CITY COUNCIL MEETING
AGENDA
7:00 PM - Tuesday, April 12, 2022
via Teleconference
AMENDED 04.07.2022
Please Note: Per California Executive Order N-29-20, the City Council will meet via Telephone/Video Conference Only.
Telephone: 1-650-242-4929Meeting ID:146 765 8410
https://webinar.ringcentral.com/j/1467658410
TO PARTICIPATE VIA VIDEO: Follow the link above. Members of the public will need to have a working microphone on their device and must have the latest version of Ringcentral installed (available at http://www.ringcentral.com/download.html). To request to speak, please use the “Raise hand” feature located at the bottom of the screen.
TO PARTICPATE VIA TELEPHONE: Members of the public may also participate via telephone by calling the number listed above. To request to speak, press *9 on your telephone.
TO SUBMIT WRITTEN COMMENTS: Prior to the meeting, comments on matters listed on the agenda may be emailed to [email protected]. Emails sent to this email address are sent to/received immediately by the City Council. Please include a subject line in the following format:
PUBLIC COMMENT AGENDA ITEM ## - MEETING DATE
Correspondence submitted in hard copy/paper must be received by 2:00 PM on the day of the meeting to ensure distribution prior to the meeting. Correspondence received prior to the meeting will be included in the public record. Please follow this link for more information on submitting written comments.
Public testimony will be taken at the direction of the Mayor, and members of the public may only comment during times allotted for public comments.
AGENDA
CALL MEETING TO ORDER
ESTABLISH QUORUM
PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG
REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION
CHANGES TO THE ORDER OF THE AGENDA
1 4/12/2022 CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA Page 2 of 3
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
Members of the audience may bring to the Council's attention any item that is not on the agenda. Speakers are generally given two or three minutes, at the discretion of the Mayor. Please be advised that, by law, the City Council is unable to discuss or take action on issues presented during the Public Comment Period. According to State Law (also known as “The Brown Act”) items must first be noted on the agenda before any discussion or action.
CONSENT CALENDAR
These items will be considered by one motion unless any member of the Council or audience wishes to remove an item for discussion. Any item removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion will be handled at the discretion of the Mayor.
1. Minutes: Aprove Minutes of the March 22, 2022 Regular Meeting (A. Chelemengos)
2. Public Art Donation: Accept the donation of sculpture Alegria and add it to the City’s permanent public art collection. (J. Maginot)
3. Professional Services Agreement: Adopt Resolution authorizing City Manager to execute professional services agreement for sewer rate structure analysis with NBS Government Finance Group, dba NBS; find that the approval of the agreement is exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption), 15273 (Rates, Tolls, Fares, and Charges), and 15306 (Information Collection).(A. Fairman)
4. Extension of Local Emergency: Adopt a Resolution extending the declaration of a local emergency due to the COVID-19 pandemic. (J. Maginot)
5. Rental Fee Waiver Request: Approve the request from Ye Olde Towne Band and the Serenaders Band for an annual waiver of rental fees at Garden House in the amount of $5,400.(M. Price)
PUBLIC HEARINGS
6. Wireless Telecommunications Facilities: Hold Public Hearings and adopt Resolution of the City Council of the City of Los Altos adopting the Negative Declaration Of Environmental Impact prepared in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code § 21000 et seq.) and the CEQA Guidelines (14 California Code of Regulations, Title 14 Chapter 3, Section 15000 et seq.) on the possible environmental consequences of the adoption of the ordinance and design guidelines; and Introduce, as read by title only, and waive further readings of an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Los Altos for Wireless Telecommunications Facilities Locational Standards with the modifications reflected in the annotated version of the Ordinance proposed to the Planning Commission; and
Adopt Resolution of the City Council of the City of Los Altos adopting Telecommunications Facilities Design Guidelines with the modifications reflected in the annotated version of the Design Guidelines proposed to the Planning Commission
DISCUSSION ITEMS
2 4/12/2022 CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA Page 3 of 3
7. Mid Year Budget Update : Adopt the Mid-Year 2022 Budget Update and amendments as presented. (J. Furtado)
8. City Council 2022 Strategic Goals and Priorities: Review the City’s 5-Year Strategic Goals and provide modifications as needed. (J. Maginot)
9. Council Legislative Subcommittee Update And Potential Council Action: Receive update from the City Council Legislative Subcommittee; discuss pending legislation and consider suggestions for additional bills to track. (Mayor Enander; Council Member Lee Eng)
INFORMATIONAL ITEMS ONLY
A. Tentative Council Calendar
COUNCIL/STAFF REPORTS AND DIRECTIONS ON FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
ADJOURNMENT
(Council Norms: It will be the custom to have a recess at approximately 9:00 p.m. Prior to the recess, the Mayor shall announce whether any items will be carried over to the next meeting. The established hour after which no new items will be started is 11:00 p.m. Remaining items, however, may be considered by consensus of the Council.)
