Agenda packet — Los Altos City Council, April 12, 2022 (part 2 of 3)

_____________________
B. “Playground” A portion of land used for and equipped with public facilities for recreation specially by children. A playground includes the sand or rubberized floor around the apparatus.

C. “Pole-mounted facility” means a wireless communications facility that is, or is proposed to be, attached to or contained in a pole.

D. “School” any building, campus or sports field which is designed, constructed or used for education, instruction or school sports, whether public or private, in any branch of knowledge.

E. “Stealth facility” (or “stealth facilities”) means a wireless communications facility designed to look like something other than a wireless tower or base station.

General Standards for all Facilities The following general requirements apply at all times to all wireless communications facilities located in all zoning districts:

A. All wireless communications facilities shall be engineered and designed to minimize the visual impact by means of placement, screening, camouflaging, painting and texturing and to be compatible with existing architectural elements, building materials and other site characteristics. The applicant shall use the smallest and least visible antenna possible to accomplish the facility’s objectives. All antennas and support structures shall be painted and/or textured to achieve architectural compatibility with the structures for which they are attached and/or located.

B. Each facility must comply with any and all applicable provisions of the Malibu Municipal Code, including but not limited to provisions of the California Building Code, California Electric Code, California Plumbing Code, California Mechanical Code, and California Fire Code, and any conditions of approval imposed as part of the approval process.

C. Each facility must comply with any and all applicable regulations and standards promulgated or imposed by any state or federal agency, including, but not limited to, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Further, all wireless communications facilities, associated equipment and services shall comply with Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements.

D. Fire and Electrical Safety Standards. All wireless communications facilities shall contain:

1. Surge protection for lightning discharge or other significant electrical disturbances; and
261
Agenda Item # 6.

Resolution No. 21-17

Page 3 of 27 ends

_____________________

2. Signage as required by the permit conditions, the National Electric Code or the Los Angeles County Fire Department Chief or their designee.

E. The facility must at all times comply with all applicable health requirements and standards pertaining to radio frequency emissions.

F. All antennas shall meet the minimum siting distances to habitable structures required for compliance with FCC regulations and standards governing the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions.

G. Noise. Wireless communications facilities and equipment must comply with the City’s noise ordinance in MMC Chapter 8.24, or any successor provisions, and be designed to prevent noise and sound from being plainly audible at a distance of fifty (50) feet from the facility or within ten (10) feet of any residence.

H. Signs. No facility may display any signage or advertisement unless it is expressly allowed by this paragraph, necessary for stealth concealment purposes, or required by law or a permit condition. Every facility shall at all times display signage that accurately identifies the facility owner and provides the owner’s unique site number and a local or toll-free telephone number to contact the facility owner’s operations center.

I. Landscaping. Where appropriate, facilities shall be installed so as to maintain and enhance existing landscaping on the site, including trees, foliage and shrubs, whether or not utilized for screening. In addition to any landscaping used for concealment or screening purposes, the applicant shall replace any existing landscaping displaced during construction or installation of the applicant’s facility. The applicant’s landscaping plan shall be subject to the City’s review and approval but shall, at a minimum, match the existing landscaping and foliage surrounding the installation site consistent with MMC Section 17.53.090. The permittee shall ensure that any vegetation allowed to remain in place under the Fire Code, including vegetation provided for screening, is properly maintained and watered.

J. All electrical support equipment located within cabinets, shelters, or similar structures shall be screened from public view. Roof-mounted electrical support equipment shall be discouraged. Ground-mounted electrical support equipment shall be encouraged. In addition, under grounding of support equipment is required wherever practicable.

K. All antennas shall be located such that any person walking adjacent to the transmitting surface of the antenna will be walking on a grade that is a minimum of eight and one-half feet below the transmitting surface. 262
Agenda Item # 6.

Resolution No. 21-17

Page 4 of 27 ends

_____________________
L. Lighting of antenna structures and their electrical support equipment is prohibited, except as required by any order or regulation of the FCC or the FAA and except for manually operated emergency lights for use when official operating personnel are on site.

M. A backup power supply must be required for all new wireless communications facilities to the extent allowed by law and in compliance with California Fire Code 1206.2.2.

Location Standards for All Facilities The location standards for all wireless communications facilities, other than those that qualify as eligible facilities requests, are as follows:

A. No wireless telecommunication facility shall be located within five hundred (500) feet of any school, playground, or park unless a finding is made, based on technical evidence acceptable to the reviewing authority showing a clear need for the facility and that no technically feasible alternative site exists.

Except for facilities installed on the same pole or tower as an existing wireless telecommunication facility, wireless telecommunication facilities located within any residential zone district shall not be located within five hundredone thousand (5001,000) feet of any other wireless communications facility, except from those facilities placed on utility poles along Pacific Coast Highway, unless a waiver is granted.

B. All new freestanding wireless communications facilities and monopoles shall be set back a minimum distance of at least one hundred and ten twenty (1001120) percent of the height of the facility or monopole from any property line abutting a residentially zoned property. This minimum setback is not subject to the waivers allowed under Section 7 of this Resolution.

C. Location preference for wireless communications facilities should be given to the following:

1. Property designated non-residential (except for public open space and recreational vehicle park zoning districts), unless otherwise prohibited pursuant to this title.

2. Facilities attached or sited adjacent to existing structures. Whenever possible, facilities shall be located on and/or inside existing structures. Appropriate types of existing structures may include, but are not limited to: buildings, water tanks, telephone poles and utility towers and poles, sign standards, light standards and roadway overpasses.

3. Sites with minimum separation. Sites that are more than five hundred (500) feet from school, playgrounds, and parks. 263
Agenda Item # 6.

Resolution No. 21-17

Page 5 of 27 ends

_____________________

4. Sites that are not highly visible from adjacent roadways.

5. Unless otherwise indicated in MMC Chapter 17.46 or these Standards, no wireless facility shall be installed on an exposed ridgeline unless the facility blends with the surrounding existing natural and man-made environment and a finding is made that no other location is technically feasible.

6. The City expressly designates residential, public open space and recreational vehicle park zoning districts, parks and schools as the least appropriate possible locations, and the absolute last choices for siting.

Engineering and Design Standards for all Facilities The general design standards for wireless communications facilities subject to MMC Chapter 17.46 are as follows:

A. Basic Requirements. The proposed wireless facility and its supporting structure (if needed) shall be limited to the minimum size necessary to serve the defined service objectives of the wireless service provider or providers that will be using the facility, except where a larger facility has superior concealment elements.

B. Materials. The materials used shall be non-reflective and non-flammable.

C. Cabinet doors and other openings must be designed to stay securely closed, and openings in all facilities shall be shielded or made the smallest size feasible to protect against fire and wind-blown embers.

D. The tower, or other support structure, and all equipment shall be designed to withstand forces from seismic events. To that end, all wireless facility sites must be built to the applicable standards of Hardening Requirements including but not limited to APCO ANSI 2.106.1–2019, or their replacements. The telecommunications tower, pole or structure when fully loaded with antennas, transmitters, and other equipment and camouflaging shall be designed as determined by the Building Official. All equipment mounting racks and equipment used shall be anchored in such a manner that such a quake will not tip them over, throw the equipment off its shelves, or otherwise act to damage it.

E. All connections between various components of the facility, power lines, and conduit shall be designed in a manner to protect against damage by a natural disaster, a vehicular accident, an act of vandalism or similar external forces.

F. Stealth. The wireless facility shall be stealth. Stealth elements and techniques should be used to blend the facility with surrounding materials 264
Agenda Item # 6.

Resolution No. 21-17

Page 6 of 27 ends

_____________________
and colors of the support structure and make the facility appear to be something other than a wireless facility. Stealth elements include, but are not limited to, the following:

1. Radio frequency (RF) transparent screening or shrouds;

2. Matching the color of the existing support structure by painting, coating, or otherwise coloring the wireless facility, equipment, mounting brackets, and cabling;

3. Placing cables and wires inside the pole or beneath conduit of the smallest size possible;

4. Minimizing the size of the site;

5. Installing new infrastructure that matches existing infrastructure in the area surrounding the proposed site; and

6. Using paint of durable quality.

7. Built with weather-resistant materials while permitting weathered treatment for aesthetic reasons and to avoid reflective material.

G. Minimum Height. All antennas shall be located such that: (1) any person walking adjacent to the transmitting surface of the antenna will be walking on a grade that is a minimum of eight and one-half feet below the transmitting surface; and (2) no person at ground level will be exposed to an exposure level that is higher than allowed by the FCC’s general population exposure rules.

H. Facade-Mounted Equipment. Facade-mounted antennas and equipment shall be architecturally integrated into the building, or other support structure, design and otherwise made as unobtrusive as possible so that the facility does not appear to be a wireless facility. Antennas and equipment should be located entirely within an existing or newly created architectural feature so as to be completely screened from view. Facade-mounted facilities shall generally not extend more than eighteen (18) inches out from and may not project above the building face. Façade-mounted wireless telecommunication facilities shall not exceed twenty-eight (28) feet in height above the ground. However, antenna elements, mounted flush on the facade of an existing structure that exceeds twenty-eight (28) feet, may have a height equal to the height of the building.

I. Ground-Mounted Equipment. Outdoor ground-mounted equipment associated with base stations shall be avoided whenever feasible. In locations visible or accessible to the public, applicants shall conceal outdoor 265
Agenda Item # 6.

Resolution No. 21-17

Page 7 of 27 ends

_____________________
ground-mounted equipment, including ancillary power generation equipment, with opaque fences or landscape features that mimic the adjacent structure(s) (including, but not limited to, dumpster corrals and other accessory structures) and by painting, texturing, or otherwise concealing the facility as much as possible. Ground-mounted wireless communications facilities shall be located near existing structures or trees at similar heights for screening purposes where feasible. Not more than one ground-mounted antenna, provided that licensed amateur radio station antennas consistent with MMC 17.46.020(B)(2), shall also be permitted on each site.

J. Roof-Mounted Facilities. Roof-mounted antennas and necessary equipment shall be screened from above if visible from higher elevations. Rooftopmounted wireless telecommunication facilities shall not exceed twentyeight (28) feet in height or three (3) feet above the roof parapet from which they are attached, whichever is less restrictive. Associated roof-mounted equipment cabinets shall not extend more than three (3) feet above the roof from which it is attached and shall be set back a minimum of ten (10) feet from the edge of the roof. All roof-mounted equipment cabinets shall be located behind a mechanical screen wall. In the event that a roof parapet wall screens the equipment cabinets, a mechanical screen wall will not be required.

K. Freestanding Facilities. Freestanding facilities requiring a new monopole or other new support structure shall be stealth facilities. Further, they shall be located as close as possible to existing above-ground utilities, such as electrical towers or utility poles (which are not scheduled for removal or under grounding for at least 18 months after the date of application), light poles, trees of comparable heights, and in areas where they will not detract from the appearance of the City.

1. Freestanding wireless telecommunication facilities, including monopoles, shall not exceed twenty-eight (28) feet in height and shall not extend higher than the top of the ridgeline nearest the antenna. The height of a freestanding facility shall be measured from the natural undisturbed ground surface below the center of the base of the tower itself to the tip of the highest antenna or piece of equipment attached thereto.

2. Aside from the antenna itself, no additional equipment may be visible. All cables, including, but not limited to, electrical and utility cables, shall be run within the interior of the freestanding facility and shall be camouflaged or hidden to the fullest extent feasible without jeopardizing the physical integrity of the facility. 266
Agenda Item # 6.

Resolution No. 21-17

Page 8 of 27 ends

_____________________

3. Monopole installations shall be situated so as to utilize existing natural or man-made features including topography, vegetation, buildings, or other structures to provide the greatest amount of visual screening.

4. All antenna components and accessory wireless equipment shall be treated with exterior coatings of a color and texture to match the predominant visual background or existing architectural elements so as to visually blend in with the surrounding development. Subdued colors and non-reflective materials that blend with surrounding materials and colors shall be used.

5. Monopoles shall be no greater in diameter or other cross-sectional dimensions than is necessary for the proper functioning of the facility.

L. All wireless telecommunication facilities shall be designed to prevent unauthorized climbing and graffiti.

M. Fire Safety Standards. All wireless facilities designs shall include:

1. a power shut off, such as by means of rapid entry Knox or similar type systems shall be installed;

2. surge protection devices capable of mitigating a direct or partial direct lightning discharge; and

3. surge protection devices capable of mitigating significant electrical disturbances that may enter the facility via conductive cables.

N. Satellite dish or parabolic antennas shall be situated as close to the ground as possible to reduce visual impact without compromising their function.

O. Support equipment pads, cabinets, shelters and buildings require architectural, landscape, color, fencing, or other camouflage treatment to minimize visual impacts to the extent deemed necessary by the Planning Director. Landscaping screening should also be provided if irrigation water is available.

P. No freestanding facility or ancillary support equipment may be located between the face of a building and a public street, bikeway, park or residence.
267
Agenda Item # 6.

Resolution No. 21-17

Page 9 of 27 ends

_____________________
Waivers of These Standards.

A. A waiver of one or more of these Standards may be granted in the following circumstances:

1. Pursuant to MMC Section 17.46.060(D), if an applicant demonstrates to the Planning Commission through clear and convincing evidence that denial of an application would, within the meaning of federal law, prohibit or effectively prohibit the provision of personal wireless services, or otherwise violate applicable laws or regulations;

2. If an applicant demonstrates to the Planning Commission through clear and convincing evidence set forth in a feasibility study that compliance with a requirement of these Standards would be technically infeasible and the proposed wireless facility complies with the requirements of these Standards to the greatest extent technically feasible. For example, an exception to a requirement to conceal antennas in a shroud may be granted if shrouding is shown to be technically infeasible and an alternative concealment such as a colored film wrap is proposed; or

3. If an applicant demonstrates to the Planning Commission with clear and convincing evidence that the particular engineering, design or location proposed involves an alternative that better meets the purposes of Chapter 17.46 and only minor non-compliance with a requirement of these design Standards and results in no increase in public visual impact to the community or provides other benefits.

For example, an exception to the wireless facility location limitations may be granted when the applicant can demonstrate that the placement is less visible from viewsheds of residences or shielded by vegetation or existing infrastructure (such as barriers), or is less physically intrusive (for example, less impactful to tree roots or reduces noise). Among other factors, in deciding whether or not to grant an exception, the Planning Commission may consider the impact of expansions to the facility that the applicant would be entitled to make as of right if granted.

B. Waivers may only be requested at the time an application is initially submitted for a discretionary permit. The request must include both the specific provision(s) from which waiver is sought and the basis of the request, including all supporting evidence on which the applicant relies.

Any request for waiver after the City has deemed an application complete constitutes a material change to the proposed wireless facility and shall be considered a new application. A request for waiver from one or more 268
Agenda Item # 6.

Resolution No. 21-17

Page 10 of 27 ends

_____________________
requirements does not relieve the applicant from compliance with all other applicable provisions of law or of MMC Section 17.46.060.

Standard Conditions of Approval for Permits Under MMC Chapter 17.46.

A. Generally. In addition to any supplemental conditions imposed by the Planning Director or Planning Commission, as the case may be, all development permits or conditional use permits granted for wireless communications facilities subject to this Chapter 17.46 shall be subject to the following conditions, unless modified by the approving authority:

1. The permittee shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the city or any of its boards, commissions, agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the city, its boards, commission, agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul, the approval of the project, or to hold the City liable in whole or in part as a result of the engineering, design, construction or operation of the facility. The City shall promptly notify the provider(s) of any such claim, action or proceeding if the city bears its own attorney’s fees and costs, and the city defends the action in good faith.

2. The permittee shall be strictly liable for interference caused by its facilities with city communications systems. The permittee shall be responsible for costs for determining the source of the interference, all costs associated with eliminating the interference (including but not limited to filtering, installing cavities, installing directional antennas, powering down systems, and engineering analysis), and all costs arising from third party claims against the city attributable to the interference.

3. Subsequent submittals for this project shall be in substantial compliance with the plans date-stamped received by the Planning Department on _____________. The project shall comply with all conditions of approval stipulated in the referral sheets attached to the agenda report for this project. In the event the project plans conflict with any condition of approval, the condition shall take precedence and revised plans shall be submitted and approved by the Planning Director prior to the Environmental Sustainability Department for plan check.

4. The permit and rights conferred in this approval shall not be effective until the permittee signs, notarizes and returns the Acceptance of Conditions Affidavit accepting the conditions set forth herein. The applicant shall file this form with the Planning Department within 30 days of this decision or prior to issuance of 269
Agenda Item # 6.

Resolution No. 21-17

Page 11 of 27 ends

_____________________
any development, conditional use, building, electrical or encroachment permit.

5. The applicant shall digitally submit a complete set of plans, including the items required in Condition No. 6 to the Planning Department for consistency review and approval prior to plan check and again prior to the issuance of any building or development permits.

6. The Notice of Decision (including the signed and notarized Acceptance of Conditions Affidavit) shall be copied in its entirety and placed directly onto a separate plan sheet(s) to be included in the development plans prior to submitting any development permits from the City of Malibu Environmental Sustainability Department and encroachment permit.

7. A development permit or conditional use permit, as applicable, shall be valid for a period of ten (10) years from issuance, unless pursuant to another provision of the Code or these conditions, it expires sooner or is terminated. At the end of ten (10) years from the date of issuance, such development or conditional use permit shall automatically expire, unless an extension or renewal has been granted. A person holding a development permit or conditional use permit must either (1) remove the facility within thirty (30) days following the permit’s expiration (provided that removal of support structure owned by City, a utility, or another entity authorized to maintain a support structure need not be removed, but must be restored to its prior condition, except as specifically permitted by the City); or (2) prior to expiration, submit an application to renew the permit, which application must, among all other requirements, demonstrate that the impact of the wireless facility cannot be reduced. The wireless facility must remain in place until it is acted upon by the City and all appeals from the City’s decision exhausted.

8. The installation and construction authorized by a permit shall be completed within three (3) years after its approval, or it will expire without further action by the City unless prior to the three (3) years the applicant submit an extension request and the City, in its sole discretion, grants a time extension for due cause. The installation and construction authorized by a permit shall conclude, including any necessary post-installation repairs and/or restoration to the property, within thirty (30) days following the day construction commenced. The permittee must provide written notice to City within ten (10) days after completing construction, and may not begin operations until all City and Fire Department (if applicable) inspections have been completed and the project is found to be 270
Agenda Item # 6.

Resolution No. 21-17

Page 12 of 27 ends

_____________________
consistent with the permit. The expiration date shall be suspended until an appeal and/or litigation regarding the subject permit is resolved.

9. The Planning Director may grant up to four one-year extensions of the timeline, in Condition 7 above, for completing the installation and construction authorized by a development or condition use permit, if the Planning Director finds that the conditions, including but not limited to changes in the wireless ordinance under which the permit approval was issued, have not significantly changed.

10. Any questions of intent or interpretation of any condition of approval will be resolved by the Planning Director upon written request of such interpretation.

11. All structures shall conform to the requirements of the Environmental Sustainability Department, City Public Works Department, FCC and Los Angeles County Fire Department
requirements, as applicable. Notwithstanding this review, all required permits, including but not limited to an encroachment permit from the City, shall be secured.

12. Minor changes to the approved plans or the conditions of approval may be approved by the Planning Director, provided such changes achieve substantially the same results and the project is still in compliance with the MMC. An application with all required materials and fees shall be required.

Cultural Resources

13. In the event that potentially important cultural resources are found in the course of geologic testing, work shall immediately cease until a qualified archaeologist can provide an evaluation of the nature and significance of the resources and until the Planning Director can review this information. Where, as a result of this evaluation, the Planning Director determines that the project may have an adverse impact on cultural resources, a Phase II Evaluation of cultural resources shall be required pursuant to MMC Section

17.54.040(D)(4)(b).

14. If human bone is discovered, the procedures described in Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code shall be followed.

These procedures require notification of the coroner. If the coroner determines that the remains are those of a Native American, the applicant shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission by phone within 24 hours. Following notification of the Native 271
Agenda Item # 6.

Resolution No. 21-17

Page 13 of 27 ends

_____________________
American Heritage Commission, the procedures described in Section 5097.94 and Section 5097.98 of the California Public Resources Code shall be followed.

Wireless Facility Conditions

15. All antennas shall meet the minimum siting distances to public/uncontrolled areas required for compliance with the FCC regulations and standards governing the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions. Permittee shall keep up-to-date on current information from the FCC in regards to maximum
permissible radio frequency exposure levels. In the event that the FCC changes its guidelines for human exposure to radio frequency, permittee shall, within 30 days after any such change, submit to the Planning Director a report prepared by a qualified engineer that demonstrates actual compliance with such changed guidelines. The Director may, at permittee’s sole cost, retain an independent consultant to evaluate the compliance report and any potential modifications to the permit necessary to conform to the FCC’s guidelines. Failure to submit the compliance report required under this condition, or failure to maintain compliance with the FCC’s guidelines for human exposure to radio frequency at all times shall constitute grounds for permit revocation.

16. All antennas shall be located so that any person walking adjacent to the transmitting surface of the antenna will be walking on a grade, which is a minimum of eight and one-half feet below the transmitting surface.

17. All antennas, equipment, and support structures shall be engineered and designed to prevent unauthorized climbing.

18. The wireless facility shall be erected, operated, and maintained in compliance with the general requirements set forth in the Standards and any specific requirements in the permit.

19. The antenna and electrical support equipment shall, at all times, be operated in a manner that conforms to the applicable health and safety standards, including those imposed by MMC Chapter 17.46 and this Resolution.

20. Wireless communications facilities and equipment must comply with the City’s noise ordinance in MMC 8.24, or any successor provisions, and prevent noise and sound from being plainly audible at a distance of fifty (50) feet from the facility or within ten (10) feet of any residence.
272
Agenda Item # 6.

Resolution No. 21-17

Page 14 of 27 ends

_____________________

21. The Planning Director’s approval is required if a generator is to be placed onsite for temporary or permanent use.

22. All non-ground-mounted equipment associated with the application shall be located no lower than eight feet above grade or ground level on the monopole or support structure.

23. The City or its designee may enter onto the facility area to inspect the facility upon 48 hours prior notice to the permittee. The permittee shall cooperate with all inspections and may be present for any inspection of its facility by the City. The City reserves the right to enter or direct its designee to enter the facility and support, repair, disable, or remove any elements of the facility in emergencies or when the facility threatens imminent harm to persons or property.

The City shall make an effort to contact the permittee prior to disabling or removing any facility elements, but in any case, shall notify permittee within 24 hours of doing so.

24. Testing of any equipment shall take place on weekdays only, and only between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., except that testing is prohibited on holidays that fall on a weekday. In addition, testing is prohibited on weekend days.

25. Permittee shall obtain and maintain throughout the term of the permit commercial general liability insurance with a limit of five million dollars ($5,000,000) per occurrence for bodily injury and property damage and six million dollars ($6,000,000) general aggregate including premises operations, contractual liability, personal injury, and products completed operations. The relevant policy(ies) shall name the City, its elected/appointed officials, commission members, officers, representatives, agents, and employees as additional insureds. A true and correct copy of the policy of insurance shall constitute proof of insurance required by this Subsection. Permittee shall use its best efforts to provide thirty (30) days’ prior notice to the City of to the cancellation or material modification of any applicable insurance policy. Failure to maintain insurance consistent with this Condition shall automatically void the permit, and the permittee shall immediately deenergize and remove the facility from operation. The policy shall not have a pollution or other exclusion which excludes injuries or damages from EMF/RF exposures.

26. Prior to issuance of a City permit or encroachment permit, the permittee shall file with the City, and shall maintain in good standing throughout the term of the approval, a performance bond or other surety or another form of security for the removal of the 273
Agenda Item # 6.

Resolution No. 21-17

Page 15 of 27 ends

_____________________
facility in the event that the use is abandoned or the permit expires, or is revoked, or is otherwise terminated. The security shall be in the amount equal to the cost of physically removing the facility and all related facilities and equipment on the site, based on the higher of two contractor’s quotes for removal that are provided by the permittee. The permittee shall reimburse the city for staff time associated with the processing and tracking of the bond, based on the hourly rate adopted by the City Council. Reimbursement shall be paid when the security is posted and during each administrative review.

27. Permittee shall not move, alter, temporarily relocate, change, or interfere with any existing structure, improvement, or property without the prior consent of the owner of that structure, improvement, or property. No structure, improvement, or property owned by the City shall be moved to accommodate a permitted activity or encroachment, unless the City determines that such movement will not adversely affect the City or any surrounding businesses or residents, and the Permittee pays all costs and expenses related to the relocation of the City's structure, improvement, or property. Prior to commencement of any work pursuant to any permit, the permittee shall provide the City with documentation establishing to the city's satisfaction that the permittee has the legal right to use or interfere with any other structure, improvement, or property to be affected by permittee's facilities.

28. No possessory interest is created by a Wireless Permit. However, to the extent that a possessory interest is deemed created by a governmental entity with taxation authority, permittee
acknowledges that City has given to permittee notice pursuant to California Revenue and Taxation Code Section 107.6 that the use or occupancy of any public property pursuant to a development or conditional use permit may create a possessory interest which may be subject to the payment of property taxes levied upon such interest. Permittee shall be solely liable for, and shall pay and discharge prior to delinquency, any and all possessory interact taxes or other taxes, fees, and assessments levied against permittee’s right to possession, occupancy, or use of any public property pursuant to any right of possession, occupancy, or use created by this development or conditional use permit.

29. If not already completed, permittee shall enter into the appropriate agreement with the City, as determined by the City, prior to 274
Agenda Item # 6.

Resolution No. 21-17

Page 16 of 27 ends

_____________________
constructing, attaching, or operating a facility on municipal infrastructure. This permit is not a substitute for such agreement.

