, which, some critics say, could have been exercised more vigorously. But for the most part the FCC is not to blame for the rampant online abuse of personal privacy and identity.

The FCC does however have privacy authority over the phone, cable and satellite industries.

Until recently, at least, the FCC has kept privacy issues at bay among the companies in these industries. ―The FCC has generally taken privacy very seriously,‖ noted Harold Feld, a senior vice president at the non-profit Public Knowledge.78
But dynamics now in place suggest that privacy may be the next great testing ground for the FCC. A new chance, perhaps, to champion public interest. Even before the opportunity for privacy enforcement under Title II regulatory powers, the FCC faces new challenges from phone companies, now itching to monetize their vast consumer data stashes the way Net companies have. The commonly used term is ―Google envy.‖
―Until now, ISPs (Internet Service Providers) have mostly not gotten into hot water on privacy—but that‘s changing,‖ observed Jonathan Mayer, a fellow at the Center for Internet and Society.79 Verizon and AT&T, major providers of mobile Internet access, have each introduced ―super cookies‖ that track consumer behavior even if they try to delete older, less powerful, forms of cookies. AT&T is actually charging its customers an extra $30 a month not to be tracked.

Showdowns loom.

Attachment 4
In adopting Title II to enforce net neutrality, the FCC has made broadband Internet access a telecom service subject to regulation as a ―common carrier.‖ This reclassification means that the FCC could choose to invoke privacy authority under Title II‘s Section 222. That section, previously applied to phone and cable companies, mandates the protection of consumer information. Such information—called CPNI for Customer Proprietary Network Information— has kept phone companies from selling data on whom you call, from where you call and how long you spend on the phone. Consumers may have taken such protection for granted on their phone calls. But they have no such protection on their Internet activity—which, as noted, has been a multi-billion dollar safe house hideaway for corporate and criminal abusers of personal privacy.

Now, though, the FCC could put broadband Internet communications under Section 222 protection. To Scott Cleland, a telecom industry consultant who has often been ahead of the analytic pack, this would be a momentous decision.

When the smoke clears—and it hasn‘t yet—the FCC could make consumer identifiers like IP addresses the equivalent of phone numbers. Suddenly, the Internet companies that have trafficked in all that personal data would be subject to the same controls as the phone and cable companies.

Cleland argues that the risk for privacy abuses extends beyond broadband access providers like Comcast and Verizon to Internet giants like Google and Facebook that have until now flourished with all that personal data. ―They are at risk and they are going to live under the uncertainty their business model could be ruled illegal by the FCC,‖ Cleland said.80 Much has been written about the legal challenges broadband access providers intend to mount against the FCC‘s new rules. But Cleland argues that a very different type of legal action could engulf companies that have benefited from the use and sale of private data. Trial lawyers, he argues, will see opportunity in rounding up massive class action suits of Internet users whose privacy has been violated. What sorts of privacy abusers face legal action? Anyone who has ―collected CPNI via some type of cookie,‖ according to Cleland. ―Right now, edge providers like Google, Facebook and Twitter are at risk of being sued by trial lawyers,‖ he said.81
Sounds great for consumers who care about privacy on the Internet and how it has been abused. But the FCC, Cleland was reminded, has never been a consumer advocate. ―Bingo,‖ replied Cleland. That‘s what makes the FCC‘s potential move into privacy protection so important and so surprising, he suggests.

There are other signs that the FCC under Tom Wheeler might actually become more consumer-friendly on the issue of data privacy. While Wheeler has brought some former associates from lobbying groups to the FCC, he has also peppered his staff with respected Attachment 4
privacy advocates. Indeed, he named Gigi Sohn, longtime president of the non-profit Public Knowledge, as Counsellor to the Chairman in April.

Another appointee with a privacy background is Travis LeBlanc, head of the FCC‘s Enforcement Bureau. In previous employment in California‘s Office of the Attorney General, LeBlanc was active in enforcing online privacy. LeBlanc has stated an interest in privacy and has already taken action against two firms that exposed personal information—including social security numbers—on unprotected Internet servers.