SPECIAL NOTICES TO THE PUBLIC
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, the City of Los Altos will make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting. If you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk 72 hours prior to the meeting at (650) 947-2610.
Agendas Staff Reports and some associated documents for City Council items may be viewed on the Internet at http://www.losaltosca.gov/citycouncil/online/index.html.
All public records relating to an open session item on this agenda, which are not exempt from disclosure pursuant to the California Public Records Act, and that are distributed to a majority of the legislative body, will be available for public inspection at the Office of the City Clerk’s Office, City of Los Altos, located at One North San Antonio Road, Los Altos, California at the same time that the public records are distributed or made available to the legislative body.
If you wish to provide written materials, please provide the City Clerk with 10 copies of any document that you would like to submit to the City Council for the public record. 3 CITY COUNCIL MEETING
MINUTES
7:00 PM - Tuesday, March 22, 2022
via Teleconference
AMENDED
CALL MEETING TO ORDER
At 7:28p.m., Mayor Enander called the meeting to order.
ESTABLISH QUORUM
PRESENT: Council Members Fligor, Lee Eng, Weinberg, Vice Mayor Meadows, and Mayor Enander
ABSENT: None
PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG
Sia Gupta, Girl Scout Troop 60045 led the Pledge of Allegiance.
REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION
Conference with Legal Counsel: Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(e)(3)- 1 case Allegations of harassment, discrimination, and retaliation against Cities Association of Santa Clara County.
Mayor Enander stated that a Closed Session had been held earlier in the evening and reported that there was no action taken and nothing to report.
SPECIAL ITEM
A. Commission Appointments: Consider Commission applications and make appointments as appropriate
Mayor Enander provided background information on the interview and selection process. Several Council Members commented. The Council Members were provided preprinted ballots and asked to complete the ballots and email them to the Assistant City Manager.
While the ballots were tallied the meeting proceeded.
CHANGES TO THE ORDER OF THE AGENDA
None
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
4 Agenda Item # 1.
3/22/2022 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES Page 2 of 6
Teresa Morris, Jeanine Valadez, and Ning provided public comment.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Council Member Fligor requested that Item # 3 Housing Element Annual Progress Report be removed from the Consent Calendar.
1. Minutes: Approve Minutes of the March 8, 2022, City Council Meeting
2. Design Contract Amendment:-Annual Storm Drain Improvements, Milverton Road, Project CD-01012: Adopt Resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute an amendment on behalf of the City with Schaaf & Wheeler Consulting Civil Engineers in the amount of $13,665 to provide additional consulting services for design validation for the Annual Storm Drain Improvements, Milverton Road Drywells Project and up to 10% contingency funds of the total design cost in the amount of $10,245 for additional construction support, if needed.
There was no public comment on the Consent Calendar Items #1 and #2. Upon motion of Council Member Weinberg, Seconded by Vice Mayor Meadows, Consent Calendar Items #1 and #2 were approved 5-0 with the following roll call vote:
AYES: Council Members Fligor, Lee Eng, Weinberg, Vice Mayor Meadows, and Mayor Enander
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
3. Housing Element Annual Progress Report: Receive Housing Element Annual Progress Report For Calendar Year 2021 and adopt Resolution of the City Council of the City of Los Altos accepting the Housing Element Annual Progress Report for Calendar Year 2021 and authorizing staff to submit the report to the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research and The California Department of Housing and Community Development.