30. If a facility is not operated for a continuous period of three (3) months, the Wireless Permit and any other permit or approval therefor shall be deemed abandoned and terminated automatically, unless before the end of the three (3) month period (i) the Director has determined that the facility has resumed operations, or (ii) the City has received an application to transfer the permit to another service provider. No later than ninety (90) days from the date the facility is determined to have ceased operation, or the permittee has notified the Director of its intent to vacate the site, the permittee shall remove all equipment and improvements associated with the use and shall restore the site to its original condition to the satisfaction of the Director. The permittee shall provide written verification of the removal of the facilities within thirty (30) days of the date the removal is completed. If the facility is not removed within thirty (30) days after the permit has been discontinued pursuant to this subsection, the site shall be deemed to be a nuisance, and the City may cause the facility to be removed at permittee’s expense or by calling any bond or other financial assurance to pay for removal. If there are two (2) or more users of a single facility or support structure, then this provision shall apply to the specific elements or parts thereof that were abandoned but will not be effective for the entirety thereof until all users cease use thereof.

31. In the event the City determines that it is necessary to take legal action to enforce any of these conditions, or to revoke a permit, and such legal action is taken, the permittee shall be required to pay any and all costs of such legal action, including reasonable attorney’s fees, incurred by the City, even if the matter is not prosecuted to a final judgment or is amicably resolved, unless the City otherwise agrees, in its complete discretion, to waive said fees or any part thereof.

32. Interference with city communications systems and other governmental emergency systems is prohibited. Further, no permits issued pursuant to this chapter of the City Code establish any guarantee or warranty that Licensee’s facility will be free from interference from city or third-party communication systems.

Construction

33. Installation hours shall be limited to Monday through Friday from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. and Saturdays from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. No installation activities shall be permitted on Sundays and City275 Agenda Item # 6.

Resolution No. 21-17

Page 17 of 27 ends

_____________________
designated holidays. The restricted work hours described in this condition do not apply to emergency maintenance necessary to protect health or property. The City of Malibu may issue a Stop Work Order if permittee violates this condition. Construction activities shall be conducted in compliance with, and abide by, all applicable safety codes and permit conditions.

34. All sites must be designed and build to the standards of ANSI/APCO Public Safety Grade Site Hardening Requirements, also referred to as “APCO ANSI 2.106.1-2019”.

Site Specific Conditions

35. In the event that the electric service provider does not currently offer an alternative metering option, the permittee shall remove the above-grade electric meter when such option becomes available.

Prior to removing the above-grade electric meter, the permittee shall apply for any encroachment and/or other ministerial permit(s) required to perform the removal. Upon removal, the permittee shall restore the affected area to its original condition that existed prior to installation of the equipment.

36. The permittee acknowledges that the City specifically includes conditions of approval related to (a) painting, coloring or finishing the equipment to match the monopole or support structure; (b) undergrounding all equipment to the extent possible; (c) installing equipment within shrouds, conduits and risers as concealment elements engineered and designed to integrate the wireless facility with the surrounding built and natural environment; and (d) specific structural, seismic, electrical, fire and operating/maintenance requirements. Any future modifications to the permittee’s wireless facility must maintain or improve all concealment elements and safety precautions.

37. Before the permittee submits any applications for construction, encroachment, excavation or other required permits in connection with this permit, the permittee must incorporate a true and correct copy of this permit, all conditions associated with this permit and any approved photo simulations into the project plans (collectively, the “Approved Plans”). The permittee must construct, install and operate the wireless facility in substantial compliance with the Approved Plans as determined by the Director or the Director’s designee. Any substantial or material alterations, modifications or other changes to the Approved Plans, whether requested by the permittee or required by other departments or public agencies with jurisdiction over the wireless facility, must be submitted in a written 276
Agenda Item # 6.

Resolution No. 21-17

Page 18 of 27 ends

_____________________
request subject to the Director’s prior review and approval, who may refer the request to the original approval authority if the Director finds that the requested alteration, modification or other change substantially deviates from the Approved Plans or implicates a significant or substantial land-use concern.

38. The permittee shall install and at all times maintain in good condition a “Network Operations Center Information” and “RF Caution” sign on the utility pole no less than three (3) feet below the antenna (measured from the top of the sign) and no less than nine (9) feet above the ground line (measured from the bottom of the sign). Signs required under this condition shall be installed so that a person can clearly see the sign as he or she approaches within three (3) feet of the antenna structure. If any person on or within the property is or may be exposed to emissions that exceed applicable FCC uncontrolled/general population limits at any time the sign shall expressly so state, and provide instructions on how persons can avoid any such exposure. The sign shall also include the name(s) of the facility owner(s), equipment owner(s) and operator(s)/carrier(s) of the antenna(s), property owner name, as well as emergency phone number(s) for all such parties. The sign shall not be lighted, unless applicable law, rule or regulation requires lighting. No signs or advertising devices other than required certification, warning, required seals or signage, other signage required by law, this Chapter, any City or applicable state code or the Los Angeles County Fire Department Chief or his or her designee shall be permitted. The sign shall be no larger than two (2) square feet.

39. The permittee shall ensure that all signage complies with FCC Office of Engineering and Technology Bulletin 65, CPUC General Order 95 or American National Standards Institute C95.2 for color, symbol, and content conventions. All such signage shall at all times provide a working local or toll-free telephone number to its network operations center, and such telephone number shall be able to reach a live person who can exert transmitter power-down control over this site as required by the FCC.

40. In the event that the FCC changes any of radio frequency signage requirements that are applicable to the project site approved herein or ANSI Z535.1, ANSI Z535.2, and ANSI C95.2 standards that are applicable to the project site approved herein are changed, the permittee, within 30 days of each such change, at its own cost and expense, shall replace the signage at the project site to comply with the current standards.
277
Agenda Item # 6.

Resolution No. 21-17

Page 19 of 27 ends

_____________________

41. The permittee shall maintain the paint, color and finish of the facility in good condition at all times.

42. All improvements, including foundations, and appurtenant ground wires, shall be removed from the property and the site restored to its original pre-installation conditions within 90 days of cessation of operation or abandonment of the facility.

43. Build-Out Conditions.
a. Permittee shall not commence any excavation, construction, installation or other work on the project site until and unless it demonstrates to the City Public Works Department that the project complies with these Conditions along with all
applicable laws, regulations, codes and other rules related to public health and safety, including without limitation all applicable provisions in California Public Utilities
Commission General Order 95 and MMC Chapters 8.12,

8.24 and 15.08.
b. To the extent that a pole owner or any provision in the MMC or this resolution require greater or more restrictive
standards than California Public Utilities Commission
General Order 95, if applicable, those standards shall
control.

44. Permittee shall at all times maintain compliance with all applicable federal, State and local laws, regulations, ordinances and other rules, including Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements.

45. The permittee shall cooperate with all inspections. The City and its designees reserve the right to support, repair, disable or remove any elements of the facility in emergencies or when the facility threatens imminent harm to persons or property.

46. Permittee shall at all times maintain accurate contact information for all parties responsible for the facility, which shall include a phone number, street mailing address and email address for at least one natural person. All such contact information for responsible parties shall be provided to the Planning Department at the time of permit issuance and within one business day of permittee’s receipt of City staff’s written request.

47. Permittee shall undertake all reasonable efforts to avoid undue adverse impacts to adjacent properties and/or uses that may arise 278
Agenda Item # 6.

Resolution No. 21-17

Page 20 of 27 ends

_____________________
from the construction, operation, maintenance, modification and removal of the facility.

48. The site and the facility must be maintained in a neat and clean manner and in accordance with all approved plans and conditions of approval.

49. Permittee shall promptly remove any graffiti on the wireless facility at permittee’s sole expense within 48 hours after notice.

Prior to Operation

50. The applicant shall request a final Planning Department inspection and final building inspection by the City of Malibu Environmental Sustainability Department immediately after the wireless facility has been installed and prior to the commencement of services.

51. Within thirty (30) calendar days following the installation of any wireless communications facilities, the applicant shall provide to the Planning Department with a field report prepared by a qualified engineer verifying that the unit has been inspected, tested, and is operating in compliance with FCC standards. Specifically, the onsite post-installation radiofrequency (RF) emissions testing must demonstrate actual compliance with the FCC OET Bulletin 65 RF emissions safety guidelines for general population/uncontrolled RF exposure in all sectors. For this testing, the transmitter shall be operating at maximum operating power, and the testing shall occur outwards to a distance where the RF emissions no longer exceed the uncontrolled/general population limit. Such report and
documentation shall include the make and model (or other identifying information) of the unit tested, the date and time of the inspection, a certification that the unit is properly installed and working within applicable FCC limits, and a specific notation of the distance from the transmitter at which the emissions are equal to or less than the uncontrolled/general population limit.

52. The operation of the approved facility shall commence no later than one (1) month after the City completes its post-installation inspections of the facility, any issues with the facility are resolved, and the City receives the RF testing report required in the condition of approval above, or the development or conditional use permit will expire without further action by the City.
279
Agenda Item # 6.

Resolution No. 21-17

Page 21 of 27 ends

_____________________
Fixed Conditions

53. Violation of any of the conditions of this approval shall be cause for revocation and termination of all rights thereunder.

Eligible Facilities Requests
All permits for an eligible facilities requests under MMC Chapter 17.46 shall be subject to the following conditions and all of the other conditions of approval placed on a Wireless Permit, unless modified by the approving authority:

54. Any permit granted in response to an application qualifying as an eligible facilities request shall be subject to the terms and conditions of the underlying permit.

55. The City’s grant or grant by operation of law of an eligible facilities request permit constitutes a federally-mandated modification to the underlying permit or approval for the subject tower or base station.

Notwithstanding any permit duration established in another permit condition, the City’s grant or grant by operation of law of a eligible facilities request permit will not extend the permit term for the underlying permit or any other underlying regulatory approval, and its term shall be coterminous with the underlying permit or other regulatory approval for the subject tower or base station.

56. The City’s grant or grant by operation of law of an eligible facilities request does not waive, and shall not be construed to waive, any standing by the City to challenge Section 6409(a) of the Spectrum Act, any FCC rules that interpret Section 6409(a) of the Spectrum Act, or any modification to Section 6409(a) of the Spectrum Act.

Small Cell Facilities
In addition to the other conditions of approval placed on a Wireless Permit, all permits for a small cell facility under MMC Chapter 17.46 shall be subject to the following additional condition, unless modified by the approving authority:

57. The City’s grant of a permit for a small cell facility request does not waive, and shall not be construed to waive, any standing by the city to challenge any FCC orders or rules related to small cell facilities, or any modification to those FCC orders or rules.

Basic Application Requirements for Permits Under MMC Chapter 17.46.

A. Generally. In addition to providing all required fees, all wireless telecommunication facility carriers or providers shall provide the information required by a separate application form published, and updated 280
Agenda Item # 6.

Resolution No. 21-17

Page 22 of 27 ends

_____________________
from time to time, by the City. If no such form is available, then the applicant must submit all documents, information, and any other materials necessary to allow the City to make required findings and ensure that the proposed facility will comply with applicable laws and not endanger the public health, safety, or welfare. Such information may include:

1. Contact information for:
a. Applicant and their representatives
b. Owner of proposed wireless communications facility
c. If different from facility owner, the identity of the person or entity responsible for operating the proposed wireless
facility
d. The property owner or owner of the structure on which the proposed wireless facility would be installed
e. Names, addresses, telephone numbers, and email addresses of anyone acting on behalf of the applicant with regard to the application;
f. The name, address and phone number of all persons that prepared or assisted in preparing the application and any required reports;
g. The postal address, parcel number, or utility pole identifier of the property;
h. The location of the schools, playgrounds and parks within 500 feet of the project site;
i. Local contact person for emergencies
j. Assessor’s Parcel Number

2. Purpose of new wireless communications facility or amendment

3. Type of Application (Select all that apply)
a. Eligible Facilities Request
b. Small Cell – Collocation
c. Small Cell – New Structure
d. Collocation (Non-Small Cell)
e. All Other Wireless Communications Facilities
f. Permit Renewal
g. Waiver

4. Letter of authorization signed by the property owner authorizing the applicant to submit and process the application, including executed copies of any leases, letters of agency, or proof of ownership, of private property involved in the project.

5. Authorizations, and Licenses

6. Provide previous approvals, if applicable, and Certificate of Completion. Site inspection fees may apply if a final inspection was never requested

7. Identify all other required permits and approvals for the subject facility.
281
Agenda Item # 6.

Resolution No. 21-17

Page 23 of 27 ends

_____________________

8. Electrical and Structural Safety Information. The following engineering documents prepared under the responsible charge of and sealed by a California licensed Professional Engineer must be included in the application:
a. A short circuit and coordination study (“SCCS”) calculated pursuant to the IEEE 551-2006: Recommended Practice for Calculating AC Short-Circuit Currents in Industrial and Commercial Power Systems or the latest version of that
standard. The study must demonstrate the protection devices will ensure the equipment enclosure will not be breached.

The SCCS must include analysis of Voltage Transient
Surges due to contact of conductors of different voltages; b. A one-line diagram of the electrical system;
c. Voltage Drop & Load Flow Study;
d. Load Calculation;
e. Panel Directories;
f. A plot plan showing the location of the mounting structure including address, or structure designation, or GPS location on the front sheet;
g. A plot plan showing the location of the service disconnecting means; and
h. An elevation drawing of the equipment and the service disconnecting means.
i. A demonstration there will be signage as required by the California Electric Code or the Los Angeles County Fire Department Chief or their designee
j. A demonstration the service disconnecting means shall be mounted at an elevation determined by the Los Angeles
County Fire Chief or their designee in conjunction with the electric utility;
k. A demonstration there will be instructions for deenergizing the equipment by First Responders.

9. Structural Safety Information. The structural/civil engineering documents prepared under the responsible charge of and sealedas recommended by a California licensed professional civil engineer. a. Photo simulations, from at least three different angles, showing the pole and streetscape before and after
installation. In some cases, more than three different angles may be required;
b. The azimuth, size and center-line height location of all proposed and existing antenna(s) on the supporting
structure;
c. The number, type and model of the antenna(s) that will be used with a copy of the specification sheet;
282
Agenda Item # 6.

Resolution No. 21-17

Page 24 of 27 ends

_____________________
d. The make, model, type and manufacturer of any tower
involved and a design plan stating the tower’s capacity to accommodate multiple users;
e. Site and Construction Plans. Complete and accurate plans, drawn to scale, signed, and sealed by a California-licensed engineer, land surveyor, and/or architect, which include the following items.
(1) A site plan and elevation drawings for the facility as existing and as proposed with all height and width
measurements explicitly stated.
(2) A site plan describing the proposed tower and
antenna(s) and all related fixtures, structures,
appurtenances and apparatus, including height above
pre-existing grade, materials, color and lighting;
(3) A depiction, with height and width measurements
explicitly stated, of all existing and proposed
transmission equipment.
(4) A depiction of all existing and proposed utility runs and points of contact.
(5) A depiction of the leased or licensed area of the site with all rights-of-way and easements for access and
utilities labeled in plan view.
f. Detailed map with locations of the poles or other property on which equipment is to be located, including specific pole identification number, if applicable, and the areas it will service;
g. Description as to why the desired location is superior to other similar locations, from a community perspective, including, but not limited to:
(1) Proximity to residential buildings and descriptions of efforts to prevent any blocking of views of
impressive scenes; and
(2) Written documentation demonstrating a good faith
effort to locate the proposed facility in the least
intrusive location in accordance with the location
requirements of this Resolution.;
h. A description in writing and a visual rendering
demonstrating effective screening of all ground-mounted or roof-mounted equipment of the facility from view.
i. Color-coded carrier-generated RF Coverage (propagation) maps, at a scale no smaller than 1 inch (1”) to a quarter (1/4) mile with all appropriate legends, showing the coverage for the highest and lowest frequencies to be used by the facility.

Frequencies are to be stated numerically, not qualitatively. 283
Agenda Item # 6.

Resolution No. 21-17

Page 25 of 27 ends

_____________________
Provide a represented value in dB of each colors it
specifically represents.
j. If the project involves, modifies or will use an existing facility or structure, a description of the type of structure (e.g., guyed, self-supporting lattice or monopole), and a report on the physical condition of the facility certified by a professional engineer licensed in the state of California. k. If the application is for a new tower, clear and convincing technical evidence by a carrier or wireless service provider justifying the total height of the proposed facility and the need for such to the exclusion of all reasonable alternatives.

Evidence in the form of propagation studies must include all modeling data and assumptions used to produce the studies at the requested height and should take into consideration the ability to collocate other carriers in the future.
l. A siting analysis which identifies other feasible locations within or outside the City which could serve the area
intended to be served by the facility, unless the applicant provides compelling technical reasons for providing fewer than the minimum.
m. An affirmation, under penalty of perjury, that the proposed installation will be FCC compliant, in that it will not cause members of the general public to be exposed to RF levels that exceed the emissions levels deemed safe by the FCC. A copy of the fully completed FCC form “A Local
Government Official’s Guide to Transmitting Antenna RF
Emission Safety: Rules, Procedures, and Practical Guidance:

Appendix A” titled “Optional Checklist for Determination of Whether a Facility is Categorically Excluded” for each frequency band of RF emissions to be transmitted from the proposed facility upon the approval of the application. All planned radio frequency emissions on all frequency bands must be shown on the Appendix A form(s) attached to the application. All planned radio frequency emissions are to be entered on each Appendix A form only in wattage units of “effective radiated power.”
n. A statement detailing the frequency, modulation and class of service of radio or other transmitting equipment;
o. A copy of the FCC license applicable for the intended use of the proposed facilities;
p. A HazMat Business Plan for all new generators, and any storage and/or use of hazardous materials during the project, to include:
284
Agenda Item # 6.

Resolution No. 21-17

Page 26 of 27 ends

_____________________
i. A list of toxic substances that may develop during
arcing or fire that may impede fire suppression
efforts;
ii. A list of hazards that may develop during arcing or fire that may impede fire suppression efforts;
q. A demolition plan, if applicable.
r. A written statement of the applicant’s willingness to allow other carriers to co-locate on the proposed personal wireless service facility where technically and economically feasible and aesthetically desirable, subject to the qualification that colocation should not occur when public exposures from the resulting higher cumulative sources would exceed FCC
limits.
s. Such other information as the Director shall establish. t. A statement signed by a person with legal authority to bind the applicant attesting under penalty of perjury to the accuracy of the information provided in the application. If attester not an authorized employee of the applicant, then the attester must demonstrate that it is an authorized agent of the applicant, with lawful Power of Attorney from the applicant.

SECTION 10. Environmental Review
This Resolution is not a project within the meaning of Section 15378 of the State of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, because it has no potential for resulting in physical change in the environment, directly or indirectly. The Resolution does not authorize any specific development or installation on any specific piece of property within the City’s boundaries.

Moreover, when and if an application for installation is submitted, the City will at that time conduct preliminary review of the application in accordance with CEQA. Alternatively, even if the Resolution is a “project” within the meaning of State CEQA Guidelines section 15378, the Resolution is exempt from CEQA on multiple grounds. First, the Resolution is exempt CEQA because the City Council’s adoption of the Resolution is covered by the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15061(b)(3)). That is, approval of the Resolution will not result in the actual installation of any facilities in the City. In order to install a facility in accordance with this Resolution, the wireless provider would have to submit an application for installation of the wireless facility. At that time, the City will have specific and definite information regarding the facility to review in accordance with CEQA. And, in fact, the City will conduct preliminary review under CEQA at that time. Moreover, in the event that the Resolution is interpreted so as to permit installation of wireless communications facilities on a particular site, the installation would be exempt from CEQA review in accordance with either State CEQA Guidelines section 15302 (replacement or reconstruction), State CEQA Guidelines section 15303 (new construction or conversion of small structures), and/or State CEQA Guidelines section 15304 (minor alterations to land).
285
Agenda Item # 6.

Resolution No. 21-17

Page 27 of 27 ends

_____________________
SECTION 11. This Resolution will become effective immediately upon adoption.

SECTION 12. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this resolution and enter it into the book of original resolutions.

PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 12th day of April 2021. ______________________________
MIKKE PIERSON, Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
______________________________
(seal)
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________
JOHN COTTI, Interim City Attorney
286
Agenda Item # 6.
287
Agenda Item # 6.
288
Agenda Item # 6.
289
Agenda Item # 6.
290
Agenda Item # 6.
291
Agenda Item # 6.
292
Agenda Item # 6.
293
Agenda Item # 6.
294
Agenda Item # 6.
295
Agenda Item # 6.
296
Agenda Item # 6.
297
Agenda Item # 6.
298
Agenda Item # 6.
299
Agenda Item # 6.
300
Agenda Item # 6.
301
Agenda Item # 6.
302
Agenda Item # 6.
303
Agenda Item # 6.
304
Agenda Item # 6.
305
Agenda Item # 6.
306
Agenda Item # 6.
307
Agenda Item # 6.
308
Agenda Item # 6.
309
Agenda Item # 6.
310
Agenda Item # 6.
311
Agenda Item # 6.
312
Agenda Item # 6.
313
Agenda Item # 6.

To: Los Altos City Council
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
From: Cindy Russell, MD
Re: Revisions to 2019 Los Altos Ordinance to Regulate Small Wireless Facilities Date April 11, 2022
Dear Los Altos City Council:

Encinitas and Malibu have passed ordinances which have elements that are protective but allow flexibility for cities and exceptions/waivers for the carriers. They remain uncontested. • Encinitas, CA- Revised from 2019- Passed June 20, 2020 https://encinitasca.gov/Portals/0/City%20Documents/Documents/Development%20Servi ces/Planning/Land%20Development/Small%20Wireless%20Facilities/Resolution%20No .%202020-38%20With%20Policy.pdf?ver=2020-07-13-192634-373 • Malibu Resolution 21-17 – Attached please find an executed copy of Res. 21-17 is officially binding because Ordinance 484 adopts it by reference.

I will summarize my ask of the Los Altos City Council with these key points below, followed by backup for those points with additional pertinent legal information which does impact the issue of health/science, as per a court ruling from the second highest court in the land on August 13, 2021, a ruling that referred to the existing RF radiation regulatory limits as "arbitrary and capricious". Arbitrary and capricious means that the law and/or the facts were knowingly disregarded. That is a high bar indeed and the plaintiffs reached that bar. It behooves us to consider what is going on in the courts and pass ordinance language accordingly:

PLEASE PAUSE: There are resolutions as mentioned above that have successfully balanced the unique needs of communities with the rights of the telecommunications industry. The new resolution does not have to be passed Tuesday night. Some reflection on the best that Encinitas and Malibu have to offer may benefit all of us in the long run. 314
Agenda Item # 6.

Key Points

1. TITLE OF ORDINANCE: Clarification if this applies to Small Cell or Macro Cells; macro towers must go through conditional use permits

2. LOCATION STANDARDS – PREFERRED SITES

3. WAIVERS FOR STANDARDS

4. FIRE SAFETY

5. APPEALS PROCESS

Thank you for passing the 2019 Wireless Facilities Telecommunications Ordinance. The original wireless facilities ordinance for Los Altos took into consideration public concerns, was well thought out and protects the city of Los Altos from poorly designed and poorly placed cell towers.

I understand, however, that there is a lawsuit against the City for Los Altos from Verizon and AT&T claiming that the 2019 ordinance as written “effectively prohibits” wireless communications. You are commended for taking on this task of revising the ordinance in response. Some of the 2022 proposed changes are good and clarify the permitting process for carriers to avoid lawsuits and provide for “personal wireless services”, however, I believe there are some gaps in protections and flexibility for the city that I would like to point out which could be remedied in addition to some clarifications.

It is important to consider adding the provisions below. As you note with the FCC lawsuit to reevaluation the 20 year-old FCC safety standards, the courts have judged that the FCC did not take into account several aspects of human health and environmental effects in setting their standards. We do not know what the future holds for the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 or state law. The city of Los Altos needs to be prepared to alter its ordinance in case there is a change in the law in the future.

Representative Anna Eshoo Supports Local Control for Cell Towers The 2018 FCC small cell order that fast tracks deployment of small cells in order to “cut the red tape” has prompted cities around the country, like Los Altos, to write these emergency ordinances and now revise them. The FCC Declaratory ruling has been considered an overreach of the Telecom Industry which dominates the FCC (FCC: Captured Agency, N. Alster), overriding the basic rights of cities to have local control. This was recognized by our local representative Anna Eshoo who in 2019 introduced HR530 to protect the rights of states and government by deeming that the “Federal Communications Commission’s Declaratory Ruling in ‘‘Third Report and Order and Declaratory Ruling’’ (FCC 18-111) shall have no force or effect.” This bill had 52 co-sponsors. Senator Feinstein introduced in 2019 a companion federal bill SB 2012 to block the FCC order. Neither moved.
315
Agenda Item # 6.

Representative Eshoo also sent a letter to the FCC in 2020 to ask that the vote on the FCC order be delayed stating, “we worry that if this Declaratory Ruling does not benefit from meaningful input from local governments, the result could undermine municipalities’ ability to balance their responsibilities to public safety and community design with their desire to ensure access to affordable wireless networks and the next generation services.” Please fight for the rights of your residents and government as our local representatives have done. You have more power than you know. Please exercise it.

Important Provisions to Add
1) Title of Ordinance
To clarify whether the ordinance title should apply only to Small Wireless Facilities or if this is for both Small Cell and Macro Towers it may be helpful to rename the ordinance to its original title and keep the descriptions separate within the ordinance. It is not clear to me in this rewrite. Small cell applications are different than for macro towers due to difference in structure of towers, power emitted and location in right of way as per FCC ruling. (Section 14.82.050) See Encinitas Small Cell wireless Ordinance. Resolution 2019- 91-

REGULATING SMALL WIRELESS FACILITIES AND OTHER INFRASTRUCTURE

DEPLOYMENTS IN THE PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY
https://encinitasca.gov/Portals/0/City%20Documents/Documents/Development%20Servi ces/Planning/Land%20Development/Small%20Wireless%20Facilities/CC%20Policy%20 C035.pdf
2) Location Standards- Preferred Sites- Despite what the telecommunications industry says, you as a city can still have preferred sites and less preferred sites in your ordinance. (Encinitas and Malibu Ordinances) You can add an exception clause or waiver process to allow for placement of a cell tower if the carrier proves it is necessary (and other locations are not technically feasible) for “Personal Wireless Services” under the 1996 Telecom Act of 1996 and so that this does not constitute an “effective prohibition”.
* Special Zones can be designated for schools, day care centers, residential dwellings, protected habitat or trees, parks, etc.
* Keep the 1000 foot distance between towers, not 200 feet. Explanation below.