But many aspects of LeBlanc‘s approach to regulating Internet privacy under Title II remain unclear. Unfortunately, the FCC declined repeated requests to make LeBlanc available for an interview. (It also declined to answer written questions on its enforcement intentions in both privacy and cell tower infrastructure emissions.)
It remains to be seen if LeBlanc and his superiors at the FCC are really willing to take on privacy enforcement. Such a stance would require great courage as the entire Internet infrastructure is built around privacy abuse. It is also questionable whether the FCC would have the courage to challenge Google—a rare corporate ally in the battles over Net Neutrality.

Attachment 4
Chapter Eight: Dependencies Power the Network of Corruption As a captured agency, the FCC is a prime example of institutional corruption. Officials in such institutions do not need to receive envelopes bulging with cash. But even their most wellintentioned efforts are often overwhelmed by a system that favors powerful private influences, typically at the expense of public interest.

Where there is institutional corruption, there are often underlying dependencies that undermine the autonomy and integrity of that institution. Such is the case with the FCC and its broader network of institutional corruption.

As noted earlier, the FCC is a single node on a corrupt network that embraces Congress, congressional oversight committees and Washington social life. The network ties the public sector to the private through a frictionless revolving door—really no door at all.

Temptation is everywhere in Washington, where moneyed lobbyists and industry representatives throw the best parties and dinners. Money also allows industry to control other important factors, like the research agenda. All of this works together to industry‘s advantage because—as with other instances of institutional corruption—there are compromising dependencies. Policy makers, political candidates and legislators, as well as scientific researchers are all compromised by their dependence on industry money.

Dependency #1 – So much of the trouble here comes back to the core issue of campaign finance. Cable, cellular and educational tech interests know where to target their funds for maximum policy impact. And the contributions work, seemingly buying the silence of key committee congressmen—even those with past records as progressives. Key recipients of industry dollars include Massachusetts Senator Ed Markey and, until he retired, California Democrat Henry Waxman. Though they have intermittently raised their voices on such issues as data privacy and cellular health and safety, neither has shown any great inclination to follow through and take up what would have to be a long and tough fight on these issues.

Dependency #2 – Democrats might be expected to challenge industry now and then. They traditionally have done so, after all. But this is the post-Citizens United era where the Supreme Court has turned government into a giant auction house.

Bid the highest price and you walk home with the prize—your personal congressman, legislative loophole, even an entire political party.

Such is the case with technology industries and the Democrats. The communications/electronics industry is the third largest industry group in both lobbying and campaign contributions, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. In just 2013 and 2014, this industry sector spent well over $750 million on lobbying.82 Attachment 4
Only the finance/insurance/real estate and health industries outspend the tech sector on lobbying. But those industry groups lean Republican. Over 62% of the finance/insurance/real estate campaign contributions go to the GOP. Health contributions lean Republican 57% to 43%.

But the technology group leans sharply to Democrats, who got 60% of contributions in the 2013- 2014 election cycle.83 The two next largest industry groups—energy/natural resources and agribusiness—also lean heavily Republican. So of the top five industry groups whose money fuels and often tilts elections four are strongly Republican. The Democrats need the tech industry—and they show that dependence with consistent support, rarely raising such public interest issues as wireless health and safety and Internet privacy.

Dependency #3 – Spectrum auctions give the wireless industry a money-making aura. In recent Congressional testimony, an FCC official reminded legislators that the FCC has over the years been a budget-balancing revenue-making force.84 Indeed, the auctions of electromagnetic spectrum, used by all wireless communications companies to send their signals, have yielded nearly $100 billion in recent years. The most recent auction to wireless providers produced the unexpectedly high total of $43 billion. No matter that the sale of spectrum is contributing to a pea soup of electromagnetic ―smog‖ whose health consequences are largely unknown. The government needs money and Congress shows its appreciation with consistently pro-wireless policies.

Dependency #4 – Science is often the catalyst for meaningful regulation. But what happens when scientists are dependent on industry for research funding? Under pressure from budget cutters and deregulators, government funding for research on RF health effects has dried up. The EPA, which once had 35 investigators in the area, has long since abandoned its efforts.85 Numerous scientists have told me there‘s simply no independent research funding in the U.S.

They are left with a simple choice: work on industry-sponsored research or abandon the field.