Interim Planning Services Manager Golden provided information and answered questions from the Council.
The Mayor opened the floor for public comment. Anne Paulson commented Following discussion, Council Member Lee Eng moved that the Council receive the Housing Element Annual Progress Report For Calendar Year 2021 and adopt the resolution of the City Council of the City of Los Altos accepting the Housing Element Annual Progress Report for Calendar Year 2021 and authorizing staff to submit the report to the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research and the California Department of Housing and Community Development with the addition of language in the Resolution that acknowledges that prior year data has yet to be corrected. The motion was seconded by Mayor Enander and the motion passed 5-0 with the following roll call vote:
AYES: Council Members Fligor, Lee Eng, Weinberg, Vice Mayor Meadows, and Mayor Enander
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
5 Agenda Item # 1.
3/22/2022 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES Page 3 of 6
PUBLIC HEARINGS – None
SPECIAL ITEM (continued from earlier in the meeting)
Assistant City Manager Maginot announced that the Commission appointment ballots had been tallied and the following appointments had been made:
Parks And Recreation Commission: 1 partial term expiring in March 2025 • Scott Jacob Pietka
Complete Streets Commission: 3 full terms expiring March, 2026 • Stacy Banerjee
• Tom Gschneidner
• Nadim Maluf
Public Arts Commission: 1 partial term expiring September 2025 • Dana Tasic
Environmental Commission: 4 Full terms expiring in March 2026 • Shiao-ping Lu
• Donald Weiden
• Carl van Reis
• Tom Hecht
DISCUSSION ITEMS
4. Story Pole Exemption Request PPR21-006: -330 Distel Circle - EAH Housing - The City Council will consider a request for an exemption from the City’s Story Pole policy for a for a 5-story, 64 feet tall, 90-unit, 100% affordable development proposal at 330 Distel Circle and if approved, adopt resolution granting an exception from the City’s story pole policy and making findings of CEQA exemption pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15303 and/or 15061(b)(3) The applicant has submitted a pre-application for the proposed project.
Planner Hayagreev introduced Welton Jordan and Lily Ciammaichella of EAH Housing who provided an overview of the project and the request for the exemption as well as answered questions from the Council.
The following members for the public provided comments: Teresa Morris, Rick Gonsalves, Eric Steinle, Freddie Park Wheeler, Roberta Phillips, Debbie, Jon Baer, Daniel Hulse, Joe Beninato, and Anne Paulson.
Council discussion commenced. Council Member Lee Eng and Mayor Enander expressed interest in attachments to the roof of the existing building to depict the proposed project height and concern for the view from the residential properties to the rear of the proposed building.
Upon motion of Council Member Fligor, seconded by Vice Mayor Meadows, the Council adopted the resolution granting an exception from the City’s story pole policy and making findings of CEQA exemption pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15303 and/or 15061(b)(3) and directed staff to work with the applicant to create alternatives that show different angles of the building including dimensions at pedestrian eye level renderings, particularly to include a rendering from the residential neighborhood 6 Agenda Item # 1.
3/22/2022 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES Page 4 of 6
behind the proposed parcel to be showcased on the on-site billboard for noticing. The motion passed 3-2 with the following roll call vote:
AYES:Council Members Fligor, Weinberg, and Vice Mayor Meadows NOES: Council Member Lee Eng and Mayor Enander
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
At 9:19 p.m., Mayor Enander called for a brief recess. At 9:30 p.m. the meeting was reconvened. The Mayor announced that Agenda Item #8.Council Legislative Subcommittee Update And Potential Council Action would be deferred.
5. El Camino Real Bike Lanes: Consider and Adopt Resolution supporting Class IIB - Buffered Bicycle Lane Installation on El Camino Real – City Limits between Adobe Creek and ~500-FT South of Rengstorff Avenue as part of Caltrans Street Resurfacing Improvements scheduled for Summer 2023; Approve Removal of Street Parking to Accommodate this Improvement. Lane restriping along El Camino Real for bicycle traffic is exempt from review under CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Existing Facilities) in that it entails minor alterations to existing public facilities involving negligible or no expansion of existing or former uses, it would not create additional automobile lanes, and none of the circumstances described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 would apply.