Here are examples of Location Standards in the Encinitas Small Cell Wireless Ordinance passed in June, 2020 and in Malibu April 2021, which to date are uncontested. 316
Agenda Item # 6.

Encinitas Ordinance Passed June 10, 2020
SECTION 10. LOCATION STANDARDS

1. (a) Restricted Site Locations. All of the following locations will be deemed “Restricted Site Locations” that require an exception pursuant to SECTION 13 of this Policy:

1. (1) any location within a residential zone;

2. (2) any location within 500 feet from a residential dwelling unit;

3. (3) any location within 500 feet from a daycare facility or primary school;

4. (4) any location within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone; and

5. (5) any location within the Ecological Resource/Open Space/Park Zone. (b) Location Preferences. To better assist applicants and decision makers understand and respond to the community’s aesthetic preferences and values, this subsection sets out listed preferences for locations to be used in connection with small wireless facilities in an ordered hierarchy. Applications that involve lesser-preferred locations may be approved so long as the applicant demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence in the written record that: (1) any more preferred locations or structures within 500 feet from the proposed site would be technically infeasible; and (2) if the proposed site or the most- preferred location within 500 feet from the proposed site is within a Restricted Site Location, the applicant qualifies for an exception pursuant to SECTION 13 of this Policy. The City prefers small cells in the public rights-of-way to be installed in locations, ordered from most preferred to least preferred, as follows:
(1) locations within industrial zones, commercial zones, business parks or office professional zones on or along prime arterials;
(2) locations within industrial zones, commercial zones, business parks or office professional zones on or along major arterials;
(3) locations within industrial zones, commercial zones, business parks or office professional zones on or along collector roads;
(4) locations within industrial zones, commercial zones, business parks or office professional zones on or along local streets;
(5) any location within 500 feet from any residential zone; (6) locations within residential zones on or along prime arterials; (7) locations within residential zones on or along major arterials; (8) locations within residential zones on or along collector roads; (9) locations within residential zones on or along local streets; 317
Agenda Item # 6.
(10) any location within 1,000 feet from an existing/proposed small wireless facility; In the event that a proposed facility would be within 500 feet from two or more restricted site locations (as defined in Subsection 10(a)), and the proposed facility qualifies for an exception pursuant to SECTION 13 of this Policy, the technically feasible location furthest from all such restricted site locations will be deemed to be the most preferred alternative. (c) Encroachments Over Private Property. No small cell antennas, accessory equipment or other improvements may encroach onto or over any private or other property outside the public rights-ofway without the property owner’s express written consent.

Malibu Wireless Ordinance Resolution 21-17 Standards Passed April 2021. https://www.malibucity.org/DocumentCenter/View/27969/Ordinance-No-484 Location Standards for All Facilities
The location standards for all wireless communications facilities, other than those that qualify as eligible facilities requests, are as follows:

1. No wireless telecommunication facility shall be located within five hundred (500) feet of any school, playground, or park unless a finding is made, based on technical evidence acceptable to the reviewing authority showing a clear need for the facility and that no technically feasible alternative site exists. Except for facilities installed on the same pole or tower as an existing wireless telecommunication facility, wireless telecommunication facilities located within any residential zone district shall not be located within one thousand (1,000) feet of any other wireless communications facility, except from those facilities placed on utility poles along Pacific Coast Highway, unless a waiver is granted.

2. All new freestanding wireless communications facilities and monopoles shall be set back a minimum distance of at least one hundred and twenty (120%) percent of the height of the facility or monopole from any property line abutting a residentially zoned property.

This minimum setback is not subject to the waivers allowed under Section 7 of this Resolution.

3. Location preference for wireless communications facilities should be given to the following:

1. Property designated non-residential (except for public open space and recreational vehicle park zoning districts), unless otherwise prohibited pursuant to this title.

3. Sites with minimum separation. Sites that are more than five hundred (500) feet from school, playgrounds, and parks.

4. Sites that are not highly visible from adjacent roadways.

5. Unless otherwise indicated in MMC Chapter 17.46 or these Standards, no wireless facility shall be installed on an exposed ridgeline unless the facility blends with the 318
Agenda Item # 6.
surrounding existing natural and man-made environment and a finding is made that no other location is technically feasible.

3) Waivers for Standards
Malibu Wireless Facilities Ordinance 2021 has added a section on Waivers for Standards that clarifies the process and protects the city from liability.

Resolution No. 21-17 Page 9

1. A waiver of one or more of these Standards may be granted in the following circumstances:

2. Waivers may only be requested at the time an application is initially submitted for a discretionary permit. The request must include both the specific provision(s) from which waiver is sought and the basis of the request, including all supporting evidence on which the applicant relies. Any request for waiver after the City has deemed an application 319
Agenda Item # 6.
complete constitutes a material change to the proposed wireless facility and shall be considered a new application. A request for waiver from one or more 4) Fire Safety
All electrical equipment including small cell towers are a fire risk. The fire cannot be put out in a conventional manner with firefighters blasting water on the fire.

They have to wait until the power is shut off or electrocution will result.

Examples are
• San Diego tower that caught fire in a high school stadiumhttps://fox5sandiego.com/news/local-news/stadium-light-catches-fire-at-south-bayhigh-school/ • The Malibu fire in 2007 due to pole overload. CPUC finds Edison and 4 telecom carriers $51.5 million - https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-malibu-firesettlements-approved-state-puc-20130919-story.html

Considering the increase in wildfires and the risk of earthquakes. Fire safety is a priority for citizens. The Malibu Wireless Facilities Ordinance 2021 has language in the Fire Safety Standards that can be incorporated. In the attached Executed Copy of Malibu Res. 21-17, please note fire language on pages 2, 3, 5, 8, 11, 12, and particularly beginning on page 23 with "Electrical and Structural Safety Information."
5) Appeals Process
Language for appeal is not in the ordinance
Applications.

A) Any person adversely affected by a decision of the Director pursuant to this Chapter may request an administrative hearing to appeal the Director’s decision. In order to request a hearing, the person shall submit to the City Clerk in the manner directed in the Director’s decision notice a fully completed request for administrative hearing form along with a full amount of the appeal fee set by the City Council (by way of check or money order). The request for administrative hearing shall be incomplete if it does not include the appeal fee in the full amount. … etc.

Public health and ecosystem health are still important issues with new 5G systems untested for long term or short term safety for either human health or environmental health. 5G systems with a complex mix of low, medium and high frequencies (thus the need for macro and microcells) are very onerous to measure, requiring very expensive complex equipment that is very difficult 320
Agenda Item # 6.
for engineers to accomplish let alone city facility engineers. Precaution in placement is paramount in this discussion. Once cell towers are placed there is no going back and you just wait for people to experience symptoms or develop cancer or a neurologic condition that you will not be able to sort out from the common toxic exposures we all encounter on a daily basis.

Elon Musk tells us that 5G millimeter wave systems are not needed for autonomous cars. 5G millimeter wavelengths are also not required for “personal wireless services”. For the later this technology can be effectively replaced with safer and more secure fiberoptic networks and current wireless technologies. I will explain why health matters.

Health Matters
I am a practicing physician who has studied the health impacts of environmental toxins through our local County Medical Association and the California Medical Association for over 25 years.

I began studying the health impacts of wireless radiation when I learned of a proposal to place a cell tower on my daughter’s school.

After 10 years of research into the literature and talking to a variety of people affected by cell towers and wireless radiation I, like many others in the medical and scientific community, have come to the conclusion that wireless radiation is a pollutant just like lead or pesticides or mercury or toxic industrial waste. The mechanisms are similar - oxidation, the effects are broad on all living organisms and people are often unaware they are exposed to the toxin - unless they are “sensitive”. Wireless radiation causes oxidative stress on organisms and stem cells, and at low levels of radiation. These low levels cause a slow decline in physiologic processes, and for those who have become sensitive- an immediate reaction.

Antioxidants and Health
As we now know small amounts of toxins can cause harm in certain windows of development thus children are more vulnerable. We also know effects are cumulative. People vary in their vulnerability due to age, genetics and other toxic exposures. Not all people react the same. Our health, wellness and aging are determined by oxidation levels in our tissues that injure our DNA, proteins and lipids, thus antioxidants in foods have been shown to block oxidation, neutralize cellular injury and promote health. This is well established in the nutrition literature. The literature also demonstrates that taking antioxidants (Vitamin E, zinc and melatonin) protects the cell from oxidation injury from wireless radiation. Oxidative stress plays a major part in the development of chronic, degenerative and inflammatory illnesses such as cancer, autoimmune disorders, aging, cataracts, rheumatoid arthritis, cardiovascular and neurodegenerative diseases, as well as some acute pathologies (trauma, stroke). It is well established that wireless radiation at non-thermal levels causes oxidative stress. Effects of this are cumulative on our DNA, lipids and cellular membranes.

We Evolved in a Low Electromagnetic Environment
The natural environment of the Earth is electromagnetic. We have terrestrial electric and magnetic fields, radiation from the sun and cosmic microwaves. All living things evolved in 321
Agenda Item # 6.
harmony with the Earth’s natural but very very low-level electromagnetic rhythms. Birds, bees and mammals have magnetite in their bodies and brains that use the Earth’s magnetic field for the delicate tasks of navigation and foraging. Our human nervous system, heart, reproductive and endocrine systems rely on minute electromagnetic signals for complex functions. Manmade electromagnetic fields (EMF) emitted by our modern technology can distort our bodies electric currents, delicate cell membranes and cause broad dysfunction. This can be with long term or sometimes short exposures with higher power and different pulsations. Science has shown us that organisms adapt to constant electromagnetic fields found in nature much easier than artificial pulsed radiation that is emitted from cell towers and wireless devices. It makes perfect sense that wireless radiation can be harmful to living organisms even it does not knock an electron out of its orbit.

Wildlife
You need to consider the unique ecosystem which surrounds this lovely town. Science has shown us that levels of artificial electromagnetic radiation we are increasingly exposed to is harming not only humans but the sensitive environment that we tend to ignore but depend upon for our sustenance and mental health. https://mdsafetech.org/environmental-and-wildlife-effects/ New Review on Wildlife and wireless Radiofrequency Radiation The most comprehensive 3 part peer reviewed article by Levitt, Lai and Manville (2021) provides an updated, thorough and well referenced overview of RFR and effects on all wildlife, revealing a disturbing picture of the future if we continue to expand wireless in our homes, communities and for the commercialization of space.

The authors state, “But is there a larger environmental downside to rising ambient EMF exposures — particularly RFR — from popular mobile communication devices, WiFi antennas, and all accompanying infrastructure that is being overlooked by environmentalists, researchers, and government regulators alike. We may be missing critical physiological effects across species based on obsolete assumptions about low-level far-field exposures being too weak to adversely affect living tissue. We have yet to take into consideration the unique physiologies of other species, or how they use the environment in ways that humans do not, when we assume that the unfettered use of EMF/RFR can continue unabated and be allowed to grow indefinitely.” Effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields on flora and fauna, part 1. Rising ambient EMF levels in the environment. (2021) Levitt BB et al. Rev Environ Health. 2021 May

27. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34047144/
MOEF Report on Wildlife
The Inter-Ministerial Committee (IMC) of expert scientists reviewed the literature of the effects of RF-EMF radiations on wildlife, humans and the biosphere. In their 2010 MOEF Report they found that out of the 919 research papers collected on birds, bees, plants, other animals, and humans, 593 showed impacts, 180 showed no impacts, and 196 were inconclusive studies. All organisms had effects.
322
Agenda Item # 6.

Human Effects– 62% showed effects, 13% no effect and 25% inconclusive Plant Effects– 87% showed effects and 13% were inconclusive
Wildlife Effects- 62% showed effects, 4% no effect and 36% inconclusive Bee Effects—85% showed effects and 15% no effect
Bird Effects- 77% showed effects, 10% no effect and 13% inconclusive Current Standards are Scientifically Out of Date
UNESCO World Heritage Wildlife Area Species Disappearing An abundance of peer reviewed literature demonstrates adverse impacts to the environment with declines in insect, bird and wildlife populations in cities and where cell towers are placed. This spells disaster for biodiversity, fragile wildlife areas, critical pollinators and agriculture, especially with additive effects of pesticides, toxins and loss of habitat. A report on Unesco’s Mt.

Nardia World Heritage Park documents this slow decline in populations of species after cell towers were placed. Unesco Report on Disappearance of Species from Mt. Nardia Park World Heritage Area 2000-2015 with Increased Expansion of Telecommunications Antenna. EthnoBotonist Mark Broomhall. UNESCO Report on Disappearance of Species from Mt. Nardia with Increased EMR 2000-2015
Cell Tower Health Effects
Current standards are based on short term thermal exposures and discount the abundant peer reviewed literature on harm from low level, non -thermal effects. It is clear that the limits for radiofrequency radiation are set too high in the U.S. and Canada. These limits are 100 times higher than that of Italy and Russia, who set their standards based on methodical research on immunologic, neurologic and biologic effects of low-level radiation fields. Current U.S. limits are up to 1,000 microwatts/cm2 with symptoms seen at levels of 0.005 microwatts /cm2.

Physicians in Germany ask for Health Investigation of Cell Towers in 2005 An open letter from Dr. Cornelia Waldmann-Selsam was sent to the German State Chancellor, Edmund Stoiber, on behalf of 114 physicians (Bamberger Appeal) asking for an investigation into the newly reported adverse health symptoms of 356 residents who lived near cell towers in Oberfranken, Germany. Dr. Waldmann-Selsam noted, “Many humans get sick from emissions far below the recommended limit values, which consider only thermal effects, and we have a sickness picture with characteristic symptom combinations, which are new to us physicians,” The list of symptoms were, ” Sleep disturbances, tiredness, concentration impairment, forgetfulness, problem with finding words, depressive tendencies, tinnitus, sudden loss of hearing, hearing loss, giddiness, nose bleeds, visual disturbances, frequent infections, sinusitis, joint and limb pains, nerve and soft tissue pains, feeling of numbness, heart rhythm disturbances, 323
Agenda Item # 6.
increased blood pressure , hormonal disturbances, night-time sweat, nausea.” Resident noted almost immediate improvement when moving away.”
Dr. Waldmann-Selsam goes on to say, “physicians were able to prove, by re-testing the patients, the normalization of blood pressure, heart rhythm, hormone disturbances, visual disturbances, neurological symptoms, blood picture,”. She called this an emergency medical situation and requested an official health investigation. http://www.nextup.org/pdf/Letter_to_Edmund_Stoiber.pdf Cell Tower Effects on Cognition and Learning
The majority of studies, which have been done internationally, have shown an increase in neurologic symptoms in a percentage of residents living near cell towers. Symptoms vary with the distance from the cell tower. Symptoms include insomnia, headache, heart palpitations, dizziness, poor concentration, and fatigue. A study in Japan (Shinjyo 2014) showed a decrease in symptoms when the cell tower was removed. There is also a well done study showing blood abnormalities in those living nearest to cell towers (Zothansiama 2017). DNA and lipid abnormalities were seen along with reduction in internal antioxidants which provide protection from pollutants.

Moreover, a recent study conducted over a 2 year period looked at effects of cell towers near two schools by Meo et al (2018) and clearly demonstrated cognitive dysfunction in students closest to the higher power cell tower.

Firefighters Fighting Fires and Now Cell Towers
After noticing that many of the firefighters where developing neurologic symptoms when first responder cell towers were placed on the fire stations the International Association of Firefighters studied the matter and passed a resolution in 2004 asking that cell towers not be placed in proximity to fire stations. In AB 537 (Quirk), signed into law by Gov. Newsom on October 4, 2021, the firefighters achieved the first ever health/readiness exemption in the world.

Every fire station in California is now exempt from having a 5G tower on their station. This movement began when cell towers were initially targeted for fire stations because of their location and the revenue received by the cities. Many firefighters developed symptoms including headaches, fatigue, memory impairment and insomnia within a week of the installation of the towers. An exemption was inserted in California bills on cell towers. AB 57 (Quirk 2015) has an exemption on the grounds of health effects. AB 537 (Quirk 2021) also has this exemption and reads, “Due to the unique duties and infrastructure requirements for the swift and effective deployment of firefighters, this section does not apply to a collocation or siting application for a wireless telecommunications facility where the project is proposed for placement on fire department facilities.” SB 649 (Hueso, Quirk and Dodd 2018) also had a health exemption for firefighters and was vetoed by Governor Brown.
324
Agenda Item # 6.
500 Meter (1640 ft) Buffer from Cell Tower Recommended
Cell tower health studies that show impacts from cell towers with symptoms within about 1500 feet of the cell towers. That is why Pearce et al (2019) recommended a “500 Meter buffer around schools, hospitals and homes “Limiting liability with positioning to minimize negative health effects of cellular phone towers.”
Cancer and Cell Towers
3 Studies investigated the rates of cancer and cell towers looking at the distance from cell towers and the incidence of cancer. They found the rate of cancer incidence increased significantly in those living within about 350 -400 meters (around 1000 feet) to the cell tower.

Dode 2011 performed a 10 year study (1996-2006) examining the distance from cell towers and cancer clusters. He and his colleagues found a highly significant increase in cancers in those living within 500 meters of the cell tower. They noted “The largest density power was

40.78 µW/cm2, and the smallest was 0.04 µW/cm2.” The current guidelines are about 1000 µW/cm2. The authors conclude “Measured values stay below Brazilian Federal Law limits that are the same of ICNIRP. The human exposure pattern guidelines are inadequate. More restrictive limits must be adopted urgently.”
Wolf and Wolf 2004 investigated the rates of cancer versus distance from cell towers in small towns in Israel. He found the rate of cancer incidence was 129 cases per 10,000 persons per year in those living within 350 meters of a cell tower versus a rate of 16-31/10,000 in those living greater than 350 meters from the cell tower.

Eger (2004) showed an increase in the development of new cancer cases within a 10 year period if residents lived within 400 meters of a cell tower. Their results revealed that within 5 years of operation of a transmitting station the relative risk of cancer development tripled in residents near the cell towers compared to residents outside the area.

Insurance Has an Exclusion for Radiofrequency Radiation as an Emerging Risk Insurance companies consider wireless radiation to be similar to asbestos in long term health impacts and do not provide coverage from harm for RF health effects. The cities are left with that liability unless they can provide insurance.

In a 2019 report, New Emerging Risk Insights, by Swiss RE Insurance Company, the second largest reinsurance company in the world, 5G is listed as an emerging concern in the high risk category within 3 years. Included in the high-risk trends are artificial intelligence and the existential threats of climate change. “The top five emerging risks in our SONAR 2019 report are digital technology’s clash with legacy hardware, potential threats from the spread of 5G mobile networks, increasingly limited fiscal and monetary flexibility by central banks, genetic testing’s implications on life insurers, and the impact of climate change on the life and health sector.” https://www.swissre.com/institute/research/sonar/sonar2019.html 325
Agenda Item # 6.

National Academy of Sciences Report on the Havana Syndrome and Harm from RFR
A recent report by the National Academy of Sciences concluded that the “sonic attacks” on diplomats in Cuba and China were most likely due to pulsed radiofrequency from directed energy weapons. They had symptoms similar to those who live near cell towers (headache, nausea, insomnia, dizziness, memory loss, heart palpitations, depression). Dr. Beatrice Golomb wrote the most extensive report to date on this subject linking these mystery “directed energy attacks” to pulsed microwaves similar to the wireless devices we use daily. In the case of these high powered beams there was documented injury to brain networks found by the University of Pittsburg physicians who studied the diplomats. Dr Golomb highlights that the strength of the health effects are related to the peak power not the average power. The pulse makes the poison.

New Hampshire 5G Commission Finds Radiofrequency Radiation Problematic
The first Commission formed in the United States to study the environmental and health effects of 5G technology released their comprehensive final report November 1, 2020. The Commission to Study the Environmental and Health Effects of Evolving 5G Technology was mandated by HB 522 passed by the state legislature in New Hampshire. Their final report included 15 recommendations addressing the need for public education about wireless hazards, RF health studies, RF measurements, cell antenna setbacks, fiberoptic rather than wireless deployment, commercial warning signs and wildlife protection. After hearing extensive testimony in a series of 13 meetings over the course of a year and reviewing an abundance of research, the Commission highlighted the lack of a single definition for 5G, insufficient evidence of safety for 5th generation technology, a concern that safety standards for wireless technologies have not been updated with the latest science and that 5G is largely a marketing concept. They also expressed concern that the FCC has a long history of being accountable to industry over the desires of communities and individuals.

FCC Told by DC Court to Reevaluate Safety Standards
On August 13, 2021 a joint lawsuit was won by petitioners against the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) for failure to protect human health and the environment by dismissing scientific evidence of harm from wireless radiation. The Petitioners challenged the FCC’s refusal 326
Agenda Item # 6.
to reevaluate and update their 24-year-old radiofrequency (RF) safety guidelines for existing and new telecommunications technologies. The DC Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the majority of the RF radiation standards established by the FCC did not use "reasoned decision-making" (they did not go by the science) and thus the standards were considered by the court to have been set in an "arbitrary and capricious" manner. This was an extremely high bar for the Plaintiffs to reach. The Circuit Court of Appeals rarely admonishes a federal agency or commission in this way. The DC Circuit Court of Appeals returned this decision back to the FCC and ordered the FCC to re-examine its standards for wireless radiation exposure and provide a review of wireless harms that is compliant with the law for non-cancer harms.

The Court Decision stated, “The National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”) and it’s implementing regulations require federal agencies to “establish procedures to account for the environmental effects of [their] proposed actions.” And “To fulfill its obligations under NEPA, the Commission has promulgated guidelines for human exposure to RF radiation…The Commission last updated its limits for RF exposure in 1996… The ANSI and IEEE developed limits are designed to protect against “thermal effects” of exposure to RF radiation, but not “nonthermal” effects. In March 2013, the Commission issued a notice of inquiry regarding the adequacy of its 1996 guidelines in response to changes in the ubiquity of wireless devices and in scientific standards and research since 1996. In December 2019, the Commission issued a final order resolving its 2013 notice of inquiry by declining to undertake any of the changes contemplated in the notice of inquiry. Petitioners challenge the 2019 final order under NEPA and the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”).
5G: A Manufactured Need by Industry
Reports indicate that the telecommunications industry has largely manufactured a “need” for expanding wireless technology in cities, while halting projects for safer fiberoptic broadband.

Note a 2020 European Parliament report, 5G: State of Play in Europe, USA and Asia. In Depth Analysis, suggests 5G is a manufactured need. “As 5G is driven by the telecoms supply industry, and its long tail of component manufacturers, a major campaign is under way to convince governments that the economy and jobs will be strongly stimulated by 5G deployment.” In my opinion, from all the research I have done, it appears the telecommunications industry has influenced laws to prevent health or environmental effects from being considered in the placement of cell towers (See FCC Captured Agency). They knew of the harm in early studies done by Dr. George Carlo in the 1990’s but suppressed the data so they could move forward.

That is well documented in Dr. Carlo's book, "Cell phones: Invisible Hazards in The Wireless Age".

A blizzard of robust science has appeared now to show biological and health impacts of wireless technology, but it is still denied, and the basis for genuinely safe RF radiation guidelines is flawed. An exponential growth in cell towers is now being played out with cities being left on their own to figure out how to regulate these towers locally. Industry places a heavy hand and complex laws on local policy makers who must navigate these complex FCC policies to prevent legal action.
327
Agenda Item # 6.

Board of Health in Pittsfield Massachusetts Orders Verizon to Cease and Desist
For the first time in the U.S. a Board of Health has issued a cease and desist order to Verizon to remove or shut off a cell tower after 17 people in a neighborhood reported they became ill after the Verizon cell tower was turned on. Courtney Gilardi and her 2 children as well as residents living near the cell tower, reported experiencing a constellation of symptoms including stabbing headaches, nausea, vomiting, dizziness, “buzzing in the head”, and insomnia so severe her family had to move to the next town and into a house with no heat and no hot water to escape the sickness. Other neighbors drove an hour away to sleep at a relative’s house or slept in their cars away from the tower. These are classic symptoms of electromagnetic illness experienced in firefighters and military personnel working on radar and well documented by NASA, the Air Force and other military agencies as well as the “Havana Syndrome”. These symptoms were also seen in Japan after 2 cell towers were turned on and when the tower was removed the resident’s symptoms largely resolved.

Apple stops 5G Phone MMW: Is This the Death of 5G Millimeter Wavelengths?
You are probably aware that Verizon and AT&T built special hotspots in many cities in the U.S. to house 5G high band millimeter wavelengths that were to revolutionize wireless with ultrafast speeds. These small wavelengths the size of bees have been put into some community small cells which need to be about 1000 feet apart without obstruction to function properly. Apple, who already has some 5G MMW phones, just announced that it is not building any millimeter wave spectrum antennas in its next generation SE iphones. With 4G LTE low and mid band wavelengths they apparently do not need the millimeter 5G bandwidth. The article notes, “It’s not a surprise that Apple is dropping the spectrum from its phones. It costs chip space and power for every additional spectrum that is supported by a cellphone. Cell manufacturers care more about long battery life than they do about a technology that never made it out of the downtowns of a few major cities.”
FCC Limits: A False Sense of Security
We are told by the FCC that wireless radiation and cell towers are safe within current safety guidelines, or that we do not really know if there is harm or that the research is inconclusive or that it is not ionizing (like x-rays) so it cannot hurt us. This is the same dismissive and doubt creating language used by the tobacco industry and a host of other chemical companies to protect their toxic products, thus profits. The research shows that we do know, beyond a doubt, that wireless radiation is harmful to all living systems below the current safety standards. The most obvious evidence is that more and more children and adults are reporting symptoms of electrosensitivity (EHS) in the presence of wireless radiation when they live in a home near a cell tower, or use a cell phone, or in schools where wireless devices and cell towers are increasing.