Attachment 4
Chapter Nine: A Modest Agenda for the FCC
Nobody is proposing that cell phones be banned. Nor does anyone propose the elimination of the Universal Service program or other radical reforms. But there are some steps—and most are modest—that the FCC can take now to right some of the wrongs that result from long years of inordinate industry access and influence:

1. Acknowledge that there may be health risks in wireless communications. Take down the dismissive language. Maturely and independently discuss the research and ongoing debate on the safety of this technology.

2. In recognition of this scientific uncertainty, adopt a precautionary view on use of wireless technology. Require prominent point-of-sale notices suggesting that users who want to reduce health risks can adopt a variety of measures, including headphones, more limited usage and storage away from at-risk body parts.

3. Back off the promotion of Wi-Fi. As Professor Lennart Hardell has noted, there are wired alternatives that do not expose children to wireless risk.

4. Petition Congress for the budgetary additions needed to expand testing of emissions on antenna sites. It was Congress after all that gave industry carte blanche for tower expansion so long as they comply with FCC standards. But there is evidence of vast non-compliance and Congress needs to ensure that tower infrastructure is operating within the law.

5. Acknowledge that children and pregnant women may be more vulnerable to the effects of RF emissions and require special protection.

6. Promote cable debundling as a way to lighten consumer cable bills, especially for those customers who don‘t care about high-cost sports programming.

7. Apply more rigorous analysis to properly assess the value of technology in education.

Evidence continues to pile up that technology in education is not as valuable as tech companies claim. Pay less attention to tech CEOs—pay more attention to the researchers who‘ve actually studied the impact of trendy technology fixes on learning

8. Take over enforcement of personal privacy rights on the Internet. Of all the basic suggestions here, this would require the most courage as it would involve challenging many of the entrenched powers of the Internet.

Attachment 4
Chapter Ten: Stray Thoughts
Some concluding thoughts:

Why do so many of the most dubious FCC policies involve technology? In large part, of course, because the FCC has authority over communications and that is a sector that has been radically transformed—along with so many others—by technology.

Let‘s be clear, though. The problem is not technology, which unarguably brings countless benefits to modern life. The problem is with the over-extension of claims for technology‘s usefulness and the worshipful adulation of technology even where it has fearful consequences.

Most fundamentally, the problem is the willingness in Washington—for reasons of both venality and naïveté—to give technology a free pass.

Personally, I don‘t believe that just because something can be done it should heedlessly be allowed. Murder, rape and Ponzi schemes are all doable—but subject to prohibition and regulation. Government regulators have the responsibility to examine the consequences of new technologies and act to at least contain some of the worst. Beyond legislators and regulators, public outrage and the courts can also play a role—but these can be muffled indefinitely by misinformation and bullying.

There are precedents for industries (belatedly perhaps) acting to offset the most onerous consequences of their products. In responding to a mix of litigation, public demand and regulatory requirement, the auto industry, for example, has in the last 50 years substantially improved the safety and environmental footprint of its products.

Padded instrument panels, seat belts, air bags, and crumple zones have all addressed safety issues. Environmental concerns have been addressed with tightened emissions and fuel consumption standards. The response to new safety challenges is ongoing. Before side air bags were widely deployed, sedan drivers side-swiped by much larger SUVs were at vastly disproportionate risk of death and dismemberment.
86 But the deployment of side air bags has
―substantially‖ reduced the risk of collision deaths.
87 Overall, auto fatality rates per 100,000
persons have dropped by nearly 60% in the U.S. since 1966.88 Today, automakers continue to work on advanced safety features like collision avoidance.

It can be argued that most of these safety improvements came decades after autos were in wide usage and only in response to outrage at Ralph Nader‘s 1965 revelations on the auto industry.
89 No matter the catalysts. The simple truth remains that the auto industry—and its regulators—have for the last half-century been addressing safety and environmental issues.

Attachment 4
But with the overwhelming application of money and influence, information and communications technologies have almost totally escaped political scrutiny, regulatory control, and legal discipline.