Please use your authority and wisdom to keep this ordinance strong. Take more time if you need to in order for you to sort this out and be sure of your decision. Remember that you all live in Los Altos as well so you are protecting you and your families and the next generation as well. 328
Agenda Item # 6.

Sincerely,
Cindy Russell, MD
Attached- Malibu Ordinances
References
• Pearce (2019) 500 Meter buffer recommended around schools, hospitals and homes. “Limiting liability with positioning to minimize negative health effects of cellular phone towers.” (2019) Pearce M. Environmental Research, Nov 2019; https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0013935119306425 • Waldman-Selsam, C. (2004). Bamberg Appeal, on behalf of 114 physicians. Open Letter to Edmund Stoiber, Prime Minister, Germany, August 3. http://www.vws.org /documents/cell- project- documents/BambergAppeal.pdf
• Waldmann-Selsam C 2016. Radiofrequency radiation injures trees around mobile phone base stations. (2016). Waldmann-Selsam C et al. Science of the Total Environment. 572 (2016) 554-569.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/306435017_Radiofrequency_radiation_injures_ trees_around_mobile_phone_base_stations
• The EUROPAEM EMF Guideline 2016 for the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of EMF-related health problems and illnesses
https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/reveh-2016-0011/html • Researcher links diplomats’ mystery illness to radiofrequency/microwave radiation.

Eureka alert. August 29, 2018. American Academy for the Advancement of Science. https://www.eurekalert.org/pub releases/2018-08/uoc–rld082918.php • Diplomats in China report similar brain injuries as Americans in Cuba: In 2016 and 2017, 25 Americans in the U.S. embassy in Cuba suffered serious, unexplained brain injuries. Now, at least 15 American officials in China are reporting similar symptoms. 60 Minutes reports. March 15, 2019. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/diplomats-in-chinareport-similar-brain-injuries-as-americans-in-cuba-60-minutes/ • Swanson RL (2018) Neurological Manifestations Among US Government Personnel Reporting Directional Audible and Sensory Phenomena in Havana, Cuba. (2018) Swanson RL et al. JAMA. 2018 Mar 20;319(11):1125-1133.
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2673168 • Levitt, Lai, Manville. (2021) Effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields on flora and fauna, Part 1. Rising ambient EMF levels in the environment. Rev Environ Health. 2021 May

27. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34047144/
• Levitt, Lai, Manville (2021) Effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields on flora and fauna, Part 2 impacts: how species interact with natural and man-made EMF. Rev Environ Health. 2021 Jul 8. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34243228/ • Levitt, Lai, Manville (2021) Effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields on flora and fauna, Part 3. Exposure standards, public policy, laws, and future directions. Rev Environ Health. 2021 Sep 27. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34563106/ 329
Agenda Item # 6.
• PanagopoulosDJ. (2013) Electromagnetic Interaction Between Environmental Fields and Living Systems Determines Health and Well Being. University of Athens, Department of Biology, Athens, Greece Radiation and Environmental Biophysics Research Centre, Athens, Greece. Electromagnetic Fields, Nova
• MOEF Report on Possible Impacts of Communication Cell Towers on Wildlife Including Birds and Bees. (2010) The Ministry of Environment and Forest. Report on Possible Impacts of Communication Towers on Wildlife Including Birds and Bees. (2010) Ministry of the Environment and Forests (MOEF) India. https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/7520958381.pdf • Sciences. http://www.wendywalksfores.com/uploads/1/3/9/0/13908728/panagopoulosnova-2013-emfs-chapter-1.pdf • SwissRe Insurance- Sonar 2019: New emerging risk insights. https://www.swissre.com/institute/research/sonar/sonar2019.html • Landmark Lawsuit Filed Against FCC for Failing to Reevaluate 5G and Wireless Safety. Sept 23, 2020. PST. https://mdsafetech.org/2020/09/23/landmarklawsuit-filed-against-fcc-for-failing-to-reevaluate-5g-and-wireless-safety/ • Final Report on Commission to Study the Environmental and Health Effects of Evolving 5G Technology. State of New Hampshire, General Court. Nov 1, 2020. http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/statstudcomm/committees/1474/reports/5G%20final%20 report.pdf
• We Have No Reason to Believe 5G Is Safe.The technology is coming, but contrary to what some people say, there could be health risks. (2019) Scientific American. Joel M. Moskowitz. Oct 17, 2019. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/we-haveno-reason-to-believe-5g-is-safe/ • 5G wireless telecommunications expansion: Public health and environmental implications. (2018) Russell CL. Environ Res. 2018 Apr

11. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29655646. or
at https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/10913927726988/5%20G%20wireless%20telecommunicati ons%20expansion%3A%20Public%20health%20and%20environmental%20implications. pdf
• Firefighters Fighting Fires and Now Cell Towershttps://mdsafetech.org/2019/09/28/firefighters-fighting-fires-and-now-cell-towers/ • 5G: State of Play in Europe, USA and Asia. In Depth Analysis, European Parliament.
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/IDAN/2019/631060/IPOL_IDA(2019)6 31060 EN.pdf
• Apple ditches mmWave 5G with newest iPhone.
https://www.lightreading.com/5g/apple-ditches-mmwave-5g-with-newest-iphone/d/did/775901 330
Agenda Item # 6.
331
Agenda Item # 6.
332
Agenda Item # 6.
333
Agenda Item # 6.
334
Agenda Item # 6.

From: ana pareja
To: Public Comment; City Council
Date: Tuesday, April 12, 2022 2:09:44 PM
Attachments: Los Altos Letter Final 4 11 2022 PDF(1).pdf Dear Los Altos City Council,
I'm writing you to let you know that I strongly support Dr. Cindy Russell's attached letter regarding the Los Altos Wireless Ordinance and ask that you include all of the requests that she has brought to the attention of the Council and place them in the updated ordinance.

Sincerely,
Ana Pareja
335
Agenda Item # 6.

Key Points

1. TITLE OF ORDINANCE: Clarification if this applies to Small Cell or Macro Cells; macro towers must go through conditional use permits

2. LOCATION STANDARDS – PREFERRED SITES

3. WAIVERS FOR STANDARDS

4. FIRE SAFETY

5. APPEALS PROCESS

REGULATING SMALL WIRELESS FACILITIES AND OTHER INFRASTRUCTURE

Here are examples of Location Standards in the Encinitas Small Cell Wireless Ordinance passed in June, 2020 and in Malibu April 2021, which to date are uncontested. 338
Agenda Item # 6.

Encinitas Ordinance Passed June 10, 2020
SECTION 10. LOCATION STANDARDS

1. (a) Restricted Site Locations. All of the following locations will be deemed “Restricted Site Locations” that require an exception pursuant to SECTION 13 of this Policy:

1. (1) any location within a residential zone;

2. (2) any location within 500 feet from a residential dwelling unit;

3. (3) any location within 500 feet from a daycare facility or primary school;

4. (4) any location within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone; and

5. (5) any location within the Ecological Resource/Open Space/Park Zone. (b) Location Preferences. To better assist applicants and decision makers understand and respond to the community’s aesthetic preferences and values, this subsection sets out listed preferences for locations to be used in connection with small wireless facilities in an ordered hierarchy. Applications that involve lesser-preferred locations may be approved so long as the applicant demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence in the written record that: (1) any more preferred locations or structures within 500 feet from the proposed site would be technically infeasible; and (2) if the proposed site or the most- preferred location within 500 feet from the proposed site is within a Restricted Site Location, the applicant qualifies for an exception pursuant to SECTION 13 of this Policy. The City prefers small cells in the public rights-of-way to be installed in locations, ordered from most preferred to least preferred, as follows:
(1) locations within industrial zones, commercial zones, business parks or office professional zones on or along prime arterials;
(2) locations within industrial zones, commercial zones, business parks or office professional zones on or along major arterials;
(3) locations within industrial zones, commercial zones, business parks or office professional zones on or along collector roads;
(4) locations within industrial zones, commercial zones, business parks or office professional zones on or along local streets;
(5) any location within 500 feet from any residential zone; (6) locations within residential zones on or along prime arterials; (7) locations within residential zones on or along major arterials; (8) locations within residential zones on or along collector roads; (9) locations within residential zones on or along local streets; 339
Agenda Item # 6.
(10) any location within 1,000 feet from an existing/proposed small wireless facility; In the event that a proposed facility would be within 500 feet from two or more restricted site locations (as defined in Subsection 10(a)), and the proposed facility qualifies for an exception pursuant to SECTION 13 of this Policy, the technically feasible location furthest from all such restricted site locations will be deemed to be the most preferred alternative. (c) Encroachments Over Private Property. No small cell antennas, accessory equipment or other improvements may encroach onto or over any private or other property outside the public rights-ofway without the property owner’s express written consent.

This minimum setback is not subject to the waivers allowed under Section 7 of this Resolution.

3. Location preference for wireless communications facilities should be given to the following:

1. Property designated non-residential (except for public open space and recreational vehicle park zoning districts), unless otherwise prohibited pursuant to this title.

3. Sites with minimum separation. Sites that are more than five hundred (500) feet from school, playgrounds, and parks.

4. Sites that are not highly visible from adjacent roadways.

5. Unless otherwise indicated in MMC Chapter 17.46 or these Standards, no wireless facility shall be installed on an exposed ridgeline unless the facility blends with the 340
Agenda Item # 6.
surrounding existing natural and man-made environment and a finding is made that no other location is technically feasible.

3) Waivers for Standards
Malibu Wireless Facilities Ordinance 2021 has added a section on Waivers for Standards that clarifies the process and protects the city from liability.

Resolution No. 21-17 Page 9

1. A waiver of one or more of these Standards may be granted in the following circumstances:

2. Waivers may only be requested at the time an application is initially submitted for a discretionary permit. The request must include both the specific provision(s) from which waiver is sought and the basis of the request, including all supporting evidence on which the applicant relies. Any request for waiver after the City has deemed an application 341
Agenda Item # 6.
complete constitutes a material change to the proposed wireless facility and shall be considered a new application. A request for waiver from one or more 4) Fire Safety
All electrical equipment including small cell towers are a fire risk. The fire cannot be put out in a conventional manner with firefighters blasting water on the fire.

They have to wait until the power is shut off or electrocution will result.

Public health and ecosystem health are still important issues with new 5G systems untested for long term or short term safety for either human health or environmental health. 5G systems with a complex mix of low, medium and high frequencies (thus the need for macro and microcells) are very onerous to measure, requiring very expensive complex equipment that is very difficult 342
Agenda Item # 6.
for engineers to accomplish let alone city facility engineers. Precaution in placement is paramount in this discussion. Once cell towers are placed there is no going back and you just wait for people to experience symptoms or develop cancer or a neurologic condition that you will not be able to sort out from the common toxic exposures we all encounter on a daily basis.

I began studying the health impacts of wireless radiation when I learned of a proposal to place a cell tower on my daughter’s school.

We Evolved in a Low Electromagnetic Environment
The natural environment of the Earth is electromagnetic. We have terrestrial electric and magnetic fields, radiation from the sun and cosmic microwaves. All living things evolved in 343
Agenda Item # 6.
harmony with the Earth’s natural but very very low-level electromagnetic rhythms. Birds, bees and mammals have magnetite in their bodies and brains that use the Earth’s magnetic field for the delicate tasks of navigation and foraging. Our human nervous system, heart, reproductive and endocrine systems rely on minute electromagnetic signals for complex functions. Manmade electromagnetic fields (EMF) emitted by our modern technology can distort our bodies electric currents, delicate cell membranes and cause broad dysfunction. This can be with long term or sometimes short exposures with higher power and different pulsations. Science has shown us that organisms adapt to constant electromagnetic fields found in nature much easier than artificial pulsed radiation that is emitted from cell towers and wireless devices. It makes perfect sense that wireless radiation can be harmful to living organisms even it does not knock an electron out of its orbit.

Physicians in Germany ask for Health Investigation of Cell Towers in 2005 An open letter from Dr. Cornelia Waldmann-Selsam was sent to the German State Chancellor, Edmund Stoiber, on behalf of 114 physicians (Bamberger Appeal) asking for an investigation into the newly reported adverse health symptoms of 356 residents who lived near cell towers in Oberfranken, Germany. Dr. Waldmann-Selsam noted, “Many humans get sick from emissions far below the recommended limit values, which consider only thermal effects, and we have a sickness picture with characteristic symptom combinations, which are new to us physicians,” The list of symptoms were, ” Sleep disturbances, tiredness, concentration impairment, forgetfulness, problem with finding words, depressive tendencies, tinnitus, sudden loss of hearing, hearing loss, giddiness, nose bleeds, visual disturbances, frequent infections, sinusitis, joint and limb pains, nerve and soft tissue pains, feeling of numbness, heart rhythm disturbances, 345
Agenda Item # 6.
increased blood pressure , hormonal disturbances, night-time sweat, nausea.” Resident noted almost immediate improvement when moving away.”
Dr. Waldmann-Selsam goes on to say, “physicians were able to prove, by re-testing the patients, the normalization of blood pressure, heart rhythm, hormone disturbances, visual disturbances, neurological symptoms, blood picture,”. She called this an emergency medical situation and requested an official health investigation. http://www.nextup.org/pdf/Letter_to_Edmund_Stoiber.pdf Cell Tower Effects on Cognition and Learning
The majority of studies, which have been done internationally, have shown an increase in neurologic symptoms in a percentage of residents living near cell towers. Symptoms vary with the distance from the cell tower. Symptoms include insomnia, headache, heart palpitations, dizziness, poor concentration, and fatigue. A study in Japan (Shinjyo 2014) showed a decrease in symptoms when the cell tower was removed. There is also a well done study showing blood abnormalities in those living nearest to cell towers (Zothansiama 2017). DNA and lipid abnormalities were seen along with reduction in internal antioxidants which provide protection from pollutants.

Every fire station in California is now exempt from having a 5G tower on their station. This movement began when cell towers were initially targeted for fire stations because of their location and the revenue received by the cities. Many firefighters developed symptoms including headaches, fatigue, memory impairment and insomnia within a week of the installation of the towers. An exemption was inserted in California bills on cell towers. AB 57 (Quirk 2015) has an exemption on the grounds of health effects. AB 537 (Quirk 2021) also has this exemption and reads, “Due to the unique duties and infrastructure requirements for the swift and effective deployment of firefighters, this section does not apply to a collocation or siting application for a wireless telecommunications facility where the project is proposed for placement on fire department facilities.” SB 649 (Hueso, Quirk and Dodd 2018) also had a health exemption for firefighters and was vetoed by Governor Brown.
346
Agenda Item # 6.
500 Meter (1640 ft) Buffer from Cell Tower Recommended
Cell tower health studies that show impacts from cell towers with symptoms within about 1500 feet of the cell towers. That is why Pearce et al (2019) recommended a “500 Meter buffer around schools, hospitals and homes “Limiting liability with positioning to minimize negative health effects of cellular phone towers.”
Cancer and Cell Towers
3 Studies investigated the rates of cancer and cell towers looking at the distance from cell towers and the incidence of cancer. They found the rate of cancer incidence increased significantly in those living within about 350 -400 meters (around 1000 feet) to the cell tower.

FCC Told by DC Court to Reevaluate Safety Standards
On August 13, 2021 a joint lawsuit was won by petitioners against the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) for failure to protect human health and the environment by dismissing scientific evidence of harm from wireless radiation. The Petitioners challenged the FCC’s refusal 348
Agenda Item # 6.
to reevaluate and update their 24-year-old radiofrequency (RF) safety guidelines for existing and new telecommunications technologies. The DC Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the majority of the RF radiation standards established by the FCC did not use "reasoned decision-making" (they did not go by the science) and thus the standards were considered by the court to have been set in an "arbitrary and capricious" manner. This was an extremely high bar for the Plaintiffs to reach. The Circuit Court of Appeals rarely admonishes a federal agency or commission in this way. The DC Circuit Court of Appeals returned this decision back to the FCC and ordered the FCC to re-examine its standards for wireless radiation exposure and provide a review of wireless harms that is compliant with the law for non-cancer harms.

That is well documented in Dr. Carlo's book, "Cell phones: Invisible Hazards in The Wireless Age".

27. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34047144/
• Levitt, Lai, Manville (2021) Effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields on flora and fauna, Part 2 impacts: how species interact with natural and man-made EMF. Rev Environ Health. 2021 Jul 8. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34243228/ • Levitt, Lai, Manville (2021) Effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields on flora and fauna, Part 3. Exposure standards, public policy, laws, and future directions. Rev Environ Health. 2021 Sep 27. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34563106/ 351
Agenda Item # 6.
• PanagopoulosDJ. (2013) Electromagnetic Interaction Between Environmental Fields and Living Systems Determines Health and Well Being. University of Athens, Department of Biology, Athens, Greece Radiation and Environmental Biophysics Research Centre, Athens, Greece. Electromagnetic Fields, Nova
• MOEF Report on Possible Impacts of Communication Cell Towers on Wildlife Including Birds and Bees. (2010) The Ministry of Environment and Forest. Report on Possible Impacts of Communication Towers on Wildlife Including Birds and Bees. (2010) Ministry of the Environment and Forests (MOEF) India. https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/7520958381.pdf • Sciences. http://www.wendywalksfores.com/uploads/1/3/9/0/13908728/panagopoulosnova-2013-emfs-chapter-1.pdf • SwissRe Insurance- Sonar 2019: New emerging risk insights. https://www.swissre.com/institute/research/sonar/sonar2019.html • Landmark Lawsuit Filed Against FCC for Failing to Reevaluate 5G and Wireless Safety. Sept 23, 2020. PST. https://mdsafetech.org/2020/09/23/landmarklawsuit-filed-against-fcc-for-failing-to-reevaluate-5g-and-wireless-safety/ • Final Report on Commission to Study the Environmental and Health Effects of Evolving 5G Technology. State of New Hampshire, General Court. Nov 1, 2020. http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/statstudcomm/committees/1474/reports/5G%20final%20 report.pdf
• We Have No Reason to Believe 5G Is Safe.The technology is coming, but contrary to what some people say, there could be health risks. (2019) Scientific American. Joel M. Moskowitz. Oct 17, 2019. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/we-haveno-reason-to-believe-5g-is-safe/ • 5G wireless telecommunications expansion: Public health and environmental implications. (2018) Russell CL. Environ Res. 2018 Apr

From: roger heyder
To: Public Comment; City Council
Date: Tuesday, April 12, 2022 3:23:00 PM
Hello,
This is public comment on Item 6, Wireless Telecommunications Facilities. Please have this read into the record for the meeting, and included as public comment in the meeting minutes.

Thanks -- Roger Heyder, resident of Los Altos
The 5G emergency ordinance was enacted after several large public meetings, where many hundreds of residents supported the 5G ordinance, and only 1 or 2 residents opposed the ordinance. Nothing has changed, yet Council used a back-door approach, via the Planning Commission, to alter the ordinance to the extent of basically eliminating it.

It seems Council supports many outside special interests, and the collecting of money, over the interest of residents. That is unacceptable. Council members that hold that posture should resign immediately, since you are failing in your responsibility to serve the residents of Los Altos. If Council wants to eliminate the 5G ordinance, then do hold a specific, public vote to do so, and residents can see which council members disrespect the residents’ clearly stated wishes.

It is essential that Council inform residents how much money the city will make if the ordinance is lifted - right of way fees paid to the city by the 5G providers. That way residents can clearly see how much it takes to sell us out.

Pursuing the effective elimination of the 5G Emergency Ordinance through the Planning Commission, with little to no community visibility and transparency, is sleazy and dishonest. Seemingly pretty standard behavior for both the Planning Commission and Council. It is very hard to understand how residents could have any remaining trust or respect for Council or Planning Commission members. But then, it is unlikely you care much about that, or your behavior would be very different. 353
Agenda Item # 6.
354
Agenda Item # 6.
buffers from 1000 feet to 200 feet (for all carriers collectively) on the targeted (second class) streets (i.e., arterials, collectors and local collectors, and parts of local roads near the arterials, collectors and local collectors). They stated the following reason:"The city wireless facilities team recommends adoption of the first option as in our view it most effectively balances the need to allow for technological advances in wireless facilities while preserving the beauty and aesthetics of Los Altos.” This makes me feel marginalized and mistreated if you live on one of the targeted streets!
The wireless team then goes on to say on page 50: "In addition, several members of the public testifying before the PC requested the city assist in providing improved wireless coverage.". (This was after they made the other statement on page 50 that I noted the testimony of people who live along arterials, collectors and local collectors.) Actually, the "several members of the public" were three men (one who testified at both meetings).

In my opinion, this was an overstatement.At the first PC meeting, seven residents expressed concern about the revised ordinance, and one man was in support of it (7 to 1 ratio). At the second meeting, 9 people expressed concerns about the revised ordinance, while 3 men expressed support (9 to 3, or a 3 to 1 ratio). The written communications that had been sent in were even more lopsided, with most of it coming from people who are opposed to allowing cell facilities in residential areas and close to schools.

KEY POINT:

If homes are on corner lots, like ours at 951 Castilleja Ct, we should not be dealing with a wireless cell tower fully exposed from the street into our side yard. Reason being that this side yard is where we spend the majority of our private time, when outside. Exposure to a cell tower would be devastating to our health, rural feel, beauty and character of our residence! The ordinance should explicitly spell out avoiding placement in front of side yard locations, as I just described. As we have been active in contributing to the wellbeing of the Los Altos community for many years, we feel that we should be listened to, please! A rigid 200 feet distance might therefore not be practical and importantly technically not necessary! The 5G microwaves could carry up to 1,500 feet without obstructions. Therefore I am opposed to having Verizon place repeaters at every 200 feet: overkill and unwanted impact onto residents. Flexibility is key to solve esthetics and radiation exposure of residents, please!
Thank you for your kind attention and best regards.

Willem and Margriet De Lange
951 Castilleja Ct
Los Altos, CA 94024
355
Agenda Item # 6.

From: Nicole Wallace
To: Public Comment; City Council
Date: Tuesday, April 12, 2022 10:05:19 PM
Attachments: Los Altos Letter Final 4 11 2022 PDF(1).pdf Dear Los Altos City Council,
I strongly support Dr. Cindy Russell's attached letter regarding the Los Altos Wireless Ordinance and ask that you include all of the requests that she has brought to the attention of the Council and place them in the updated ordinance.

Sincerely,
Nicole Wallace
356
Agenda Item # 6.

Key Points

1. TITLE OF ORDINANCE: Clarification if this applies to Small Cell or Macro Cells; macro towers must go through conditional use permits

2. LOCATION STANDARDS – PREFERRED SITES

3. WAIVERS FOR STANDARDS

4. FIRE SAFETY

5. APPEALS PROCESS

REGULATING SMALL WIRELESS FACILITIES AND OTHER INFRASTRUCTURE

Here are examples of Location Standards in the Encinitas Small Cell Wireless Ordinance passed in June, 2020 and in Malibu April 2021, which to date are uncontested. 359
Agenda Item # 6.

Encinitas Ordinance Passed June 10, 2020
SECTION 10. LOCATION STANDARDS

1. (a) Restricted Site Locations. All of the following locations will be deemed “Restricted Site Locations” that require an exception pursuant to SECTION 13 of this Policy:

1. (1) any location within a residential zone;

2. (2) any location within 500 feet from a residential dwelling unit;

3. (3) any location within 500 feet from a daycare facility or primary school;

4. (4) any location within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone; and

5. (5) any location within the Ecological Resource/Open Space/Park Zone. (b) Location Preferences. To better assist applicants and decision makers understand and respond to the community’s aesthetic preferences and values, this subsection sets out listed preferences for locations to be used in connection with small wireless facilities in an ordered hierarchy. Applications that involve lesser-preferred locations may be approved so long as the applicant demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence in the written record that: (1) any more preferred locations or structures within 500 feet from the proposed site would be technically infeasible; and (2) if the proposed site or the most- preferred location within 500 feet from the proposed site is within a Restricted Site Location, the applicant qualifies for an exception pursuant to SECTION 13 of this Policy. The City prefers small cells in the public rights-of-way to be installed in locations, ordered from most preferred to least preferred, as follows:
(1) locations within industrial zones, commercial zones, business parks or office professional zones on or along prime arterials;
(2) locations within industrial zones, commercial zones, business parks or office professional zones on or along major arterials;
(3) locations within industrial zones, commercial zones, business parks or office professional zones on or along collector roads;
(4) locations within industrial zones, commercial zones, business parks or office professional zones on or along local streets;
(5) any location within 500 feet from any residential zone; (6) locations within residential zones on or along prime arterials; (7) locations within residential zones on or along major arterials; (8) locations within residential zones on or along collector roads; (9) locations within residential zones on or along local streets; 360
Agenda Item # 6.
(10) any location within 1,000 feet from an existing/proposed small wireless facility; In the event that a proposed facility would be within 500 feet from two or more restricted site locations (as defined in Subsection 10(a)), and the proposed facility qualifies for an exception pursuant to SECTION 13 of this Policy, the technically feasible location furthest from all such restricted site locations will be deemed to be the most preferred alternative. (c) Encroachments Over Private Property. No small cell antennas, accessory equipment or other improvements may encroach onto or over any private or other property outside the public rights-ofway without the property owner’s express written consent.

This minimum setback is not subject to the waivers allowed under Section 7 of this Resolution.

3. Location preference for wireless communications facilities should be given to the following:

1. Property designated non-residential (except for public open space and recreational vehicle park zoning districts), unless otherwise prohibited pursuant to this title.

3. Sites with minimum separation. Sites that are more than five hundred (500) feet from school, playgrounds, and parks.

4. Sites that are not highly visible from adjacent roadways.

5. Unless otherwise indicated in MMC Chapter 17.46 or these Standards, no wireless facility shall be installed on an exposed ridgeline unless the facility blends with the 361
Agenda Item # 6.
surrounding existing natural and man-made environment and a finding is made that no other location is technically feasible.

3) Waivers for Standards
Malibu Wireless Facilities Ordinance 2021 has added a section on Waivers for Standards that clarifies the process and protects the city from liability.

Resolution No. 21-17 Page 9

1. A waiver of one or more of these Standards may be granted in the following circumstances:

2. Waivers may only be requested at the time an application is initially submitted for a discretionary permit. The request must include both the specific provision(s) from which waiver is sought and the basis of the request, including all supporting evidence on which the applicant relies. Any request for waiver after the City has deemed an application 362
Agenda Item # 6.
complete constitutes a material change to the proposed wireless facility and shall be considered a new application. A request for waiver from one or more 4) Fire Safety
All electrical equipment including small cell towers are a fire risk. The fire cannot be put out in a conventional manner with firefighters blasting water on the fire.

They have to wait until the power is shut off or electrocution will result.

Public health and ecosystem health are still important issues with new 5G systems untested for long term or short term safety for either human health or environmental health. 5G systems with a complex mix of low, medium and high frequencies (thus the need for macro and microcells) are very onerous to measure, requiring very expensive complex equipment that is very difficult 363
Agenda Item # 6.
for engineers to accomplish let alone city facility engineers. Precaution in placement is paramount in this discussion. Once cell towers are placed there is no going back and you just wait for people to experience symptoms or develop cancer or a neurologic condition that you will not be able to sort out from the common toxic exposures we all encounter on a daily basis.

I began studying the health impacts of wireless radiation when I learned of a proposal to place a cell tower on my daughter’s school.

We Evolved in a Low Electromagnetic Environment
The natural environment of the Earth is electromagnetic. We have terrestrial electric and magnetic fields, radiation from the sun and cosmic microwaves. All living things evolved in 364
Agenda Item # 6.
harmony with the Earth’s natural but very very low-level electromagnetic rhythms. Birds, bees and mammals have magnetite in their bodies and brains that use the Earth’s magnetic field for the delicate tasks of navigation and foraging. Our human nervous system, heart, reproductive and endocrine systems rely on minute electromagnetic signals for complex functions. Manmade electromagnetic fields (EMF) emitted by our modern technology can distort our bodies electric currents, delicate cell membranes and cause broad dysfunction. This can be with long term or sometimes short exposures with higher power and different pulsations. Science has shown us that organisms adapt to constant electromagnetic fields found in nature much easier than artificial pulsed radiation that is emitted from cell towers and wireless devices. It makes perfect sense that wireless radiation can be harmful to living organisms even it does not knock an electron out of its orbit.

Physicians in Germany ask for Health Investigation of Cell Towers in 2005 An open letter from Dr. Cornelia Waldmann-Selsam was sent to the German State Chancellor, Edmund Stoiber, on behalf of 114 physicians (Bamberger Appeal) asking for an investigation into the newly reported adverse health symptoms of 356 residents who lived near cell towers in Oberfranken, Germany. Dr. Waldmann-Selsam noted, “Many humans get sick from emissions far below the recommended limit values, which consider only thermal effects, and we have a sickness picture with characteristic symptom combinations, which are new to us physicians,” The list of symptoms were, ” Sleep disturbances, tiredness, concentration impairment, forgetfulness, problem with finding words, depressive tendencies, tinnitus, sudden loss of hearing, hearing loss, giddiness, nose bleeds, visual disturbances, frequent infections, sinusitis, joint and limb pains, nerve and soft tissue pains, feeling of numbness, heart rhythm disturbances, 366
Agenda Item # 6.
increased blood pressure , hormonal disturbances, night-time sweat, nausea.” Resident noted almost immediate improvement when moving away.”
Dr. Waldmann-Selsam goes on to say, “physicians were able to prove, by re-testing the patients, the normalization of blood pressure, heart rhythm, hormone disturbances, visual disturbances, neurological symptoms, blood picture,”. She called this an emergency medical situation and requested an official health investigation. http://www.nextup.org/pdf/Letter_to_Edmund_Stoiber.pdf Cell Tower Effects on Cognition and Learning
The majority of studies, which have been done internationally, have shown an increase in neurologic symptoms in a percentage of residents living near cell towers. Symptoms vary with the distance from the cell tower. Symptoms include insomnia, headache, heart palpitations, dizziness, poor concentration, and fatigue. A study in Japan (Shinjyo 2014) showed a decrease in symptoms when the cell tower was removed. There is also a well done study showing blood abnormalities in those living nearest to cell towers (Zothansiama 2017). DNA and lipid abnormalities were seen along with reduction in internal antioxidants which provide protection from pollutants.

Every fire station in California is now exempt from having a 5G tower on their station. This movement began when cell towers were initially targeted for fire stations because of their location and the revenue received by the cities. Many firefighters developed symptoms including headaches, fatigue, memory impairment and insomnia within a week of the installation of the towers. An exemption was inserted in California bills on cell towers. AB 57 (Quirk 2015) has an exemption on the grounds of health effects. AB 537 (Quirk 2021) also has this exemption and reads, “Due to the unique duties and infrastructure requirements for the swift and effective deployment of firefighters, this section does not apply to a collocation or siting application for a wireless telecommunications facility where the project is proposed for placement on fire department facilities.” SB 649 (Hueso, Quirk and Dodd 2018) also had a health exemption for firefighters and was vetoed by Governor Brown.
367
Agenda Item # 6.
500 Meter (1640 ft) Buffer from Cell Tower Recommended
Cell tower health studies that show impacts from cell towers with symptoms within about 1500 feet of the cell towers. That is why Pearce et al (2019) recommended a “500 Meter buffer around schools, hospitals and homes “Limiting liability with positioning to minimize negative health effects of cellular phone towers.”
Cancer and Cell Towers
3 Studies investigated the rates of cancer and cell towers looking at the distance from cell towers and the incidence of cancer. They found the rate of cancer incidence increased significantly in those living within about 350 -400 meters (around 1000 feet) to the cell tower.

FCC Told by DC Court to Reevaluate Safety Standards
On August 13, 2021 a joint lawsuit was won by petitioners against the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) for failure to protect human health and the environment by dismissing scientific evidence of harm from wireless radiation. The Petitioners challenged the FCC’s refusal 369
Agenda Item # 6.
to reevaluate and update their 24-year-old radiofrequency (RF) safety guidelines for existing and new telecommunications technologies. The DC Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the majority of the RF radiation standards established by the FCC did not use "reasoned decision-making" (they did not go by the science) and thus the standards were considered by the court to have been set in an "arbitrary and capricious" manner. This was an extremely high bar for the Plaintiffs to reach. The Circuit Court of Appeals rarely admonishes a federal agency or commission in this way. The DC Circuit Court of Appeals returned this decision back to the FCC and ordered the FCC to re-examine its standards for wireless radiation exposure and provide a review of wireless harms that is compliant with the law for non-cancer harms.

That is well documented in Dr. Carlo's book, "Cell phones: Invisible Hazards in The Wireless Age".

27. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34047144/
• Levitt, Lai, Manville (2021) Effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields on flora and fauna, Part 2 impacts: how species interact with natural and man-made EMF. Rev Environ Health. 2021 Jul 8. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34243228/ • Levitt, Lai, Manville (2021) Effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields on flora and fauna, Part 3. Exposure standards, public policy, laws, and future directions. Rev Environ Health. 2021 Sep 27. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34563106/ 372
Agenda Item # 6.
• PanagopoulosDJ. (2013) Electromagnetic Interaction Between Environmental Fields and Living Systems Determines Health and Well Being. University of Athens, Department of Biology, Athens, Greece Radiation and Environmental Biophysics Research Centre, Athens, Greece. Electromagnetic Fields, Nova
• MOEF Report on Possible Impacts of Communication Cell Towers on Wildlife Including Birds and Bees. (2010) The Ministry of Environment and Forest. Report on Possible Impacts of Communication Towers on Wildlife Including Birds and Bees. (2010) Ministry of the Environment and Forests (MOEF) India. https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/7520958381.pdf • Sciences. http://www.wendywalksfores.com/uploads/1/3/9/0/13908728/panagopoulosnova-2013-emfs-chapter-1.pdf • SwissRe Insurance- Sonar 2019: New emerging risk insights. https://www.swissre.com/institute/research/sonar/sonar2019.html • Landmark Lawsuit Filed Against FCC for Failing to Reevaluate 5G and Wireless Safety. Sept 23, 2020. PST. https://mdsafetech.org/2020/09/23/landmarklawsuit-filed-against-fcc-for-failing-to-reevaluate-5g-and-wireless-safety/ • Final Report on Commission to Study the Environmental and Health Effects of Evolving 5G Technology. State of New Hampshire, General Court. Nov 1, 2020. http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/statstudcomm/committees/1474/reports/5G%20final%20 report.pdf
• We Have No Reason to Believe 5G Is Safe.The technology is coming, but contrary to what some people say, there could be health risks. (2019) Scientific American. Joel M. Moskowitz. Oct 17, 2019. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/we-haveno-reason-to-believe-5g-is-safe/ • 5G wireless telecommunications expansion: Public health and environmental implications. (2018) Russell CL. Environ Res. 2018 Apr

From: Angel Rodriguez
To: Public Comment
Date: Wednesday, April 13, 2022 9:44:16 AM
From: Edgar Saadi
Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2022 8:17 PM
To: City Council <[email protected]>; Planning Services <[email protected]>; Gabriel Engeland <[email protected]>
Subject: What she said below thank you
Dear City Council members…..
“Regarding the proposed modifications to the ordinance for small wireless facilities, I object to the inequitable treatment of and failure to represent residents who live on and adjacent to arterials, collectors, and local collectors. These locations are ranked as more preferred than other “residentially zoned” streets. Most of the collectors and local collectors in Los Altos, however, are residentially zoned! All residents of Los Altos will benefit equally from the 5G upgrade, so all neighborhoods should equally bear the brunt of the visual blight, noise, and estimated decrease in property values.

The authors of the revised ordinance state they are recommending the higher density of facilities on the local collectors, collectors, and arterial streets to retain the beauty and essential rural character throughout Los Altos, (p. 38 and p. 39). In other words, they think it is OK to destroy the character and safety and livability of some streets (collectors, local collectors, adjacent local roads, and arterials) in order to retain the beauty and character of the rest of the streets. There is absolutely no justification for this creation of two classes of residents.

Please remove this preference to protect the character of all residential properties equally.

Regards,
Katherine Weller
Los Altos Resident”
Best regards
Ed Saadi
1010 Loma Prieta Ct
Los Altos, CA 94024
Sent from my iPhone
374
Agenda Item # 6.

From: Cindy Russe l
To: Andrea Chelemengos; Public Comment
Date: Tuesday, April 12, 2022 1:38:38 PM
Attachments: Malibu Resolution No. 21-17 as adopted.pdf Executed Copy Malibu Res. 21-17.PDF
Los Altos Letter Final 4112022 PDF.pdf
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Cindy Russell
Date: Mon, Apr 11, 2022 at 11:04 PM
Subject: Los Altos City Council Agenda item #6 Wireless Telecommunications Facilities To: <aenander@losaltosca gov>, <smeadows@losaltosca gov>, <nfligor@losaltosca gov>, Lynette Lee Eng <lleeeng@losaltosca gov>, <jweinberg@losaltosca gov>, <publiccomments@lossltosca gov>, <council@losaltosca gov> Dear Los Altos City Council:

Enclosed is my letter to you regarding the revised Wireless facilities ordinance I am attaching it as well as a PDF as well along with the Malibu Ordinance Thank you for your consideration
To:Los Altos City Council
From: Cindy Russell, MD
Re: Revisions to 2019 Los Altos Ordinance to Regulate Small Wireless Facilities Date April 11, 2022
Dear Los Altos City Council Members:

I am writing today to strongly urge you to reinstate (with legally appropriate revisions) several of the major aspects of the original 2019 Small Cell Wireless Ordinance that diminish blight and protect the beauty, character and health of your lovely Silicon Valley communityIn addition, after reading the new 2022 proposed Wireless Facilities Ordinance it appears thatsome important provisions may have been missed in crafting a new Small Cell ordinance which are critical for the safety of the residents and also reduce liability for the city This includes several insurance provisions, permitting process, and more
Encinitas and Malibu have passed ordinances which have elements that are protective but allow flexibility for cities and exceptions/waivers for the carriers They remain uncontested ·
Encinitas, CA-Revised from 2019- Passed June 20, 2020
https://encinitasca gov/Portals/0/City%20Documents/Documents/Development%20Services/Planning/Land%20Development/Small%20Wireless%20Facilities/Resolution%20No %202020- 38%20With%20Policy pdf?ver=2020-07-13-192634-373
·
Malibu Resolution 21-17 – Attached please find an executed copy of Res 21-17 is officially binding because Ordinance 484 adopts it by reference I will summarize my ask of the Los Altos City Council with these key points below, followed by backup for those points with additional pertinent legal information which does impact the issue of health/science, as per a court ruling from the second highest court in the land on August 13, 2021, a ruling that referred to the existing RF radiation regulatory limits as "arbitrary and capricious" Arbitrary and capricious means that the law and/or the facts were knowingly disregarded That is a high bar indeed and the plaintiffs reached that bar It behooves us to consider what is going on in the courts and pass ordinance language accordingly:

PLEASE PAUSE:There are resolutions as mentioned above that have successfully balanced the unique needs of communities with the rights of the telecommunications industry The new resolution does not have to be passed Tuesday night Some reflection on the best that Encinitas and Malibu have to offer may benefit all of us in the long run Key Points
1 TITLE OF ORDINANCE:Clarification ifthis applies to Small Cell or Macro Cells; macro towers must go through conditional use permits 2 LOCATION STANDARDS – PREFERRED SITES
3 WAIVERS FOR STANDARDS
4 FIRE SAFETY
5 APPEALS PROCESS
Thank you for passing the 2019 Wireless Facilities Telecommunications Ordinance The original wireless facilities ordinance for Los Altos took into consideration public concerns, was well thought out and protects the city of Los Altos from poorly designed and poorly placed cell towers I understand, however, that there is a lawsuit against the City for Los Altos from Verizon and AT&T claiming that the 2019 ordinance as written “effectively prohibits” wireless communications You are commended for taking on this task of revising the ordinance in response Some of the 2022 proposed changes are good and clarify the permitting process for carriers to avoid lawsuits and provide for “personal wireless services”, however, I believe there are some gaps in protections and flexibility for the city that I would like to point out which could be remedied in addition to some clarifications
It is important to consider adding the provisions below As you note with the FCC lawsuit to reevaluate the 20 year-old FCC safety standards, the courts have judged that the FCC did not take into account several aspects of human health and environmental effects in setting their standards We do not know what the future holds for the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 or state law The
city of Los Altos needs to be prepared to alter its ordinance in case there is a change in the law in the future Representative Anna Eshoo Supports Local Control for Cell Towers The 2018 FCC small cell order that fast tracks deployment of small cells in order to “cut the red tape” has prompted cities around the country, like Los Altos, to write these emergency ordinances and now revise them The FCC Declaratory ruling has been considered an overreach of the Telecom Industry which dominates the FCC (FCC: Captured Agency, N Alster), overriding the basic rights of cities to have local control This was recognized by our local representative Anna Eshoo who in 2019 introduced HR530 to protect the rights of states and government bydeeming that the“Federal Communications Commission’s Declaratory Ruling in ‘‘Third Report and Order and Declaratory Ruling’’ (FCC 18-111) shall have no force or effect.”This bill had 52 co-sponsors Senator Feinstein introduced in 2019 a companion federal bill SB 2012 to block the FCC order Neither moved Representative Eshoo also sent a letter to the FCC in 2020 to ask that the vote on the FCC order be delayed stating, “we worry that if this Declaratory Ruling does not benefit from meaningful input from local governments, the result could undermine municipalities’ ability to balance their responsibilities to public safety and community design with their desire to ensure access to affordable wireless networks and the next generation services.”
Please fight for the rights of your residents and government as our local representatives have done You have more power than you know Please exercise it Important Provisions to Add
1)Title of Ordinance
To clarify whether the ordinance title should apply only to Small Wireless Facilities or if this is for both Small Cell and Macro Towers it may be helpful to rename the ordinance to its original title and keep the descriptions separate within the ordinance It is not clear to me in this rewriteSmall cell applications are different than for macro towers due to difference in structure of towers, power emitted and location in right of way as per FCC ruling (Section 14 82 050) See Encinitas Small Cell wireless OrdinanceResolution 2019- 91- REGULATING SMALL WIRELESS FACILITIES AND OTHER INFRASTRUCTURE 375
Agenda Item # 6.

DEPLOYMENTS IN THE PUBLIC RIGHTS-OFWAYhttps://encinitasca gov/Portals/0/City%20Documents/Documents/Development%20Services/Planning/Land%20Development/Small%20Wireless%20Facilities/CC%20Policy%20C035 pdf 2)Location Standards- Preferred Sites- Despite what the telecommunications industry says, you as a city can still have preferred sites and less preferred sites in your ordinance (Encinitas and Malibu Ordinances)
You can add an exception clause or waiver process to allow for placement of a cell tower if the carrier proves it is necessary (and other locations are not technically feasible) for “Personal Wireless Services” under the 1996 Telecom Act of 1996 and so that this does not constitute an “effective prohibition” * Special Zones can be designated for schools, day care centers, residential dwellings, protected habitat or trees, parks, etc. * Keep the 1000 foot distance between towers,not 200 feet.Explanation below Here are examples of Location Standards in the Encinitas Small Cell Wireless Ordinance passed in June, 2020 and in Malibu April 2021, which to date are uncontested Encinitas Ordinance Passed June 10, 2020
SECTION 10. LOCATION STANDARDS
1 (a) Restricted Site Locations. All of the following locations will be deemed “Restricted Site Locations” that require an exception pursuant to SECTION 13 of this Policy 1 (1) any location within a residential zone;
2 (2) any location within 500 feet from a residential dwelling unit; 3 (3) any location within 500 feet from a daycare facility or primary school; 4 (4) any location within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone; and 5 (5) any location within the Ecological Resource/Open Space/Park Zone. (b) Location Preferences. To better assist applicants and decision makers understand and respond to the community s aesthetic preferences and values, this subsection sets out listed preferences for locations to be used in connection with small wireless facilities in an ordered hierarchy. Applications that involve lesser-preferred locations may be approved so long as the applicant demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence in the written record that (1) any more preferred locations or structures within 500 feet from the proposed site would be technically infeasible; and (2) if the proposed site or the most- preferred location within 500 feet from the proposed site is within a Restricted Site Location, the applicant qualifies for an exception pursuant to SECTION 13 of this Policy. The City prefers small cells in the public rights-of-way to be installed in locations, ordered from most preferred to least preferred, as follows (1) locations within industrial zones, commercial zones, business parks or office professional zones on or along prime arterials; (2) locations within industrial zones, commercial zones, business parks or office professional zones on or along major arterials; (3) locations within industrial zones, commercial zones, business parks or office professional zones on or along collector roads; (4) locations within industrial zones, commercial zones, business parks or office professional zones on or along local streets; (5) any location within 500 feet from any residential zone; (6) locations within residential zones on or along prime arterials; (7) locations within residential zones on or along major arterials; (8) locations within residential zones on or along collector roads; (9) locations within residential zones on or along local streets; (10) any location within 1,000 feet from an existing/proposed small wireless facility; In the event that a proposed facility would be within 500 feet from two or more restricted site locations (as defined in Subsection 10(a)), and the proposed facility qualifies for an exception pursuant to SECTION 13 of this Policy, the technically feasible location furthest from all such restricted site locations will be deemed to be the most preferred alternative. (c) Encroachments Over Private Property. No small cell antennas, accessory equipment or other improvements may encroach onto or over any private or other property outside the public rights-of-way without the property owner s express written consent.

Malibu Wireless Ordinance Resolution 21-17Standards Passed April2021. https://www malibucity org/DocumentCenter/View/27969/Ordinance-No-484 Location Standards for All Facilities
The location standards for all wireless communications facilities, other than those that qualify as eligible facilities requests, are as follows:
1 No wireless telecommunication facility shall be located within five hundred (500) feet of any school, playground, or park unless a finding is made, based on technical evidence acceptable to the reviewing authority showing a clear need for the facility and that no technically feasible alternative site exists Except for facilities installed on the same pole or tower as an existing wireless telecommunication facility, wireless telecommunication facilities located within any residential zone district shall not be located within one thousand (1,000) feet of any other wireless communications facility, except from those facilities placed on utility poles along Pacific Coast Highway, unless a waiver is granted 2 All new freestanding wireless communications facilities and monopoles shall be set back a minimum distance of at least one hundred and twenty (120%) percent of the height of the facility or monopole from any property line abutting a residentially zoned property This minimum setback is not subject to the waivers allowed under Section 7 of this Resolution 3 Location preference for wireless communications facilities should be given to the following:
1 Property designated non-residential (except for public open space and recreational vehicle park zoning districts), unless otherwise prohibited pursuant to this title 2 Facilities attached or sited adjacent to existing structures Whenever possible, facilities shall be located on and/or inside existing structures Appropriate types of existing structures may include, but are not limited to: buildings, water tanks, telephone poles and utility towers and poles, sign standards, light standards and roadway overpasses 3 Sites with minimum separation Sites that are more than five hundred (500) feet from school, playgrounds, and parks 4 Sites that are not highly visible from adjacent roadways 5 Unless otherwise indicated in MMC Chapter 17 46 or these Standards, no wireless facility shall be installed on an exposed ridgeline unless the facility blends with the surrounding existing natural and man-made environment and a finding is made that no other location is technically feasible 6 The City expressly designates residential, public open space and recreational vehicle park zoning districts, parks and schools as the least appropriate possible locations, and the absolute last choices for siting
3)Waivers for Standards
Malibu Wireless Facilities Ordinance 2021 has added a section on Waivers for Standards that clarifies the process and protects the city from liability Resolution No 21-17 Page 9
1 A waiver of one or more of these Standards may be granted in the following circumstances:
1 Pursuant to MMC Section 17 46 060(D), if an applicant demonstrates to the Planning Commission through clear and convincing evidence that denial of an application would, within the meaning of federal law, prohibit or effectively prohibit the provision of personal wireless services, or otherwise violate applicable laws or regulations; 2 If an applicant demonstrates to the Planning Commission through clear and convincing evidence set forth in a feasibility study that compliance with a requirement of these Standards would be technically infeasible and the proposed wireless facility complies with the requirements of these Standards to the greatest extent technically feasible For example, an exception to a requirement to conceal antennas in a shroud may be granted if shrouding is shown to be technically infeasible and an alternative concealment such as a colored film wrap is proposed; or
3 If an applicant demonstrates to the Planning Commission with clear and convincing evidence that the particular engineering, design or location proposed involves an alternative that better meets the purposes of Chapter 17 46 and only minor non-compliance with a requirement of these design Standards and results in no increase in public visual impact to the community or provides other benefits For example, an exception to the wireless facility location limitations may be granted when the applicant can demonstrate that the placement is less visible from viewsheds of residences or shielded by vegetation or existing infrastructure (such as barriers), or is less physically intrusive (for example, less impactful to tree roots or reduces noise) Among other factors, in deciding whether or not to grant an exception, the Planning Commission may consider the impact of expansions to the facility that the applicant would be entitled to make as of right if granted
2 Waivers may only be requested at the time an application is initially submitted for a discretionary permit The request must include both the specific provision(s) from which waiver is sought and the basis of the request, including all supporting evidence on which the applicant relies Any request for waiver after the City has deemed an application complete constitutes a material change to the proposed wireless facility and shall be considered a new application A request for waiver from one or more 4)Fire Safety
All electrical equipment including small cell towers are a fire risk.The fire cannot be put out in a conventional manner with firefighters blasting water on the fire. They have to wait until the power is shut off or electrocution will result.

Examples are
·
San Diego tower that caught fire in a high school stadium- https //fox5sandiego.com/news/local-news/stadium-light-catches-fire-at-south-bay-high-school/ ·
The Malibu fire in 2007 due to pole overload. CPUC finds Edison and 4 telecom carriers $51 5 million - https://www latimes com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-malibu-fire-settlements-approvedstate-puc-20130919-story html 376
Agenda Item # 6.

Considering the increase in wildfires and the risk of earthquakes Fire safety is a priority for citizens The Malibu Wireless Facilities Ordinance 2021 has language in the Fire Safety Standards that can be incorporated. In the attached Executed Copy of Malibu Res 21-17, please note fire language on pages 2, 3, 5, 8, 11, 12, and particularly beginning on page 23 with "Electrical and Structural Safety Information "
5)Appeals Process
Language for appeal is not in the ordinance
Applications
A)Any person adversely affected by a decision of the Director pursuant to this Chapter may request an administrative hearing to appeal the Director s decision. In order to request a hearing, the person shall submit to the City Clerk in the manner directed in the Director s decision notice a fully completed request for administrative hearing form along with a full amount of the appeal fee set by the City Council (by way of check or money order). The request for administrative hearing shall be incomplete if it does not include the appeal fee in the full amount. … etc.