Should the Internet have been allowed to develop into an ultra-efficient tool for lifting personal information that includes financial records, health histories and social security numbers? Should wireless communications be blindly promoted even as new clues keep suggesting there may be toxic effects? Should local zoning authorities and American citizens be stripped of the right to protect their own health? Should education be digitized and imposed just because technology companies want to develop a new market and lock in a younger customer base?
All these questions can perhaps be rolled up in one: do we all just play dead for the corporate lobbyists and spinners who promote the unexamined and unregulated application of their products?
Finally, a word about the structure of the FCC. With five commissioners—no more than three from the same party—the structure seems to make some kind of sense.

But in practice, it works out poorly. The identification of commissioners by party tends to bring out the worst in both Republicans and Democrats. Instead of examining issues with clearsighted independence, the commissioners seem to retreat into the worst caricatures of their parties. The Republicans spout free market and deregulatory ideology that is most often a transparent cover for support of business interests. The Democrats seems satisfied if they can implement their pet spending programs—extension of broadband wireless to depressed urban and rural schools, cell phone subsidies for low income clients. The result is a Commission that fulminates about ideology and spends heavily to subsidize powerful interests.

Perhaps one solution would be to expand the Commission to seven by adding two public interest Commissioners. The public interest only rarely prevails at the FCC. So it would represent vast improvement if both Republican and Democrat commissioners had to vie for support of public interest representatives in order to forge a majority. The public interest, in other words, would sometimes carry the swing votes.

It‘s very hard to believe, though, that Congress would ever approve such a plan. It simply represents too much of a threat to the entrenched political power of the two parties. Why would they ever agree to a plan that dilutes that power?
It‘s also worth noting that the public interest is not always easy to define. Sometimes there are arguably conflicting definitions. Still, an FCC with public interest commissioners is an idea worth consideration. It would at least require party apologists to defend how they so consistently champion the moneyed interests that have purchased disproportionate access and power in Washington.

Attachment 4
Appendix—Survey of Consumer Attitudes
What does the public believe about the science and politics of wireless health research? Under what conditions would people change wireless usage patterns? Is the FCC currently trusted to protect public health? How would confirmation of health risks affect trust in the FCC? These are some of the questions Ann-Christin Posten90 and Norm Alster91 hoped to answer with an April 2015 online survey of 202 respondents. Participants were recruited through Amazon‘s Mechanical Turk online platform. All were U.S. residents and had achieved qualifying approval rates in prior Mechanical Turk surveys.

Participants were asked how likely they believed the following statements to be true:

Statement 1. Prolonged and heavy cell phone use can have a variety of damaging effects on health.

Statement 2. Prolonged and heavy cell phone use triples the risk of brain tumors.

Statement 3. There is no scientific evidence that proves that wireless phone usage can lead to cancer or a variety of other problems.

Statement 4. Children and pregnant women are especially vulnerable to radiation from wireless phones, cell towers and Wi-Fi
Statement 5. Lobbying and campaign contributions have been key factors in keeping the government from acknowledging wireless hazards and adopting more stringent regulation.

Statement 6. The U.S. Congress forbids local communities from considering health concerns when deciding whether to issue zoning permits for wireless antennae.

Attachment 4
Two findings seem especially interesting:

1. Statement 3 received a higher credibility rating than Statements 1 and 2. The different credibility levels are statistically significant. Respondents are more likely to trust in wireless safety than to believe there are general or specific health risks.

2. The only statement that is a matter of uncontested fact is Statement 6 on the outlawing of opposition to antenna sites on health grounds. (All other statements have been both proclaimed and denied.) And yet Statement 6 was least likely to be believed. Just 1.5% of respondents recognized this as an ―absolutely true‖ statement. Over 14% thought this statement was ―not true at all.‖ Answers to this question would seem to reflect public ignorance on the political background to wireless health issues.

Participants were also asked how they would change behavior if claims of wireless health risks were established as true:

Attachment 4
Attachment 4
Attachment 4
The greatest impact on behavior came when respondents were asked to assume it is true that prolonged and heavy cell phone use triples the risk of brain tumors. More than half said they would ―definitely‖ restrict the amount of time spent on the phone. Just over 43% would ―definitely‖ restrict their children‘s phone use. Perhaps most surprisingly, close to 25% would ―definitely‖ start up a new landline phone account. (This last response suggests it may be foolishly premature for the phone giants to exit the landline business just yet.) The inclination of consumers to change behavior should negative health effects be confirmed suggests the stakes are enormous for all companies that derive revenue from wireless usage.