Precaution is Warranted
We understand that, as per Section 704 of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, environmental concerns, and as courts have interpreted these it includes heath impacts, cannot be a factor in denial of cell towers but we are early in the game
Public health and ecosystem health are still important issues with new 5G systems untested for long term or short term safety for either human health or environmental health5G systems with a complex mix of low, medium and high frequencies (thus the need for macro and microcells)are very onerous to measure, requiring very expensive complex equipment that is very difficult for engineers to accomplish let alone city facility engineers Precaution in placement is paramount in this discussion Once cell towers are placed there is no going back and you just wait for people to experience symptoms or develop cancer or a neurologic condition that you will not be able to sort out from the common toxic exposures we all encounter on a daily basis Elon Musk tells us that 5G millimeter wave systems are not needed for autonomous cars 5G millimeter wavelengths are also not required for “personal wireless services”For the later this technology can be effectively replaced with safer and more secure fiberoptic networks and current wireless technologies I will explain why health matters
Health Matters
I am a practicing physician who has studied the health impacts of environmental toxins through our local County Medical Association and the California Medical Association for over 25 years I began studying the health impacts of wireless radiation when I learned of a proposal to place a cell tower on my daughter’s school After 10 years of research into the literature and talking to a variety of people affected by cell towers and wireless radiation I, like many others in the medical and scientific community, have come to the conclusion that wireless radiation is a pollutant just like lead or pesticides or mercury or toxic industrial waste The mechanisms are similar - oxidation, the effects are broad on all living organisms and people are often unaware they are exposed to the toxin - unless they are “sensitive” Wireless radiation causes oxidative stress on organisms and stem cells, and at low levels of radiation These low levels cause a slow decline in physiologic processes, and for those who have become sensitive- an immediate reaction Antioxidants and Health
As we now know small amounts of toxins can cause harm in certain windows of development thus children are more vulnerable We also know effects are cumulative People vary in their vulnerability due to age, genetics and other toxic exposures Not all people react the same Our health, wellness and aging are determined by oxidation levels in our tissues that injure our DNA, proteins and lipids, thus antioxidants in foods have been shown to block oxidation, neutralize cellular injury and promote health This is well established in the nutrition literature The literature also demonstrates that taking antioxidants (Vitamin E, zinc and melatonin) protects the cell from oxidation injury from wireless radiation Oxidative stress plays a major part in the development of chronic, degenerative and inflammatory illnesses such as cancer, autoimmune disorders, aging, cataracts, rheumatoid arthritis, cardiovascular and neurodegenerative diseases, as well as some acute pathologies (trauma, stroke). It is well established that wireless radiation at non-thermal levels causes oxidative stress Effects of this are cumulative on our DNA, lipids and cellular membranes We Evolved in a Low Electromagnetic Environment
The natural environment of the Earth is electromagnetic We have terrestrial electric and magnetic fields, radiation from the sun and cosmic microwaves All living things evolved in harmony with the Earth’s natural but very very low-level electromagnetic rhythms Birds, bees and mammals have magnetite in their bodies and brains that use the Earth’s magnetic field for the delicate tasks of navigation and foraging Our human nervous system, heart, reproductive and endocrine systems rely on minute electromagnetic signals for complex functions Manmade electromagnetic fields (EMF) emitted by our modern technology can distort our bodies electric currents, delicate cell membranes and cause broad dysfunction This can be with long term or sometimes short exposures with higher power and different pulsations Science has shown us that organisms adapt to constant electromagnetic fields found in nature much easier than artificial pulsed radiation that is emitted from cell towers and wireless devices It makes perfect sense that wireless radiation can be harmful to living organisms even it does not knock an electron out of its orbit Wildlife
You need to consider the unique ecosystem which surrounds this lovely town Science has shown us that levels of artificial electromagnetic radiation we are increasingly exposed to is harming not only humans but the sensitive environment that we tend to ignore but depend upon for our sustenance and mental health https://mdsafetech org/environmental-and-wildlife-effects/ New Review on Wildlife and wireless Radiofrequency Radiation The most comprehensive 3 part peer reviewed article by Levitt, Lai and Manville (2021) provides an updated, thorough and well referenced overview of RFR and effects on all wildlife, revealing a disturbing picture of the future if we continue to expand wireless in our homes, communities and for the commercialization of space The authors state, “But is there a larger environmental downside to rising ambient EMF exposures — particularly RFR — from popular mobile communication devices, WiFi antennas, and all accompanying infrastructure that is being overlooked by environmentalists, researchers, and government regulators alike. We may be missing critical physiological effects across species based on obsolete assumptions about low-level far-field exposures being too weak to adversely affect living tissue. We have yet to take into consideration the unique physiologies of other species, or how they use the environment in ways that humans do not, when we assume that the unfettered use of EMF/RFR can continue unabated and be allowed to grow indefinitely.” Effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields on flora and fauna, part 1. Rising ambient EMF levels in the environment (2021) Levitt BB et al Rev Environ Health 2021 May 27 https://pubmed ncbi nlm nih gov/34047144/
MOEF Report on Wildlife
The Inter-Ministerial Committee (IMC) of expert scientists reviewed the literature of the effects of RF-EMF radiations on wildlife, humans and the biosphere In their 2010 MOEF Report they found that out of the 919 research papers collected on birds, bees, plants, other animals, and humans, 593 showed impacts, 180 showed no impacts, and 196 were inconclusive studies All organisms had effects
Human Effects– 62% showed effects, 13% no effect and 25% inconclusive Plant Effects– 87% showed effects and 13% were inconclusive Wildlife Effects- 62% showed effects, 4% no effect and 36% inconclusive Bee Effects—85% showed effects and 15% no effect Bird Effects- 77% showed effects, 10% no effect and 13% inconclusive Current Standards are Scientifically Out of Date UNESCO World Heritage Wildlife Area Species Disappearing An abundance of peer reviewed literature demonstrates adverse impacts to the environment with declines in insect, bird and wildlife populations in cities and where cell towers are placed This spells disaster for biodiversity, fragile wildlife areas, critical pollinators and agriculture, especially with additive effects of pesticides, toxins and loss of habitat A report on Unesco’s Mt Nardia World Heritage Park documents this slow decline in populations of species after cell towers were placed Unesco Report on Disappearance of Species from Mt Nardia Park World Heritage Area 2000-2015 with Increased Expansion of Telecommunications Antenna Ethno- Botonist Mark Broomhall UNESCO Report on Disappearance of Species from Mt Nardia with Increased EMR 2000-2015 Cell Tower Health Effects
Current standards are based on short term thermal exposures and discount the abundant peer reviewed literature on harm from low level, non -thermal effects It is clear that the limits for radiofrequency radiation are set too high in the U S and Canada These limits are 100 times higher than that of Italy and Russia, who set their standards based on methodical research on immunologic, neurologic and biologic effects of low-level radiation fields Current U S limits are up to 1,000 microwatts/cm2 with symptoms seen at levels of 0 005 microwatts /cm2 Physicians in Germany ask for Health Investigation of Cell Towers in 2005 An open letter from Dr Cornelia Waldmann-Selsam was sent to the German State Chancellor, Edmund Stoiber, on behalf of 114 physicians (Bamberger Appeal) asking for an investigation into the newly reported adverse health symptoms of 356 residents who lived near cell towers in Oberfranken, Germany Dr Waldmann-Selsam noted, “Many humans get sick from emissions far below the recommended limit values, which consider only thermal effects, and we have a sickness picture with characteristic symptom combinations, which are new to us physicians,” The list of symptoms were, ” Sleep disturbances, tiredness, concentration impairment, forgetfulness, problem with finding words, depressive tendencies, tinnitus, sudden loss of hearing, hearing loss, giddiness, nose bleeds, visual disturbances, frequent infections, sinusitis, joint and limb pains, nerve and soft tissue pains, feeling of numbness, heart rhythm disturbances, increased blood pressure , hormonal disturbances, night-time sweat, nausea.” Resident noted almost immediate improvement when moving away ” Dr Waldmann-Selsam goes on to say, “physicians were able to prove, by re-testing the patients, the normalization of blood pressure, heart rhythm, hormone disturbances, visual disturbances, neurological symptoms, blood picture,” She called this an emergency medical situation and requested an official health investigation http://www next- up org/pdf/Letter to Edmund Stoiber pdf Cell Tower Effects on Cognition and Learning
The majority of studies, which have been done internationally, have shown an increase in neurologic symptoms in a percentage of residents living near cell towers Symptoms vary with the distance from the cell tower Symptoms include insomnia, headache, heart palpitations, dizziness, poor concentration, and fatigue A study in Japan (Shinjyo 2014) showed a decrease in symptoms when the 377
Agenda Item # 6.
cell tower was removed There is also a well done study showing blood abnormalities in those living nearest to cell towers (Zothansiama 2017) DNA and lipid abnormalities were seen along with reduction in internal antioxidants which provide protection from pollutants Moreover, a recent study conducted over a 2 year period looked at effects of cell towers near two schools by Meo et al (2018) and clearly demonstrated cognitive dysfunction in students closest to the higher power cell tower
Firefighters Fighting Fires and Now Cell Towers
After noticing that many of the firefighters where developing neurologic symptoms when first responder cell towers were placed on the fire stations the International Association of Firefighters studied the matter and passed a resolution in 2004 asking that cell towers not be placed in proximity to fire stations In AB 537 (Quirk), signed into law by Gov Newsom on October 4, 2021, the firefighters achieved the first ever health/readiness exemption in the world Every fire station in California is now exempt from having a 5G tower on their station. This movement began when cell towers were initially targeted for fire stations because of their location and the revenue received by the cities Many firefighters developed symptoms including headaches, fatigue, memory impairment and insomnia within a week of the installation of the towers An exemption was inserted in California bills on cell towers AB 57 (Quirk 2015) has an exemption on the grounds of health effects AB 537 (Quirk 2021) also has this exemption and reads, “Due to the unique duties and infrastructure requirements for the swift and effective deployment of firefighters, this section does not apply to a collocation or siting application for a wireless telecommunications facility where the project is proposed for placement on fire department facilities.” SB 649 (Hueso, Quirk and Dodd 2018) also had a health exemption for firefighters and was vetoed by Governor Brown
500 Meter (1640 ft) Buffer from Cell Tower Recommended
Cell tower health studies that show impacts from cell towers with symptoms within about 1500 feet of the cell towers That is why Pearce et al (2019) recommended a “500 Meter buffer around schools, hospitals and homes “Limiting liability with positioning to minimize negative health effects of cellular phone towers.” Cancer and Cell Towers
3 Studies investigated the rates of cancer and cell towers looking at the distance from cell towers and the incidence of cancer They found the rate of cancer incidence increased significantly in those living within about 350 -400 meters (around 1000 feet)to the cell tower Dode 2011 performed a 10 year study (1996-2006) examining the distance from cell towers and cancer clusters He and his colleagues found a highly significant increase in cancers in those living within 500 meters of the cell tower They noted “The largest density power was 40 78 μW/cm2, and the smallest was 0 04 μW/cm2 ” The current guidelines are about 1000 μW/cm2 The authors conclude “Measured values stay below Brazilian Federal Law limits that are the same of ICNIRP The human exposure pattern guidelines are inadequate More restrictive limits must be adopted urgently ”
Wolf and Wolf 2004 investigated the rates of cancer versus distance from cell towers in small towns in Israel He found the rate of cancer incidence was 129 cases per 10,000 persons per year in those living within 350 meters of a cell tower versus a rate of 16-31/10,000 in those living greater than 350 meters from the cell tower Eger (2004)showed an increase in the development of new cancer cases within a 10 year period if residents lived within 400 meters of a cell tower Their results revealed that within 5 years of operation of a transmitting station the relative risk of cancer development tripled in residents near the cell towers compared to residents outside the area Insurance Has an Exclusion for Radiofrequency Radiation as an Emerging RiskInsurance companies consider wireless radiation to be similar to asbestos in long term health impacts and do not provide coverage from harm for RF health effects The cities are left with that liability unless they can provide insurance In a 2019 report,New Emerging Risk Insights, by Swiss RE Insurance Company, the second largest reinsurance company in the world, 5G is listed as an emerging concern in the high risk category within 3 years Included in the high-risk trends are artificial intelligence and the existential threats of climate change “The top five emerging risks in our SONAR 2019 report are digital technology’s clash with legacy hardware, potential threats from the spread of 5G mobile networks, increasingly limited fiscal and monetary flexibility by central banks, genetic testing’s implications on life insurers, and the impact of climate change on the life and health sector.” https://www swissre com/institute/research/sonar/sonar2019 html National Academy of Sciences Report on the Havana Syndrome and Harm from RFR A recent report by the National Academy of Sciences concluded that the “sonic attacks” on diplomats in Cuba and China were most likely due to pulsed radiofrequency from directed energy weapons They had symptoms similar to those who live near cell towers (headache, nausea, insomnia, dizziness, memory loss, heart palpitations, depression) Dr Beatrice Golomb wrote the most extensive report to date on this subject linking these mystery “directed energy attacks” to pulsed microwaves similar to the wireless devices we use daily In the case of these high powered beams there was documented injury to brain networks found by the University of Pittsburg physicians who studied the diplomats Dr Golomb highlights that the strength of the health effects are related to the peak powernot the average power. The pulse makes the poison.

The EUROPAEM EMF Guideline 2016 for the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of EMF-related health problems and illnesses is a comprehensive guide written by many scientists and physicians in Europe who are part of the European Academy for Environmental Medicine (EUROPAEM) – EMF working group who have recognized and treated those with electrosensitivity for many years This is a thorough, well researched and well-referenced scientific paper that is based on the 2012 Austrian Medical Association Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Treatment of EMF Illness A questionnaire from their group is included in the attachments New Hampshire 5G Commission Finds Radiofrequency Radiation Problematic The first Commission formed in the United States to study the environmental and health effects of 5G technology released their comprehensive final report November 1, 2020 The Commission to Study the Environmental and Health Effects of Evolving 5G Technology was mandated by HB 522 passed by the state legislature in New Hampshire Their final report included 15 recommendations addressing the need for public education about wireless hazards, RF health studies, RF measurements, cell antenna setbacks, fiberoptic rather than wireless deployment, commercial warning signs and wildlife protection After hearing extensive testimony in a series of 13 meetings over the course of a year and reviewing an abundance of research, the Commission highlighted the lack of a single definition for 5G, insufficient evidence of safety for 5th generation technology, a concern that safety standards for wireless technologies have not been updated with the latest science and that 5G is largely a marketing concept They also expressed concern that the FCC has a long history of being accountable to industry over the desires of communities and individuals
FCC Told by DC Court to Reevaluate Safety Standards
On August 13, 2021 a joint lawsuit was won by petitioners against the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) for failure to protect human health and the environment by dismissing scientific evidence of harm from wireless radiation The Petitioners challenged the FCC’s refusal to reevaluate and update their 24-year-old radiofrequency (RF) safety guidelines for existing and new telecommunications technologies
The DC Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the majority of the RF radiation standards established by the FCC did not use "reasoned decision-making" (they did not go by the science) and thus the standards were considered by the court to have been set in an "arbitrary and capricious" manner This was an extremely high bar for the Plaintiffs to reach The Circuit Court of Appeals rarely admonishes a federal agency or commission in this way The DC Circuit Court of Appeals returned this decision back to the FCC and ordered the FCC to re-examine its standards for wireless radiation exposure and provide a review of wireless harms that is compliant with the law for non-cancer harms The Court Decision stated, “The National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”) and it’s implementing regulations require federal agencies to “establish procedures to account for the environmental effects of [their] proposed actions ” And “To fulfill its obligations under NEPA, the Commission has promulgated guidelines for human exposure to RF radiation The Commission last updated its limits for RF exposure in 1996 The ANSI and IEEE developed limits are designed to protect against “thermal effects” of exposure to RF radiation, but not “non- thermal” effects In March 2013, the Commission issued a notice of inquiry regarding the adequacy of its 1996 guidelines in response to changes in the ubiquity of wireless devices and in scientific standards and research since 1996 In December 2019, the Commission issued a final order resolving its 2013 notice of inquiry by declining to undertake any of the changes contemplated in the notice of inquiry Petitioners challenge the 2019 final order under NEPA and the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) 5G: A Manufactured Need by Industry?
Reports indicate that the telecommunications industry has largely manufactured a “need” for expanding wireless technology in cities, while halting projects for safer fiberoptic broadband Note a 2020 European Parliament report, 5G: State of Play in Europe, USA and Asia. In Depth Analysis,suggests 5G is a manufactured need “As 5G is driven by the telecoms supply industry, and its long tail of component manufacturers, a major campaign is under way to convince governments that the economy and jobs will be strongly stimulated by 5G deployment.” In my opinion, from all the research I have done, it appears the telecommunications industry has influenced laws to prevent health or environmental effects from being considered in the placement of cell towers (See FCC Captured Agency) They knew of the harm in early studies done by Dr George Carlo in the 1990’s but suppressed the data so they could move forward That is well documented in Dr Carlo's book, "Cell phones: Invisible Hazards in The Wireless Age" A blizzard of robust science has appeared now to show biological and health impacts of wireless technology, but it is still denied, and the basis for genuinely safe RF radiation guidelines isflawed An exponential growth in cell towers is now being played out with cities being left on their own to figure out how to regulate these towers locally Industry places a heavy hand and complex laws on local policy makers who must navigate these complex FCC policies to prevent legal action Board of Health in Pittsfield Massachusetts Orders Verizon to Cease and Desist For the first time in the U S a Board of Health has issued a cease and desist order to Verizon to remove or shut off a cell tower after 17 people in a neighborhood reported they became ill after the Verizon cell tower was turned on Courtney Gilardi and her 2 children as well as residents living near the cell tower, reported experiencing a constellation of symptoms including stabbing headaches, nausea, vomiting, dizziness, “buzzing in the head”, and insomnia so severe her family had to move to the next town and into a house with no heat and no hot water to escape the sickness Other neighbors drove an hour away to sleep at a relative’s house or slept in their cars away from the tower These are classic symptoms of electromagnetic illness experienced in firefighters and military personnel working on radar and well documented by NASA, the Air Force and other military agencies as well as the “Havana Syndrome” These symptoms were also seen in Japan after 2 cell towers were turned on and when the tower was removed the resident’s symptoms largely resolved Apple Stops 5G Phone MMW: Is This the Death of 5G Millimeter Wavelengths? You are probably aware that Verizon and AT&T built special hotspots in many cities in the U S to house 5G high band millimeter wavelengths that were to revolutionize wireless with ultrafast speeds These small wavelengths the size of bees have been put into some community small cells which need to be about 1000 feet apart without obstruction to function properlyApple, who already has some 5G MMW phones, just announced that it is not building any millimeter wave spectrum antennas in its next generation SE iphones With 4G LTE low and mid band wavelengths they apparently do not need the millimeter 5G bandwidth The article notes, “It’s not a surprise that Apple is dropping the spectrum from its phones It costs chip space and power for every additional 378
Agenda Item # 6.
spectrum that is supported by a cellphone Cell manufacturers care more about long battery life than they do about a technology that never made it out of the downtowns of a few major cities ” FCC Limits: A False Sense of Security
We are told by the FCC that wireless radiation and cell towers are safe within current safety guidelines, or that we do not really know if there is harm or that the research is inconclusive or that it is not ionizing (like x-rays) so it cannot hurt us This is the same dismissive and doubt creating language used by the tobacco industry and a host of other chemical companies to protect their toxic products, thus profits The research shows that we do know, beyond a doubt, that wireless radiation is harmful to all living systems below the current safety standards The most obvious evidence is that more and more children and adults are reporting symptoms of electrosensitivity (EHS) in the presence of wireless radiation when they live in a home near a cell tower, or use a cell phone,or in schools where wireless devices and cell towers are increasing
Please use your authority and wisdom to keep this ordinance strongTake more time if you need to in order for you to sort this out and be sure of your decisionRemember that you all live in Los Altos as well so you are protecting you, your families and the next generation as well Sincerely,
Cindy Russell, MD
Attached- Malibu Ordinances
References
·Pearce (2019) 500 Meter buffer recommended around schools, hospitals and homes. “Limiting liability with positioning to minimize negative health effects of cellular phone towers.”(2019)Pearce M Environmental Research, Nov 2019; https://www sciencedirect com/science/article/abs/pii/S0013935119306425 ·Waldman-Selsam, C (2004) Bamberg Appeal, on behalf of 114 physicians Open Letter to Edmund Stoiber, Prime Minister, Germany, August 3http://www vws org /documents/cellproject- documents/BambergAppeal pdf ·Waldmann-Selsam C 2016 Radiofrequency radiation injures trees around mobile phone base stations. (2016).Waldmann-Selsam C et al Science of the Total Environment 572 (2016) 554-569 https://www researchgate net/publication/306435017 Radiofrequency radiation injures trees around mobile phone base stations ·The EUROPAEM EMF Guideline 2016 for the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of EMF-related health problems and illnesses https://www degruyter com/document/doi/10 1515/reveh-2016-0011/html Researcher links diplomats’ mystery illness to radiofrequency/microwave radiation. Eureka alert August 29, 2018 American Academy for the Advancement of Science https //www.eurekalert.org/pub releases/2018-08/uoc–rld082918.php Diplomats in China report similar brain injuries as Americans in Cuba:In 2016 and 2017, 25 Americans in the U S embassy in Cuba suffered serious, unexplained brain injuries Now, at least 15 American officials in China are reporting similar symptoms 60 Minutes reports March 15, 2019 https://www cbsnews com/news/diplomats-in-china-report-similar-brain-injuries-as-americansin-cuba-60-minutes/ ·Swanson RL (2018)Neurological Manifestations Among US Government Personnel Reporting Directional Audible and Sensory Phenomena in Havana, Cuba. (2018)Swanson RL et al JAMA 2018 Mar 20;319(11):1125-1133 https://jamanetwork com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2673168 ·Levitt, Lai, Manville. (2021) Effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields on flora and fauna, Part 1. Rising ambient EMF levels in the environment. Rev Environ Health. 2021 May

27. https //pubmed ncbi nlm nih gov/34047144/
·Levitt, Lai, Manville (2021) Effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields on flora and fauna, Part 2 impacts: how species interact with natural and man-made EMF. Rev Environ Health. 2021 Jul

8. https //pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34243228/
·Levitt, Lai, Manville (2021) Effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields on flora and fauna, Part 3. Exposure standards, public policy, laws, and future directions. Rev Environ Health. 2021 Sep

27. https //pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34563106/
·PanagopoulosDJ. (2013) Electromagnetic Interaction Between Environmental Fields and Living Systems Determines Health and Well Being. University of Athens, Department of Biology, Athens, Greece Radiation and Environmental Biophysics Research Centre, Athens, Greece. Electromagnetic Fields, Nova ·MOEF Report on Possible Impacts of Communication Cell Towers on Wildlife Including Birds and Bees. (2010) The Ministry of Environment and Forest.Report on Possible Impacts of Communication Towers on Wildlife Including Birds and Bees. (2010) Ministry of the Environment and Forests (MOEF) India. https //ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/7520958381.pdf ·Sciences. http //www.wendywalksfores.com/uploads/1/3/9/0/13908728/panagopoulos-nova-2013-emfs-chapter-1.pdf ·SwissRe Insurance-Sonar 2019: New emerging risk insights https://www swissre com/institute/research/sonar/sonar2019 html ·Landmark Lawsuit Filed Against FCC for Failing to Reevaluate 5G and Wireless Safety.Sept 23, 2020 PST https://mdsafetech org/2020/09/23/landmark-lawsuit-filed-against-fcc-forfailing-to-reevaluate-5g-and-wireless-safety/ ·Final Report on Commission to Study the Environmental and Health Effects of Evolving 5G Technology. State of New Hampshire, General Court Nov 1, 2020 http://www gencourt state nh us/statstudcomm/committees/1474/reports/5G%20final%20report pdf ·We Have No Reason to Believe 5G Is Safe.The technology is coming, but contrary to what some people say, there could be health risks (2019) Scientific American Joel M Moskowitz Oct 17, 2019 https://blogs scientificamerican com/observations/we-have-no-reason-to-believe-5g-is-safe/ ·5G wireless telecommunications expansion: Public health and environmental implications. (2018) Russell CL Environ Res 2018 Apr 11 https://www ncbi nlm nih gov/pubmed/29655646 or
at https://ecfsapi fcc gov/file/10913927726988/5%20G%20wireless%20telecommunications%20expansion%3A%20Public%20health%20and%20environmental%20implications pdf ·Firefighters Fighting Fires and Now Cell Towers-https://mdsafetech org/2019/09/28/firefighters-fighting-fires-and-now-cell-towers/ ·5G: State of Play in Europe, USA and Asia. In Depth Analysis, European Parliament.https://www europarl europa eu/RegData/etudes/IDAN/2019/631060/IPOL IDA(2019)631060 EN pdf ·Apple ditches mmWave 5G with newest iPhone. https://www lightreading com/5g/apple-ditches-mmwave-5g-with-newest-iphone/d/d-id/775901 --
Cindy Lee Russell, M.D.

Executive Director, Physicians for Safe Technology
WWW.MDSafeTech.org
Our vision is a world where technology serves our needs without undermining our physical, psychosocial or environmental health. --
Cindy Lee Russell, M.D.

Immediate Past President, Santa Clara County Medical Association Executive Director, Physicians for Safe Technology
WWW.MDSafeTech.org
Our vision is a world where technology serves our needs without undermining our physical, psychosocial or environmental health.

Notice to Recipient: If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are proh bited from sharing, copying, or otherwise using or disclosing ts contents.If you have received this e-mail in error, please not fy the sender immediately by reply e-mail and permanently delete this e-mail and any attachments without reading, forwarding or saving them.

Thank you.
379
Agenda Item # 6.

Reviewed By:

City Manager City Attorney
GE
Finance Director
JH JF

AGENDA REPORT SUMMARY
Meeting Date: Month day, year
Subject Adopt Mid-Year 22 Budget update
Prepared by: John Furtado, Finance Director
Approved by: Gabriel Engeland, City Manager
Attachment(s):

1. Attachment 1 – Capital Projects Revised List FY 22-26Title

2. Attachment 2 – Revenue, Expenses, and Fund Balances Other Funds

3. Attachment 3 – General Fund Summary, Revenues, Expenditures, and Transfers Out.

Initiated by:

Staff
Previous Council Consideration:

June 2021
Fiscal Impact:

Budget revisions detail
Environmental Review:

Not applicable
Policy Question(s) for Council Consideration:
 Does the Council wish to adopt The Midyear Budget as presented, or with recommended changes?
Summary/ Background:

On June 1, 2021, the City Council approved the 2021-2023 Biennial Operating Budget, and as of December 31, 2021, six months of the 2021-23 budget cycle have been completed. Throughout the budget cycle, staff actively monitors actual revenues and expenditures and prepares a status update report to the Council at six-month intervals. These updates provide staff with opportunities to advise Council on major budget trends (revenue and expenditure) and propose changes where necessary to meet ongoing service demands or modifications related to economic or other factors. 380
Agenda Item # 7.

Subject: Mid-Year 22 Budget update
Date Page 2
This report provides an informational update to the City Council for the General Fund Operating Budget for Fiscal Year 2021-22, and outlines proposed budget adjustments for other funds.

Staff Recommendation:

Adopt the Mid-Year 2022 Budget amendments as presented
Discussion/Analysis
Every six months City Departments complete an in-depth review of their budgets in preparation for an update to the City Council. Departments evaluate their revenues and expenditures, as well as operational trends, and recommend necessary adjustments. In addition, each department evaluates service-level needs and identifies any adjustments necessary to respond to changes in the community’s demand for services or changes in Council policy or direction.

The Finance Department evaluates major non-departmental revenue sources (sales tax, property tax, real property transfer tax, business license tax, transient occupancy tax, etc.) to determine if any, mid-year adjustments are needed. Finance staff also evaluate any changes in compensation or cross-departmental expenses, such as medical costs or CalPERS rates, and recommend adjustments as needed.

On March 10th the newly formed Financial Commission subcommittee met with City staff and discussed the proposed changes, the subcommittee proposed some suggestions and changes that were incorporated in the analysis. Staff thereafter prepared the report and presented it to the Financial Commission at their March 21st,2022, meeting. The commissioners discussed the report and voted unanimously to recommend that the city council approve the Mid-year budget as presented.

Summary of General Fund Budget for FY 2022
Table 1 outlines projected changes in resources available and their proposed uses in the General Fund for FY2021-2022. These resources are classified into 3 relevant areas as seen on the next page.
381
Agenda Item # 7.

Subject: Mid-Year 22 Budget update
Date Page 3
Revenues
General Fund revenue is monitored in several categories, including general revenue and departmental revenue. General revenue includes City-wide revenues such as sales and property taxes. Departmental revenue represents monies generated by the activities of operating departments. For example, in Community & Economic Development, revenue is generated through the issuance of building permits and planning fees charged on a cost recovery basis.

General Fund Summary (In millions)
Projected revenue increase Amount
Sales Tax 0.40
Property Tax 1.60
Documentary Transfer tax 0.15
Business License Tax 0.04
Recreation Revenue 0.13
Community Development Fees -
Total Revenue Increases 2.32
One time Items
Release of Notes Receivable 1.70
FY 21 Operating Surplus 1.21
Unemployment Fund Balance 0.45
Total One Time Available Funds 3.4
Expenditure reductions
Rosita Park COP * 0.17
Community Center loan* 0.62
Anticipated Salary Savings 0.25
CIP Savings from Project review 0.28
Total Expense reductions 1.3
Total Available 7.0
*Funding will now come from the Park in Lieu Fund
Table 1
382
Agenda Item # 7.

Subject: Mid-Year 22 Budget update
Date Page 4
 General Revenue
o Sales Tax – Sales tax revenues are anticipated to increase by approximately $0.4 million, based on the most recent estimates by HDL the City’s consultant. o Property Tax –Property tax revenue is estimated to increase by $1.6 million also based on our property tax consultants HDL as well as staff projections on the unsecured roll and Educational Revenue Augmentation Funds (ERAF). o Documentary Transfer Tax – This category has already exceeded the original budget and staff is anticipating a total increase of $150K. o Business license tax –Is anticipated to increase over budget by $0.04K  Departmental Revenue
Department revenues- Recreation revenue is expected to be higher by $130,000 primarily due to the easing of COVID restrictions as well as the opening of the community center. While other departmental revenues are expected to be on target with the original budget.

Administrative Fees – The General Fund receives revenue amounting to $918,500 related to staff costs incurred towards the Sewer and Solid waste Funds. Historically these have been treated as revenue for the general fund which is not an appropriate way to account for the funds. These should be treated as an offset to costs that are already incurred in the General Fund; therefore staff is proposing to remove this revenue from the general fund and reduce expenditure by the same amount.

One Time Items
 The close of the FY 2021 Financial year yielded a surplus of $1.2 million  The repayment of the housing loan granted to the prior City manager has freed up $1.7 million
 The Fund balance available in the Unemployment Fund stands at $546,000, while historically annual payments have not exceeded $10,000 to $20,000 staff is proposing that $0.45 million of these funds be made available towards more urgent needs In summary, the total of one time available funds is $3.4 million that can be used towards balancing some of the cities one time needs which are shown in table 2, on the next page. 383
Agenda Item # 7.

Subject: Mid-Year 22 Budget update
Date Page 5
Table 2 outlines Funding needs for the proposed midyear budget and is forward-looking towards the Capital projects funding for FY 23.

Expenditures
Staff has reviewed expenditures related to Personnel and Operations & Maintenance for FY22.

Staff anticipates that we will have citywide salary savings of $0.25 million by the end of the year due to vacancies.

During the council retreat, staff had sought direction if the Council would be willing to consider the use of Park in Lieu funds towards eligible expenses. The subcommittee and the Financial Commission agreed that this was a good idea and therefore the debt service payments for the Rosita Park and newly built community center are now moved out of the General Fund to the Park in Lieu fund for a General Fund expense reduction of $0.87 million.

No changes in other appropriations are recommended.

Staff also reviewed the Capital projects list (Attachment 1), as based on the financial year-end we anticipated that we would be short by $2 million to fund the FY 22 CIP. Staff was able to identify projects that could be removed, reduced, or find an alternative funding source. This exercise turned Funding Needs (in millions)
Fund Name FY 22
General Liability 0.16
Workers Compensation 0.57
Dental Fund 0.10
Storm Drain Fund 0.02
Equipment Replacement 0.90
CIP for FY 23 6.05
Operating Reserve 1.00
CALPERS UAL Prepayments
Total Funding Needs 8.80
Unfunded CIP for FY23 (2.09)
TABLE 2
384
Agenda Item # 7.

Subject: Mid-Year 22 Budget update
Date Page 6
a negative $2 million into a surplus CIP reserve of $0.28 million in the General Fund as seen in Table 3.

Key changes were made to the following CIP projects
Community Chamber AV Equipment Project – The current project funding from the Peg fund is anticipated to be sufficient to complete the project therefore $116,000 of General fund commitments are being released.

Asset Management System Project – The project is not anticipated to be undertaken in the near future therefore $150,000 appropriated is released.

Emergency Operations Center Project (EOC)– The newly built community center was constructed to house an emergency operations center. The construction meets emergency service CIP General Fund Summary (In Millions)
Project Summary
Original
Budget
Amount
Actual
Budget
Amount
Estimated Prior Appropriated 6.41 7.88
Projected FY 2022 Expenditure 5.55 5.55
Cancelled / Reduced Projects - -
Total Revenue Increases 11.96 13.43
Funding Available
CIP Reserves 11.48 11.48
Community Center Reserve 0.68 0.68
Total Funding Available 12.16 12.16
Projected Excess/ (Shortfall) 0.20 (1.26)
Mid Year Adjustments
Cancelled / added Project Funding 1.55
Net Surplus / (Deficit in CIP Reserves GF) 0.28
Table 3
385
Agenda Item # 7.

Subject: Mid-Year 22 Budget update
Date Page 7
standards, including seismic standards, and was designed to operate independently from the grid in an emergency. Additionally, the community center EOC has operational capabilities that the proposed EOC would not contain. Taking this into account, staff has identified funds to complete the conversion of the standalone EOC project identified in the CIP to transition to the community center. This project conversation reduced costs by a minimum of $1.5M, while also allowing for the purchase of multiple emergency generators which will eliminate this need for this expense in the Equipment Replacement Fund. The emergency generators currently owned by the City have all exceeded their expected operational life.

Annual Civic Facilities Improvement Project – Return to work for city employees is set to begin May 1st. Currently, almost 65% of City Hall staff share workspace or workstations with other employees, causing overcrowding at City Hall. Additionally, there is no permanent designated meeting space for the public or staff in City Hall. The few offices that are designated for only one staff member are often too small to be utilized for meeting space. Staff had identified the Los Altos Youth center (LAYC) as an ideal location to construct offices, allowing appropriate space for employees, and modern meeting space for the public and staff. To accommodate the first phase of this change, the CIP project has been increased by $250,000.

Staff worked with the Subcommittee of the Financial Commission to review a list of unfunded expenses in the original budget and the following was proposed, which was subsequently accepted by the Financial Commission.

The General Liability Fund had a $200,000 funding shortfall in the original budget. Rather than fund at the recommended 80% level in one year, the Subcommittee recommended funding at the 70% level this year, with an increase to the 80% level in the next Fiscal Year. We recommend moving $160,000 from the General Fund to the General Liability Fund The Worker’s Compensation Fund was underfunded in the original budget by $500,000, the latest actuary report from Bickmore Actuarial projects a need of an additional $366,000 therefore the requested transfer is $566,000. $450,000 will come from the Unemployment Fund and the balance $126,000 will be moved from the General Fund
The Dental Fund has accumulated a negative fund balance of $94,747 as of the close of FY 21 Audited financial statements. A transfer of $100,000 is recommended from the General Fund to the Dental Fund.
386
Agenda Item # 7.

Subject: Mid-Year 22 Budget update
Date Page 8
The Storm Drain Fund has accumulated a negative fund balance of $23,939 as of the close of FY 21 Audited financial statements and is currently fully funded by the General Fund. A transfer of $23,939 is recommended from the General Fund to the Storm Drain Fund.

The Equipment Replacement Fund is projected to have a negative fund balance of $900,000 by the end of FY 23, during the Council retreat staff had presented immediate needs of $3 million.

Staff currently recommends moving $900,000 from the General Fund to the Equipment Replacement Fund to cover the immediate, programmed shortfall. City staff will have to create and implement a Fleet and Equipment Replacement plan to address the remaining unfunded needs.

The Financial policies for the City recommend a 20% Operating Reserve for the General Fund, based on the current level of expenditure the amount needed to bring the reserve to 20% would be $1.6 million. The operating reserve currently stands at 16.6%. The subcommittee discussed this in detail and recommended that we build the reserve back up over time, and no longer use the operating reserve to fund operations. The Subcommittee is recommending a transfer of $1 million from the General Fund Unreserved fund balances be moved to the operating reserve, increase the balance to 18.5% this year, with the additional transfer in the coming fiscal year to return to 20%.

Additionally, the subcommittee asked for information on if 20% is sufficient as an operating reserve.

The Subcommittee also reviewed the Capital projects list for FY 23, given that the needs were $6.05 million the subcommittee decided to recommend the balance of available resources be reserved for the CIP, thus leaving approximately $2 million of it unfunded at this time.

The Subcommittee also recommended that staff investigates the options of Setting up Annual discretionary payments (ADP) to CALPERS to reduce the unfunded liability, the committee felt that this needs to be reviewed at year-end if any surplus funds can be identified. The current recommendation is to fund an ADP at $1 million in the next Fiscal Year, which will bring the unfunded total in the budget to $3 million unfunded in the coming year.

The Financial Commission agreed with the above suggestions and recommended that the City council prioritize funding them first in case there is an additional surplus identified once the FY 22 books were closed.
387
Agenda Item # 7.

Subject: Mid-Year 22 Budget update
Date Page 9
Changes to Other Funds
Staff recommends changes to Other Funds as highlighted below:

Other FY22 Changes – New Funds
 Information Technology Fund – The General Fund has a reserve balance of $1,108,582 plus $350,000 That the Council allocated from American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) Funds towards the new Financial system, in the current process IT projects are identified as part of the CIP process and funds are moved to the CIP for use when incurred. Staff is proposing that in order to better manage and fund Technology needs in the future we create a separate Internal service fund to record and track all technology infrastructure needs and spending.  PERS and OPEB Stabilization Fund – Council Approved the Prepayment of CALPERS Unfunded liability $5 million (UAL) as well as $1.5 million towards the OPEB CERBT Trust fund. Staff has completed those payments and is proposing that the Funds available in the General Fund reserve be moved to a newly created PERS and OPEB Stabilization fund from which the payment to CALPERS will be recorded. The rationale behind this is that we do have staff costs in the enterprise funds that need to contribute towards the UAL and CERBT payments, Staff determines based on the FY 21 audited financials and amount of $254,612 and $38,002 be moved from the sewer fund and the solid waste fund respectively towards their contribution of the payments, these monies shall remain in this fund until a future Discretionary payment is made to CAPERS  Outside Funding – Grants Fund – The City undertakes several projects that are grantfunded such as Caltrans Grants or other one-time grants that are related to the CIP. Some of these grants are paid in advance while others are on a reimbursement basis (we do the work first and then submit it to get repaid). Past practice has been to book these receivables within the CIP fund where it lacks transparency and is difficult to identify. With several other funding sources, it is difficult to track causing several reimbursements to be delayed or not acted on. The new process will be transparent in terms of the receivables that can be reviewed within the new outside funding Fund.

Other funds (Attachment 2)
Attachment 2 provides a listing of all other funds in the City; no major changes have been made to these except for the below.
388
Agenda Item # 7.

Subject: Mid-Year 22 Budget update
Date Page 10
Vehicle Registration Fund- This fund had an opening fund balance of $529,401 and received a further $579,000 of pending funding from VTA. Eligible projects that were previously planned to be completed from the Traffic in Lieu fund have now been programmed to this fund $550,000.

In Lieu Parkland Fund – The Eligible costs of servicing the annual Debt for the Rosita Park ($167,400) and the community Center ($622,090) have been programmed to this fund.

Conclusion
As of the Mid-Year budget update, revenue projections, including general revenue and department fees and charges, are trending higher than the original budget projections as adopted in May 2021, notwithstanding the proposed changes above. Overall, expenditures also appear to be on target with budget projections. It is expected that the FY22 operating budget will continue to be balanced, largely due to the stimulus funding received via ARPA, this funding has proved to be vital in helping the city navigate the FY 22 & 23 budget years by providing the much-needed bridge revenue as the economy opens and impacted revenues begin to recover. Other significant foreseeable challenge will be the rate of inflation, which is far exceeding our revenues and could cause unforeseen cost escalations across the board.

Any further surplus remaining at year-end can be considered for use to address the unfunded needs mentioned in this report.
389
Agenda Item # 7.

CIP Fund
Project # Project Name Funding Source Estimated Appropriated Per Budget Estimated Appropriated Per Actual Canceled / Add /Reduce Council Allocations post Budget 2021/22 Budget 2022/23 Budget 2023/24 Budget 2024/25 Budget 2025/26 Budget Total CD-01009 Walter Singer Bust Relocation CIP Fund 10,000 $ 10,000 $ $ (10,000) $ - CD-01012 Annual Storm Drain Improvements CIP Fund 12,492 12,492 950,000 962,492CD-01017 First Street Streetscape Design -- Phase II CIP Fund 261,243 261,243 261,243CD-01018 Downtown Lighting Cabinet Replacement CIP Fund 0 0 200,000 200,000CD-01019 Public Works Electronic Document Management CIP Fund 105,949 105,949 105,949CD-01020 Climate Action Plan Implementation Program CIP Fund 75,000 59,330 55,000 114,330CD-01021 Community Chamber AV Equipment CIP Fund 216,600 216,600 (116,600) (100,000) 0 CD-01022 Asset Management System CIP Fund 0 0 (150,000) 150,000 0 CF-01002 Los Altos Community Center Redevelopment CIP Fund 970,509 970,509 970,509CF-01003 Annual Civic Facilities Improvement CIP Fund 0 0 250,000 750,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 5,800,000 CF-01010 Annual ADA Improvements (Facilities) CIP Fund 317,000 316,883 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 691,883CF-01011 City Hall Emergency Backup Power Generator CIP Fund 0 0 150,000 150,000CF-01013 MSC Fuel-Dispensing Station Overhead Canopy CIP Fund 0 0 300,000 300,000CF-01016 Waterline Backflow Preventers CIP Fund 80,435 80,435 80,435CF-01018 MSC Parking Lot Resurfacing CIP Fund 0 0 1,300,000 1,300,000 TS-01001 Annual Street Resurfacing CIP Fund 142,448 142,448 1,050,000 1,050,000 1,050,000 1,050,000 1,050,000 5,392,448TS-01003 Annual Street Striping CIP Fund 0 0 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 500,000TS-01004 Annual Street Slurry Seal CIP Fund 0 0 250,000 800,000 800,000 800,000 800,000 3,450,000TS-01005 Annual Concrete Repair CIP Fund 118,074 118,074 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 1,118,074TS-01006 Annual Traffic Sign Replacement CIP Fund 94,821 94,821 200,000 294,821TS-01008 Annual ADA Improvements (Streets and Roadways) CIP Fund 136,697 136,697 75,000 200,000 200,000 75,000 75,000 761,697TS-01013 Annual Transportation Enhancements CIP Fund 216,313 216,313 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 591,313TS-01051 University Ave/Milverton Rd Sidewalk Gap Closure CIP Fund 65,000 55,000 100,000 155,000TS-01052 Annual Bicycle/Pedestrian Access Improvements CIP Fund 336,506 313,712 350,000 350,000 350,000 350,000 350,000 2,063,712TS-01055 Fremont Ave Pedestrian Bridge Rehabilitation CIP Fund 193,234 155,118 260,000 415,118TS-01056 Fremont Avenue Pavement Rehabilitation CIP Fund 119,000 1,750,000 1,750,000 TS-01057 In-Road Light System Maintenance CIP Fund 75,000 300,000 300,000TS-01059 Diamond Court Reconstruction CIP Fund 100,000 100,000 100,000 TS-01061 Foothill Expressway Widening from Homestead Rd to I-280 CIP Fund 0 0 250,000 250,000 CF-01021 Emergency Operations Center CIP Fund 2,718,677 2,718,677 (1,518,677) 300,000 1,500,000 CD-01023 Housing Element Update CIP Fund 42,139 42,139 565,000 607,139 CD01024 General Plan CIP Fund 0 0 2,000,000 2,000,000
TOTAL CIP Fund $ 6,407,137 $ 7,876,439 (1,545,277) $ - $ 5,550,000 $ 6,050,000 $ 6,350,000 $ 3,980,000 $ 3,925,000 32,186,162 $ Budget Error corrections $ 1,469,303 CIP Fund Surplus $ 280,630 ATTACHMENT 1
390
Agenda Item # 7.

CDBG
Project # Project Name Funding Source Estimated Appropriated Per Budget Estimated Appropriated Per Actual Canceled / Add /Reduce Council Allocations post Budget 2021/22 Budget 2022/23 Budget 2023/24 Budget 2024/25 Budget 2025/26 Budget Total TS-01058 Intersection Access Barrier Removal CDBG 280,000 $ (531,566) $ $ 531,566 $ (0) TOTAL CDBG $ 280,000 $ (531,566) $ 531,566 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - (0) $ Equipment Replacement Fund
Project # Project Name Funding Source Estimated Appropriated Per Budget Estimated Appropriated Per Actual Canceled / Add /Reduce Council Allocations post Budget 2021/22 Budget 2022/23 Budget 2023/24 Budget 2024/25 Budget 2025/26 Budget Total 00923 Police Records Management & Dispatch System Gen Fund 560,332 $ 560,332 $ $ 560,332 Parks Division Utility Truck Gen Fund 45,000 45,000Parks Division Van Gen Fund 40,000 40,000Patrol Vehicle Automated License Plate Reader Replacement Gen Fund 25,000 25,000Police Radio/Phone Recording Equipment Gen Fund 60,000 60,000Patrol Vehicles (2) Gen Fund 122,000 122,000Unmarked Police Vehicle Gen Fund 42,500 42,500Traffic Division RIPA Collection Devices Gen Fund 23,000 23,000Passenger Car (EV) Gen Fund 37,000 37,000Patrol Vehicles (3) Gen Fund 187,500 187,500Unmarked Police Vehicles (2) Gen Fund 87,000 87,000Streets Division Bucket Truck Gen Fund 65,000 65,000 TOTAL $ 560,332 $ 560,332 $ - $ - $ 357,500 $ 376,500 $ - $ - $ - 1,294,332 $ Gas Tax
Project # Project Name Funding Source Estimated Appropriated Per Budget Estimated Appropriated Per Actual Canceled / Add /Reduce Council Allocations post Budget 2021/22 Budget 2022/23 Budget 2023/24 Budget 2024/25 Budget 2025/26 Budget Total TS-01001 Annual Street Resurfacing Gas Tax 350,000 $ 350,000 $ 350,000 $ 350,000 $ 350,000 $ 1,750,000 $ TS-01003 Annual Street Striping Gas Tax 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 500,000TS-01004 Annual Street Slurry Seal Gas Tax 800,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 1,800,000TS-01009 Annual City Alley Resurfacing Gas Tax 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 500,000 TOTAL $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 1,350,000 $ 800,000 $ 800,000 $ 800,000 $ 800,000 4,550,000 $ 391
Agenda Item # 7.

In-Lieu Parkland Fund
Project # Project Name Funding Source Estimated Appropriated Per Budget Estimated Appropriated Per Actual Canceled / Add /Reduce Council Allocations post Budget 2021/22 Budget 2022/23 Budget 2023/24 Budget 2024/25 Budget 2025/26 Budget Total CF-01009 Annual Pathway Rehabilitation In L Park - $ - $ 50,000 $ 250,000 $ 250,000 $ 250,000 $ 250,000 $ 1,050,000 $ CF-01017 Annual Park Improvement Project In L Park 334,396 334,396 750,000 650,000 900,000 980,000 1,200,000 4,814,396CF-01019 Veterans Community Plaza Shade Structure In L Park 45,476 45,476 45,476CF-01004 Halsey House rehabilitation In L Park 290,480 290,480 Dog Park Fencing Project In L Park 100,000 100,000
CF-01023 Grant Park Master Plan In L Park 150,000 150,000CF-01024 City-wide Parks and Recreation Master Plan In L Park 300,000 300,000 TOTAL $ 379,872 $ 379,872 $ - $ 390,480 $ 800,000 $ 1,050,000 $ 1,150,000 $ 1,530,000 $ 1,450,000 6,750,352 $ Measure B Fund
Project # Project Name Funding Source Estimated Appropriated Per Budget Estimated Appropriated Per Actual Canceled / Add /Reduce Council Allocations post Budget 2021/22 Budget 2022/23 Budget 2023/24 Budget 2024/25 Budget 2025/26 Budget Total TS-01001 Annual Street Resurfacing Measure B 550,000 $ 550,000 $ 550,000 $ 550,000 $ 550,000 $ 2,750,000 $ TOTAL $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 550,000 $ 550,000 $ 550,000 $ 550,000 $ 550,000 2,750,000 $ OBAG
Project # Project Name Funding Source Estimated Appropriated Per Budget Estimated Appropriated Per Actual Canceled / Add /Reduce Council Allocations post Budget 2021/22 Budget 2022/23 Budget 2023/24 Budget 2024/25 Budget 2025/26 Budget Total TS-01056 Fremont Avenue Pavement Rehabilitation Grant 2,064,864 $ 336,000 $ $ 336,000 TOTAL $ 2,064,864 $ 336,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 336,000 $ 392
Agenda Item # 7.

PEG Fees
Project # Project Name Funding Source Estimated Appropriated Per Budget Estimated Appropriated Per Actual Canceled / Add /Reduce Council Allocations post Budget 2021/22 Budget 2022/23 Budget 2023/24 Budget 2024/25 Budget 2025/26 Budget Total CD-01021 Community Chamber AV Equipment PEG 671,219 $ 100,000 $ 771,219 $ TOTAL PEG $ - $ 671,219 $ - $ - $ 100,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - 771,219 $ Public Art Fund
Project # Project Name Funding Source Estimated Appropriated Per Budget Estimated Appropriated Per Actual Canceled / Add /Reduce Council Allocations post Budget 2021/22 Budget 2022/23 Budget 2023/24 Budget 2024/25 Budget 2025/26 Budget Total CD-01009 Walter Singer Bust Relocation Public Art $ 10,000 $ 10,000 CD-01003 Annual Public Arts Projects Public Art 60,000 50,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 140,000 TOTAL $ - $ - $ 10,000 $ - $ 60,000 $ 50,000 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 150,000 $ REAP Grant
Project # Project Name Funding Source Estimated Appropriated Per Budget Estimated Appropriated Per Actual Canceled / Add /Reduce Council Allocations post Budget 2021/22 Budget 2022/23 Budget 2023/24 Budget 2024/25 Budget 2025/26 Budget Total CD-01023 Housing Element Update Grant 35,000 $ 35,000 $ TOTAL Grant $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 35,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - 35,000 $ Resident Contribution
Project # Project Name Funding Source Estimated Appropriated Per Budget Estimated Appropriated Per Actual Canceled / Add /Reduce Council Allocations post Budget 2021/22 Budget 2022/23 Budget 2023/24 Budget 2024/25 Budget 2025/26 Budget Total TS-01059 Diamond Court Reconstruction
R Cont $ 100,000 100,000 $ $ 100,000
TOTAL $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 100,000 $ 393
Agenda Item # 7.

Road Maint and Acct Act
Project # Project Name Funding Source Estimated Appropriated Per Budget Estimated Appropriated Per Actual Canceled / Add /Reduce Council Allocations post Budget 2021/22 Budget 2022/23 Budget 2023/24 Budget 2024/25 Budget 2025/26 Budget Total TS-01001 Annual Street Resurfacing RMNA 500,000 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ 2,500,000 $ TOTAL $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 2,500,000 $ Sewer Fund
Project # Project Name Funding Source Estimated Appropriated Per Budget Estimated Appropriated Per Actual Canceled / Add /Reduce Council Allocations post Budget 2021/22 Budget 2022/23 Budget 2023/24 Budget 2024/25 Budget 2025/26 Budget Total WW-01001 Annual Sewer System Repair Program Sewer 859,418 $ 859,418 $ 630,000 $ 640,000 $ 650,000 $ 660,000 $ 670,000 $ 4,109,418 $ WW-01002 Annual Structural Reach Replacement Sewer 1,117,369 1,117,369 800,000 800,000 800,000 800,000 800,000 5,117,369WW-01005 Annual CIPP Corrosion Rehabilitation Sewer 473,925 473,925 465,000 480,000 500,000 520,000 535,000 2,973,925WW-01006 Annual Fats, Oils, Grease Program (FOG) Sewer 66,566 66,566 66,000 68,000 70,000 72,000 74,000 416,566WW-01008 Annual GIS Updates Sewer 319,911 319,911 66,000 68,000 70,000 72,000 74,000 669,911WW-01009 Sewer System Management Plan Update Sewer 50,000 50,000 25,000 75,000 150,000WW-01011 Sanitary Sewer Video Inspection Sewer 467,997 467,997 430,000 440,000 1,337,997WW-01012 Adobe Creek Sewer Main Replacement Sewer 692,298 692,298 2,000,000 2,000,000 4,692,298WW-01003 Annual Root Foaming Sewer 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 1,000,000 TOTAL $ 4,047,484 $ 4,047,484 $ - $ - $ 2,682,000 $ 4,256,000 $ 2,730,000 $ 4,324,000 $ 2,428,000 20,467,484 $ Vehicle Registation Fund (VTA 80%)
Project # Project Name Funding Source Estimated Appropriated Per Budget Estimated Appropriated Per Actual Canceled / Add /Reduce Council Allocations post Budget 2021/22 Budget 2022/23 Budget 2023/24 Budget 2024/25 Budget 2025/26 Budget Total TS-01007 Annual Neighborhood Traffic Management VRF $ 50,000 $ 50,000 TS-01022 Annual Collector Street Traffic Calming VRF 100,000 100,000TS-01052 Annual Bicycle/Pedestrian Access Improvements VRF 100,000 100,000TS-01060 SR2S Improvement Projects VRF 300,000 300,000 TOTAL $ - $ - $ 550,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 550,000 $ 394
Agenda Item # 7.