This survey points to—but cannot answer—some critical questions: Do wireless companies better protect themselves legally by continuing to deny the validity of all troublesome research? Or should they instead be positioning themselves to maintain consumer trust? Perhaps there is greater financial wisdom in listening to the lawyers right now and denying all chance of harm. If so, however, why would anyone seriously concerned about health listen to the industry—or to its captured agency? That‘s a question the FCC will eventually need to answer.

Trust could eventually become a central issue. Respondents were initially asked to describe their level of trust in the wireless industry and in the FCC as its regulator. Not surprisingly, establishment of any of the presumed health risks—or confirmation of inordinate industry pressure—resulted in statistically significant diminution of trust in both the industry and the FCC.

Attachment 4
On a scale of 1 to 100, the FCC had a mean baseline trust level of 45.66. But if the tripling of brain tumor risk is established as definitely true, that number falls all the way to 24.68. If ―lobbying and campaign contributions‖ have been ―key factors‖ in keeping the government from acknowledging wireless hazards, the trust level in the FCC plummets to 20.02. All results were statistically significant.

It‘s clear that at this point confirmation of health dangers—or even of behind-the-scenes political pressures—from wireless will substantially diminish public trust in the FCC. Skeptics might argue that this gives the FCC motive to continue to downplay and dismiss further evidence of biological and human health effects. Those of a more optimistic bent might see in these findings reason to encourage an FCC concerned about public trust to shake itself loose from special interests.

Attachment 4
Endnotes

1 Former CTIA vice president John Walls in Kevin Kunze‘s documentary film Mobilize, introduced in 2014 at the California Independent Film Festival.
2 November 2014 interview with Renee Sharp.
3 December 2014 interview with Twaun Samuel.
4 Dr. George Carlo and Martin Schram, Cell Phones, Invisible Hazards In The Wireless Age (Carroll & Graf, 2001), 18. 5 Center for Responsive Politics.
6 Id.
7 November 2014 interview with Michael Copps.
8 January 2015 interview with Newton Minow.
9 Daniel Lathrop, ―From Government Service to Private Practice: Writers of Telecom Law Move to K Street,‖ Center for Public Integrity, October 28, 2004, http://www.publicintegrity.org/2004/10/28/6597/government-service-private-practice. 10 B. Blake Levitt and Henry Lai, ―Biological Effects from Exposure to Electromagnetic Radiation Emitted By Cell Tower Base Stations and Other Antenna Arrays,‖ NRC Research Press Web site, November 5, 2010. 11 Id., 381.
12 Id.
13 S. Sivani and D. Sudarsanam, ―Impacts of Radio-Frequency Electromagnetic Field (RF_EMF) from Cell Phone Towers and Wireless Devices on Biosystem and Ecosystem – A Review,‖ Biology and Medicine 4.4 (2013): 202. 14 Id., 206-208.
15 January 2015 interview with Robert Weller.
16 Letter from Michelle C. Farquhar, Chief of the FCC‘s Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, to Thomas Wheeler, President and CEO of the Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association, January 13, 1997. 17 Id.
18 Letter from FCC Chairman Thomas Wheeler to former FCC Commissioner Jonathan Adelstein, President and CEO, PCIA-The Wireless Infrastructure Association, March 14, 2014.
19 December 2014 interview with James R. Hobson.
20 January 2015 interview with Marvin Wessel.
21 Id.
22 January 2015 interview with Janet Newton.
23 Robert Weller interview.
24 Best‘s Briefing, ―Emerging Technologies Pose Significant Risks with Possible Long-Tail Losses,‖ February 11, 2013, http://www.ambest.com/directories/bestconnect/EmergingRisks.pd. 25 Online survey conducted in April 2015 on Amazon‘s Mechanical Turk platform. 26 CTIA, ―Policy & Initiatives: Innovation,‖ http://www.ctia.org/policy-initiatives/policy-topics/innovation. 27 February 2015 interview with Dennis Kucinich.
28 Alexander Lerchl, Melanie Klose, and Karen Grote et al., ―Tumor Promotion by Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields below Exposure Limits for Humans,‖ Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications 459.4 (2015): 585-590. 29 WHO/International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), ―IARC Classifies Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields As Possibly Carcinogenic To Humans,‖ Press Release No. 208, May 31, 2011. 30 Medscape, ―Brain Cancer CME Learning Center,‖ http://www.medscape.org/resource/brain-cancer/cme. 31 Anke Huss, Matthias Egger, Kerstin Hug, Karin Huwiler-Muntener, and Martin Roosli, ―Source of Funding and Results of Studies of Health Effects of Mobile Phone Use: Systemic Review of Experimental Studies,‖ Environmental Health Perspectives 115.1 (2007): 1-4, 1.
32 Id.