Prop 1B
Project # Project Name Funding Source Estimated Appropriated Per Budget Estimated Appropriated Per Actual Canceled / Add /Reduce Council Allocations post Budget 2021/22 Budget 2022/23 Budget 2023/24 Budget 2024/25 Budget 2025/26 Budget Total TS-01058 Intersection Access Barrier Removal Prop 1 B $ 44,542 $ 44,542 TOTAL $ - $ - $ 44,542 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 44,542 $
Traffic Congestion Relief
Project # Project Name Funding Source Estimated Appropriated Per Budget Estimated Appropriated Per Actual Canceled / Add /Reduce Council Allocations post Budget 2021/22 Budget 2022/23 Budget 2023/24 Budget 2024/25 Budget 2025/26 Budget Total TS-01058 Intersection Access Barrier Removal TCR $ 106,129 $ 106,129 $ -
TOTAL $ - $ - $ 106,129 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 106,129 $ TDA Article III
Project # Project Name Funding Source Estimated Appropriated Per Budget Estimated Appropriated Per Actual Canceled / Add /Reduce Council Allocations post Budget 2021/22 Budget 2022/23 Budget 2023/24 Budget 2024/25 Budget 2025/26 Budget Total TS-01052 Annual Bicycle/Pedestrian Access Improvements Grant 50,000 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 $ 250,000 $ TOTAL $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 50,000 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 250,000 $ Technology Fund
Project # Project Name Funding Source Estimated Appropriated Per Budget Estimated Appropriated Per Actual Canceled / Add /Reduce Council Allocations post Budget 2021/22 Budget 2022/23 Budget 2023/24 Budget 2024/25 Budget 2025/26 Budget Total CD-01008/CIT Initiatives Gen Fund 214,160 $ 214,160 $ 180,000 $ 350,000 $ 744,160 $ CF-01022 City Hall and Maintenance Services Building Security Systems Gen Fund 70,000 70,000 TOTAL $ 214,160 $ 214,160 $ - $ - $ 250,000 $ 350,000 $ - $ - $ - 814,160 $ 395
Agenda Item # 7.

Traffic Impact Fees
Project # Project Name Funding Source Estimated Appropriated Per Budget Estimated Appropriated Per Actual Canceled / Add /Reduce Council Allocations post Budget 2021/22 Budget 2022/23 Budget 2023/24 Budget 2024/25 Budget 2025/26 Budget Total TS-01007 Annual Neighborhood Traffic Management TIF Fund 73,288 $ 23,288 $ $ (50,000) $ 50,000 50,000 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 $ 223,288 $ TS-01013 Annual Transportation Enhancements TIF Fund 0
TS-01022 Annual Collector Street Traffic Calming TIF Fund 24,700 24,700 (100,000) 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 424,700 TS-01052 Annual Bicycle/Pedestrian Access Improvements TIF Fund (100,000) 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 400,000TS-01060 SR2S Improvement Projects TIF Fund (300,000) 300,000 200,000 200,000TS-01058 Intersection Access Barrier Removal TIF Fund 380,895 380,895 TOTAL $ 97,988 $ 47,988 (169,105) $ - $ 550,000 $ 450,000 $ 250,000 $ 250,000 $ 250,000 1,628,883 $ GRAND TOTAL $ 14,151,836 $ 13,701,927 $ (472,145) $ 390,480 $ 12,834,500 $ 14,482,500 $ 12,390,000 $ 11,994,000 $ 9,963,000 $ 75,284,262 396
Agenda Item # 7.

Fund Name
Fund Bal
6/21
FY 22
Revenue
Projection
Transfers
IN/ (Out)
Prior
Approp.

FY 22
Operating
Expenses
FY 22 CIP
Expenses
Ending Fund
Balances
Internal Service Funds
Equipment Replacement 389,459 900,000 560,332 357,500 371,627 Technology Replacement 1,458,582 214,160 250,000 994,422 PERS & OPEB Stabilization 0 6,792,614 6,500,000 292,614 Dental/ Vision (94,747) 269,595 100,000 269,959 4,889
Unemployment 546,698 (450,000) 15,000 81,698
Workers Compensation 1,568,308 291,003 576,000 791,003 1,644,308 General Liability 282,864 500,000 158,000 858,000 82,864 Sub Total 2,692,582 1,060,598 9,535,196 774,492 8,433,962 607,500 3,472,422 Special Revenue Funds
Road Maint and Acct Act 273,040 609,599 500,000 382,639 CDBG (531,566) 531,566 0
Grants ARPA 0
Downtown Parking 889,174 40,000 (40,000) 889,174
Estate Donations 18,138 18,138
Gas Tax 2,020,468 800,054 1,350,000 1,470,522
Prop 1B Road Maint. 44,542 (44,542) 0
Measure B 984,451 550,000 550,000 984,451
Sup. Law Enforcement 146,007 (100,000) 46,007
TDA Article III 0 50,000 50,000 0
Traffic Impact Fees 21,642 411,693 (380,895) 47,988 4,452 Vehicle Registration (VTA) 529,401 579,000 550,000 558,401 Traffic Congestion Relief 106,129 (106,129) 0
OBAG 0 336,000 336,000 0
In‐Lieu Parkland 5,780,278 5,319,000 (789,490) 379,872 1,190,480 8,739,436 PEG Fees 740,037 105,000 (70,000) 671,219 100,000 3,818 Public Art 166,128 60,000 70,000 36,128
REAP Grant 0 35,000 35,000 0
Vehicle Impound 20,000 (20,000) 0
Resident Contribution 0 100,000 100,000
Sub Total 11,187,869 8,955,346 (1,019,490) 1,435,078 60,000 4,395,480 13,233,167 Enterprise Funds
Sewer 9,928,022 8,420,000 (254,612) 4,047,484 5,233,270 2,682,000 6,130,656 Solid Waste 5,606,102 888,913 (38,002) 794,941 5,662,072 Storm Drain (23,939) 23,939
Sub Total 15,510,185 9,308,913 (268,675) 4,047,484 6,028,211 2,682,000 11,792,728 Debt Service
General Debt Service 364,179 789,490 0 789,490 0 364,179 Sub Total 364,179 0 789,490 0 789,490 0 364,179
Grand Total 29,754,815 19,324,857 9,036,521 6,257,054 15,311,663 7,684,980 28,862,496 Other Funds Projected Revenue, Expenses & Fund Balances ATTACHMENT 2
General Fund Summary
Revenues FY 21 Actual FY 22 Original Budget FY 22 Year To Date Actuals % Of Original Budget FY 22 Revised Budget Revised Budget Change FY 22 Mid Year Budget Mid Year Budget Change Business License Tax 539,589 479,400 491,376 102.5% 479,400 ‐ 520,000 40,600 Community Development Fees 3,846,830 3,791,300 2,711,554 71.5% 3,791,300 ‐ 3,791,300 ‐ Documentary Transfer Tax 931,856 580,000 640,451 110.4% 580,000 ‐ 730,000 150,000 Franchise Fees 2,214,947 2,317,500 1,097,712 47.4% 2,317,500 ‐ 2,317,500 ‐ Motor Vehicle Tax 22,646 ‐ 35,247 0.0% ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Other Revenue 100,000 ‐ ‐ 0.0% ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Property Tax 28,464,194 28,713,170 19,433,104 67.7% 28,713,170 ‐ 30,309,225 1,596,055 Sales Tax 2,996,325 3,053,000 1,381,950 45.3% 3,053,000 ‐ 3,451,879 398,879 Transient Occupancy Tax 662,132 1,000,000 641,868 64.2% 1,000,000 ‐ 1,000,000 ‐ Utility Users Tax 2,917,251 2,729,500 1,538,684 56.4% 2,729,500 ‐ 2,729,500 ‐ Administrative Fees* 918,500 918,500 918,500 100.0% 918,500 ‐ (918,500) Construction Tax 150,170 110,000 87,423 79.5% 110,000 ‐ 110,000 ‐ Interest Income 136,671 335,000 3,201 1.0% 335,000 ‐ 335,000 ‐Miscellaneous Revenue 4,145,425 99,000 41,861 42.3% 99,000 ‐ 99,000 ‐ One Time Revenue ‐ 3,598,964 ‐ 0.0% 3,598,964 ‐ 3,598,964 ‐Police Fees 182,482 253,200 173,040 68.3% 253,200 ‐ 253,200 ‐ Recreation 271,410 568,000 618,980 109.0% 568,000 ‐ 698,000 130,000 Rental Income 8,228 24,000 ‐ 0.0% 24,000 ‐ 24,000 ‐ Transfer In 146,176 230,000 ‐ 0.0% 230,000 ‐ 230,000 ‐ Grand Total 48,654,832 48,800,534 29,814,949 61.1% 48,800,534 0.0% 50,197,568 1,397,034 * Administrative fees revenue moved to offset expenses in non‐departmental (under Finance) ATTACHMENT 3
398
Agenda Item # 7.

General Fund Summary
Expenditure FY 21 Actual FY 22 Original Budget FY 22 Year To Date Actuals % Of Original Budget FY 22 Revised Budget Revised Budget Change FY 22 Mid Year Budget Mid Year Budget Change Executive 5,606,507 6,593,329 4,173,343 63.3% 6,823,329 230,000 6,823,329 ‐ Legislative 332,040 368,572 182,750 49.6% 473,572 105,000 473,572 ‐ Finance* 1,784,465 2,049,301 878,108 39.1% 2,049,301 ‐ 1,130,801 (918,500) Community Dev 3,557,649 4,278,005 2,007,345 46.9% 4,278,005 ‐ 4,278,005 ‐ Engineering 3,165,378 3,847,984 1,789,644 46.5% 3,847,984 ‐ 3,847,984 ‐ Maintenance 5,250,899 5,821,229 3,171,719 54.5% 5,972,959 151,730 6,034,458 61,499 Public Safety 19,389,800 21,662,657 10,859,581 50.1% 21,682,657 20,000 21,682,657 ‐ Recreation 1,782,020 2,471,738 1,210,299 49.0% 2,471,738 ‐ 2,471,738 ‐General Fund Operating Reserve 1,000,000 1,000,000 City Wide Salary Savings (250,000) (250,000)
Transfers out 8,693,434 1,707,719 6,500,000 385.2% 7,700,989 5,993,270 9,266,521 1,565,532 Grand Total 49,562,193 48,800,534 30,772,787 63.1% 55,300,534 6,500,000 56,759,065 1,458,531 * Administrative fees revenue moved to offset expenses in non‐departmental (under Finance) 399
Agenda Item # 7.

Details Of Transfers Out
Transfer Detail FY 22 Original Budget FY 22 Year To Date Actuals FY 22 Revised Budget Revised Budget Change FY 22 Mid Year Budget Mid Year Budget Change Transfer to Debt Service COP 2004 167,400 ‐ 167,400 (167,400) Transfer to Debt Service Community Center 622,090 ‐ 622,090 (622,090) Transfer to ARPA Fund 918,229 61,499 (856,730) (61,499) Transfer for CAPERS UAL 5,000,000 5,000,000 5,000,000 ‐ 5,000,000 Transfer for OPEB 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 ‐ 1,500,000 Transfer to Technology Fund 350,000 350,000 1,458,582 1,108,582 Transfer to Dental Fund 100,000 100,000
Transfer to Workers Compensation Fund 126,000 126,000
Transfer to General Liability Fund 158,000 158,000
Transfer to Equipment Replacement fund 900,000 900,000
Transfer to Storm Drain Fund 23,939 23,939
Totals 1,707,719 6,500,000 7,700,989 5,993,270 9,266,521 1,565,532 400
Agenda Item # 7.

From: Jim Wing
To: Public Comment
Subject: Public Comment Agenda Item 07 Meeting Date 04/12/2022 Date: Wednesday, April 6, 2022 9:09:40 AM
Council Mayor Enander and Distinguished Council Members, Council 4/12/2022 Meeting Agenda Item 7, Mid-Year Budget Review Please remove CD-01017 First Street Streetscape Design - Phase 2 from budget. This very old CIP project that is no longer needed because character of First Street from Main to San Antonio /Cuesta has changed from food service /retail / personal care / animal care to high density residential housing. Main purpose of original CIP was enhancing pedestrian / cyclists experience to encourage access to food service, retail / personal care and animal care. Now half are gone [32 to 16 with 11 in Draeger’s block]! Staff has already requested design bids and that effort should be stopped to save precious engineering staff time.

Due to encouragement of Council and Staff, First Street from Main to San Antonio has seen many positive changes since CIP projected was approved with more to come:
475 First Office building developer added pedestrian enhanced streetscape at San Antonio entrance to First Street.

Los Altos hardware relocated main entrance to allow wider sidewalks.

All west side high density housing developments [4] are providing 50% landscaping in their building 10 ft. setback from street property line.

Draeger’s has Council approved plans for streetscape and removal of easement for parking trucks on First Street in their Phase 2 store remodel.

All electrical and internet utilities are now underground.

New housing developers providing sidewalk night lighting at resident’s entrance and parking driveway.

Pedestrian crossing bulb-outs provided by housing developers and Draeger’s.

Based on what was learned during design and construction of Phase 1 First Street Streetscape Main to Edith, a successful Phase 2 Streetscape design has many difficult challenges:

Los Altos right-away is very narrow and traffic travel lanes must accommodate very large trucks for access to Safeway and Draeger’s. Lyell to San Antonio section must allow for VTA Bus.

Eighteen driveway cuts are safety hazards for pedestrians and cyclist. It is not a pleasant experience to walk, always watching for cars crossing sidewalk.

What little retail that is left, needs street parking and only way to plant trees is remove street parking.

High density housing needs delivery van parking space that is not blocking travel lanes.

Water and sewer lines need replacement due to age and capacity increase.

Several man-months of staff time required to handle issues with property owners, public outreach, and Commission / Council support time during design approval.

There may be “surprises” like underground Southern Pacific Railroad abandon fuel tanks under the street that require hazardous removal.

Thank you for your consideration!
Jim Wing, Milverton Road, Los Altos
401
Agenda Item # 7.
402
Agenda Item # 7.

From: Andrea Chelemengos
To: Public Comment
Date: Monday, April 11, 2022 1:52:27 PM
From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2022 1:28 PM
To: Anita Enander <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Jonathan Weinberg <[email protected]>; Gabriel Engeland <[email protected]>
Subject: Request for feasibility study funding
Honorables Mayor and Council Members
I write to support the funding request by the Theatre Task Force to contribute to the theatre feasibility study to determine the scale and feasibility of a new performance theatre to replace the Bus Barn.

A new theatre would be among the most important recreational facilities in the city.

Rather than review the benefits of a theatre to the cultural life of the community as well as the educational value to both children and adults, which I assume you all know, I want to make the case for city financing.

For over 40 years the organization now known as Los Altos Stage Company (LASC), formerly the Bus Barn, and Los Altos Community Theatre (L'ACT), has provided successful live theatre. Operating from an unlikely and unsuitable metal building, it has provided professional level theatre using Bay Area actors. Additionally, LASC now operates the Youth Theatre for the city's recreation department. It has done this while
paying its share of building costs with no cash subsidy unlike other organizations which provide city-like services for the city. Moreover, these contributions have been driven primarily by volunteer or near volunteer labor. The idea for the conversion of an empty school bus bard was driven by a volunteer who managed the original theatre as a volunteer or almost two decades.

If we ignore the substantial benefits of a theatre and just recognize it as a beacon for volunteering, that alone would justify city support.

Finally, the funding requested is a minor share of that required for the study. Funds from
private donors is providing the bulk of the funds. Moreover, the request is not competing
for the operating budget as Park-In-Lieu funds are available and appropriate for this use.

The product, the shows, are amazing. Some of the scenes that have provided to the understanding of slices of community lives have remain in my memory for years.

These
experiences surpass the impact of professional theatre in large, impersonal theatres. 403
Agenda Item # 7.

Moreover, LACT provides these experiences at affordable prices well below the three digits prices of Broadway-type theaters.

Your support will be greatly appreciated.

Roy Lave
404
Agenda Item # 7.

Reviewed By:

City Manager City Attorney
GE
Finance Director
JH JF

AGENDA REPORT SUMMARY
Meeting Date: April 12, 2022
Subject City Council 2022 Strategic Priorities: Review the City’s 5-Year Strategic Goals and provide modifications as needed
Prepared by: Jon Maginot, Assistant City Manager
Approved by: Gabriel Engeland, City Manager
Attachment(s):

1. Agenda Report dated February 23, 2021: City Council 2021 Strategic Priorities Initiated by:

City Council
Previous Council Consideration:

February 23, 2021
Fiscal Impact:

Unknown at this time
Environmental Review:

Not applicable
Policy Question(s) for Council Consideration:
 Does the Council wish to revise its 5-year strategic goals? Summary:
 On February 23, 2021, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2021-09 setting the City Council 5-Year Strategic Goals for 2021
 The City Council has adopted eight goal areas: Housing, Land Use, Fiscal Sustainability, Community Safety, Asset Management, Environmental Sustainability, Community Engagement, Transitioning Through Change
Staff Recommendation:

Review the City’s 5-Year Strategic Goals and provide modifications as needed 405
Agenda Item # 8.

Subject: City Council 2022 Strategic Priorities
April 12, 2022 Page 2
Purpose
To review the City’s 5-Year Strategic Goals
Background
As part of the City Council’s 2021 annual retreat, the City Council discussed what was of strategic importance to the City in 2021 and moving forward. At that time, the Council agreed that the planning horizon was three to five years. Council further discussed three-to-five-year goals for 2021 and potential one-to-two-year objectives for the goals.

On February 23, 2021, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2021-09 setting the City Council 5-Year Strategic Goals for 2021. The five-year priorities were broken into eight goals, each with the intent of fulfilling the City’s Mission to “foster and maintain the City of Los Altos as a great place to live and to raise a family.”
Discussion/Analysis
The eight goals adopted by City Council in 2021 are:

1. Housing: The City of Los Altos will support the creation of housing that is safe, diverse, and affordable for all income levels to meet the needs of the Community and will advocate for State legislation and funding that support this goal.

2. Land Use: The City of Los Altos will implement policies that support a land use mix and density that reflect the values of the Community, which includes seeking to increase and protect its green space, while ensuring compliance with any applicable laws and regulations.

3. Fiscal Sustainability: The City of Los Altos will continue to be financial stewards of its resources and assets in order to provide fiscally sustainable government services that address the needs of the Community. This goal will be achieved by practicing sound, responsible, and transparent financial management principles and practices that are adaptable and flexible to meet the City’s financial needs in an ever-changing world.

4. Community Safety: The City of Los Altos will continue to provide the high-quality public safety services that the Community values. This will be achieved by continuing to implement plans and strategies for improving public safety, transportation safety and emergency preparedness services in a responsive, equitable, and professional manner.

5. Asset Management: The City of Los Altos will set clear expectations and allocate the necessary funding to support the maintenance and improvement of City facilities and infrastructure that are necessary to preserve the quality of services and well-being of residents.
406
Agenda Item # 8.

Subject: City Council 2022 Strategic Priorities
April 12, 2022 Page 3

6. Environmental Sustainability: The City of Los Altos will be a leader on environmental sustainability through education, and adopting and embracing policies, initiatives, and practices that advance this effort.

7. Community Engagement: The City of Los Altos will continue to improve its community engagement process to ensure residents are heard, informed, and engaged. Completion of this priority will ensure that community engagement remains a foundation of how the City meets its responsibilities to the community on an on-going basis.

8. Transitioning Through Change: The City Council will proactively address the impacts on the community from COVID-19 and other consequential changes in 2020 and 2021 to ensure Los Altos successfully navigates these transitions to be an even stronger, better community.

Many of these goals are engrained in the day-to-day activities of the City. Staff embraces these values in providing services to the community.

As the eight stated goals were intended to be five-year priorities, Council is asked to confirm whether these statements continue to be priorities and should be the focus of Council and the staff.

Recommendation
The staff recommends Council review the 5-Year Strategic Goals and update as necessary. 407
Agenda Item # 8.

AGENDA REPORT SUMMARY

DISCUSSION ITEM
Agenda Item #9
Reviewed By:

City Manager City Attorney Finance Director

BK JH JM
Meeting Date: February 23, 2021
Subject: City Council 2021 Strategic Priorities
Prepared by: Brad Kilger, Interim City Manager
Prepared by: Jon Maginot, Deputy City Manager
Attachment(s):

1. Draft Resolution No. 2021-09

2. City Council Draft 5-year Strategic Goals for 2021 and FY 2021-23 Objectives

3. January 30, 2021 retreat meeting matrix

4. Community survey and public comments – These items can be found online at:
https://www.losaltosca.gov/citycouncil/page/city-council-retreat.

Initiated by:

City Council
Previous Council Consideration:

City Council Retreat, January 30, 2021
Fiscal Impact:

Unknown at this time
Environmental Review:

Not Applicable
Policy Question(s) for Council Consideration:
• Do the attached City Council Goal statements accurately reflect the Council’s goals in 2021 for the next three to five years?
Summary:
• Annually the Los Altos City Council adopts a list of Strategic Priorities to guide the Council’s budget decisions and allocation of City resources, including staffing • The City Council met in a retreat format on January 30, 2021 to discuss their goals and objectives for the next strategic planning period (three to five years) • At the conclusion of the retreat, the City Council agreed to a phased approval process for the Strategic Priorities
• After listening to the Council’s discussion at the retreat and reviewing the meeting notes, staff used their best professional judgement in developing a list of draft goals for Council consideration
408
Agenda Item # 8.

Subject: City Council 2021 Strategic Goals
February 23, 2021 Page 2
Staff Recommendation:

The City Council should review the attached draft Goals, amend as necessary and adopt Resolution No. 2021-09 setting the City Council 5-year Strategic Goals for 2021. 409
Agenda Item # 8.

Subject: City Council 2021 Strategic Goals
February 23, 2021 Page 3
Purpose
The City Council is asked to adopt its 5-year Strategic Goals for 2021.

Background/Discussion
The City Council conducted their annual strategic goal setting retreat on Saturday January 30, 2021.

This process used the Council’s 2020 strategic goals and objectives as its starting point for assessing what is of strategic importance in 2021 and moving forward. The planning time horizon agreed to by the City Council was 3 to 5 years.

At the retreat, the Council first discussed their three-to-five-year strategic goals for 2021, and then discussed potential one-to-two-year objectives for those goals. The discussion by the Council at the retreat involved a visioning process and building consensus around shared interests, not taking formal votes. Therefore, as represented in the attached meeting matrix, the Council’s discussion resulted in a general scheme for staff to follow in developing the draft goals and objectives for the Council to review. It is therefore important to understand that staff did their best to listen to and interpret the sense of the Council in drafting the new goals and objectives. It is expected that the Council will thoroughly review the draft language and adopt final goals and objectives that reflect their priorities for Los Altos.

At the retreat, the City Council also agreed to a phased approach to adopting the new Strategic Priorities. The process involves the following: 1) returning to Council for the review and adoption of the 3 to 5-year goals; 2) following adoption of the goals, staff will finalize the FY 2021-22 Objectives and return to Council for review, approval and initial prioritization of those; 3) using the adopted Goals and Objectives, and in conjunction with development of the bi-annual budget, staff will prepare a two-year Implementation Plan that will incorporate estimated costs, staffing requirements, and other legal, regulatory and/or procedural factors effecting implementation of the objectives and return to Council for final prioritization; and 4) staff will then develop individual Workplans for each objective.

As stated above, please note that the draft objectives listed under each goal are for reference purposes only, not in-depth discussion. Staff will return at a subsequent Council meeting for review and adoption by the Council. Also, it is staff’s intent to return to Council quarterly with status reports on the progress being made on the FY 2021-23 Strategic Priorities Implementation Plan, unless otherwise directed by Council.

Recommendation
Staff recommends the City Council review, amend, and adopt the attached draft City Council 5-year Strategic Goals for 2021.
410
Agenda Item # 8.

ATTACHMENT 1
Resolution No. 2021-09 Page 1
ATTACHMENT 1
RESOLUTION NO. 2021-09

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LOS ALTOS SETTING THE CITY COUNCIL 5-YEAR STRATEGIC GOALS FOR 2021 WHEREAS, the Mission of the City of Los Altos is to foster and maintain the City of Los Altos as a great place to live and to raise a family; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Los Altos is committed to providing essential services to the community; and
WHEREAS, the City Council annually sets goals to help maintain Los Altos as the great place it is.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Los Altos hereby adopts the following as its 5-year Strategic Goals for 2021:

ATTACHMENT 1
Resolution No. 2021-09 Page 2
ATTACHMENT 1

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of a Resolution passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Los Altos at a meeting thereof on the ___ day of ____, 2021 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
___________________________
Neysa Fligor, MAYOR
Attest:
_____________________________
Andrea Chelemengos, MMC, CITY CLERK
412
Agenda Item # 8.

ATTACHMENT 2

Page 1 ends

Los Altos City CouncilApril 12, 2022

Los Altos City Council
April 12, 2022