Attachment 4

33 Federal Communications Commission, ―Wireless Devices and Health Concerns,‖ http://www.fcc.gov/guides/wireless-devicesand-health-concerns. 34 Lennart Hardell, Michael Carlberg, Fredrik Soderqvist, and Kjell Hansson Mild, ―Case-Control Study of the Association between Malignant Brain Tumours Diagnosed between 2007 and 2009 and Mobile and Cordless Phone Use,‖ International Journal of Oncology 43.6 (2013): 1833-1845.
35 Lennart Hardell and Michael Carlberg, ―Use of Mobile and Cordless Phones and Survival of Patients with Glioma,‖ Neuroepidemiology 40.2 (2012): 101-108.
36 Lennart Hardell and Michael Carlberg, ‗Using the Hill Viewpoints from 1965 for Evaluating Strengths of Evidence of the Risk for Brain Tumors Associated with Use of Mobile and Cordless Phones,‖ Reviews on Environmental Health 28.2-3 (2013): 97- 106.
37 Gaelle Coureau, Ghislaine Bouvier, and Pierre Lebailly, et al., ―Mobile Phone Use and Brain Tumors in the CERENAT CaseControl Study,‖ Occupational and Environmental Medicine 71.7 (2014): 514-522, doi:10.1136/oemed-2013-101754. 38 October 2014 interview with Lennart Hardell.
39 December 2014 interview with Martin Blank.
40 Id.
41 Norm Alster, ―Cell Phones: We Need More Testing,‖ BusinessWeek, August 14, 2000, 39. 42 Quoted in American Academy of Pediatrics, ―American Academy of Pediatrics Endorses Cell Phone Safety Bill,‖ Press Release, December 20, 2012, http://www.ewg.org/release/american-academy-pediatrics-endorses-cell-phone-safety-bil. 43 Om P. Gandhi, L. Lloyd Morgan, Alvaro Augusto de Salles, Yueh-Ying Han, Ronald B. Herberman, and Devra Lee Davis, ―Exposure Limits: The Underestimation of Absorbed Cell Phone Radiation, Especially in Children,‖ Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine 31.1 (2012): 34-51.
44 November 2014 interview with Joel Moskowitz.
45 February 2015 interview with Carl Blackman.
46 Id.
47 Id.
48 Lawrence Lessig, Roy L. Furman Professor of Law and Leadership at Harvard Law School, helped to draft the Right to Know ordinance and has offered pro bono legal representation to the city of Berkeley. Professor Lessig was director of the Lab at Harvard‘s Safra Center for Ethics, from which the Project on Public Narrative was spun off in November of 2014. 49 May 2015 interview with Berkeley City Attorney Zach Cowan 50 December 2014 interview with Jerry Phillips.
51 Id.
52 February 2015 interview with Om P. Gandhi.
53 Id.
54 Radio interview on WBAI-FM, ―Wireless Radiation: What Scientists Know and You Don‘t, With Dr. Joel Moskowitz,‖ March 10, 2015.
55 Spencer Ante, ―Millions Improperly Claimed U.S. Phone Subsidies,‖ Wall Street Journal, February 11, 2013, http://allthingsd.com/201330212/millions-improperly-claimed-u-s-phone-subsidies/. 56 Federal Communications Commission Office of Inspector General, ―Semiannual Report to Congress for the Period April 1, 2014 - September 30, 2014,‖ 20, http://transition.fcc.gov/oig/FCC_OIG_SAR_09302014a.pdf. 57 Federal Communications Commission, ―Reports on Meetings and Telephone Calls with Registered Lobbyists Regarding General Recovery Act Policy Issues,‖ March 2, 2010.
58 CTIA - The Wireless Association, ―Response to White House Paper on Universal Service Policy,‖ September 19, 2014, http://www.ctia.org/docs/default-source/Legislative-Activity/ctia-usf-response-to-house-white-paper-091914.pdf?sfvrsn=0. 59 Open Letter from Executives of 50 Leading Companies to Tom Wheeler, Chairman of the FCC, January 30, 2014, http://erate2.educationsuperhighway.org/#ceos-letter. See also David Nagel, ―50 Top Execs Urge E-Rate Modernization To Propel Broadband in Schools,‖ The Journal, January 30, 2014. 60 October 2014 interview with Lennart Hardell.
61 Jacob L. Vigdor and Helen F. Ladd, ―Scaling the Digital Divide: Home Computer Technology and Student Achievement,‖ Calder Urban Institute Working Paper, No. 48, June 2010.

Attachment 4

62 Mark Warschauer and Morgan Ames, ―Can One Laptop Per Child Save the World‘s Poor?‖ Journal of International Affairs

64.1 (2010): 33-51.
63 John Rogers, ―L.A. Students Get iPads, Crack Firewall, Play Games,‖ Associated Press, October 5, 2013, http://bigstory.ap.org/article/la-students-get-ipads-start-playing-video-games. 64 April 2015 interview with Kentaro Toyama.
65 Id.
66 Id.
67 FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler, quoted in Grant Gross, ―FCC Approves Plan to Spend $1B a Year on School Wi-Fi,‖ IDG News Service, July 11, 2014.
68 Michael O‘Rielly, ―Dissenting Statement by Commissioner Michael O‘Rielly,‖ 2, http://e-ratecentral.com/files/fcc/DOC328172A7.pdf, after FCC in July of 2014 voted to increase Wi-Fi spending. 69 February 2015 interview with Charles Davidson and Michael Santorelli. 70 Id.
71 The University of Michigan‘s American Customer Satisfaction Index, http://www.theacsi.org/the-american-customersatisfaction-index. 72 September 2014 interview with Michael Copps.
73 Susan Crawford, Captive Audience: The Telecom Industry and Monopoly Power in the New Gilded Age (Yale University Press, 2013), 212.
74 October 2014 interview with Susan Crawford.
75 Norm Alster, ―A Little Help from the Feds,‖ BusinessWeek, January 24, 2000, 42. 76 1992 Supreme Court decision in Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, 504 U.S. 298 (1992). 77 February 2015 conversation with Jeff Chester.
78 April 2015 interview with Harold Feld.
79 March 2015 interview with Jonathan Mayer.
80 April 2015 interview with Scott Cleland.
81 Id.
82 Center for Responsive Politics.
83 Id.
84 ―Testimony of Jon Wilkins, Managing Director, Federal Communications Commission,‖ Before the Committee on Energy and Commerce, Subcommittee on Communications and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives, March 4, 2015. 85 Alster, ―Cell Phones: We Need More Testing,‖ 39.
86 Danny Hakim and Norm Alster, ―Lawsuits: This Year‘s Model,‖ New York Times, May 30, 2004, http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/30/business/lawsuits-this-year-s-model.html. 87 A.T. McCartt and S.Y. Kyrychenko, ―Efficacy of Side Airbags in Reducing Driver Deaths in Driver-Side Car and SUV Collisions,‖ Traffic Injury Prevention 8.2 (2007): 162-170. 88 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, ―Traffic Safety Facts 2012,‖ 18, http://wwwnrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/812032.pdf. 89 Ralph Nader, Unsafe At Any Speed: The Designed-In Dangers of the American Automobile (Grossman Publishers, 1965). 90 Lab Fellow, Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics, Harvard University. 91 Investigative Journalism Fellow, Project on Public Narrative at Harvard Law School.

Attachment 4
Attachment 5
Attachment 6
Attachment 7
Attachment 7