Engineering Services Director Sandoval introduced Transportation Engineer Lee who provided an overview of the project and answered questions from the Council.
The following members of the public commented: Leia Mehlman, Sharlene Liu, Bryan Johnson, Susan B. Teresa Morris, Chris Hoeber, Lada Adamic, Eric Stienle, Tim Oey, Gary Hedden, Terry Barton, Roberta Phillips, Jon Baer, Jim Fenton, Kevin Ma, Ning, Daniel Hulse, Anne Paulson, Annie Franco, Ari Feinsmith, Jeanine Valdez, Salim, Don W., Joe Beninato, Emily Ramos, Bill Sheppard, Delia Kreitter and Sandhya Laddha.
Following Council discussion, Council Member Weinberg moved to adopt the Resolution supporting Class IIB - Buffered Bicycle Lane Installation on El Camino Real – City Limits between Adobe Creek and ~500-FT South of Rengstorff Avenue as part of Caltrans Street Resurfacing Improvements scheduled for Summer 2023; Approve Removal of Street Parking to Accommodate this Improvement and make findings that Lane restriping along El Camino Real for bicycle traffic is exempt from review under CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Existing Facilities) in that it entails minor alterations to existing public facilities involving negligible or no expansion of existing or former uses, it would not create additional automobile lanes, and none of the circumstances described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 would apply. The motion was seconded by Council Member Fligor and the motion passed 3-2 with the following roll call vote:
AYES: Council Members Fligor, Weinberg, and Vice Mayor Meadows NOES: Council Member Lee Eng and Mayor Enander
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
6. Housing Element: Receive staff update on the status of the Housing Element Update (2023- 2031) community engagement process, consultant contract, and next steps, and approve the expansion of the role of the Housing Element Council Subcommittee. 7 Agenda Item # 1.
3/22/2022 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES Page 5 of 6
Interim Community Development Director Simpson introduced consultants Jen Murillo, David Bergman, and Stefano Richichi, of Lisa Wise Consulting, who provided a detailed overview of the Housing Element Update and certification process. They also answered questions from the Council.
Mayor Enander opened the floor for public comment. The following individuals commented: Nancy M., Joe Beninato, Anne Paulson, Jon Baer, Roberta Phillips, Salim, Teresa Morris, Jeanine Valadez, Debbie, Mehruss Ahi, Emily Ann Ramos, Freddie Wheeler, and Agnes Caufield.
Council discussion commenced. in which the Council provided input and feedback with regard to the Housing Element process, timeline, number of meetings and outreach.
Council Member Fligor, with Mayor Enander indicating agreement, clarified that any Housing Element related policy questions or decisions would be brought to the Council and not be handled by the Housing Element subcommittee.
Council Member Lee Eng moved that the Council approve expansion of the term and scope of the Council Housing Element Subcommittee beyond community outreach to include involvement in the Housing Element process through its final completion/certification. The motion was seconded by Mayor Enander and the motion passed 5-0 with the following roll call vote:
AYES: Council Members Fligor, Lee Eng, Weinberg, Vice Mayor Meadows, and Mayor Enander
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
7. City of Los Altos Compensation Philosophy: Consider proposed Compensation Policy and adopt or provide direction to staff.
Human Resources Manager Silipin provided a staff report and presentation and answered questions from the Council.
There were no members of the public wishing to comment.
Following Council discussion, Council Member Lee Eng moved to adopt the Compensation Philosophy with the addition of language suggested by Council Member Fligor relative to diversity and inclusivity.
Vice Mayor Meadows seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-0 with the following roll call vote:
AYES: Council Members Fligor, Lee Eng, Weinberg, Vice Mayor Meadows, and Mayor Enander
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
INFORMATIONAL ITEMS ONLY
Tentative Council Calendar
City Manager Engeland reviewed the tentative agenda for the April 12th City Council meeting.
COUNCIL/STAFF REPORTS AND DIRECTIONS ON FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS 8 Agenda Item # 1.
3/22/2022 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES Page 6 of 6
Council Member Fligor suggested that staff follow up regarding the point she made during the El Camino bike lane item discussion that the city look at different solutions to support the business community, understand the impact, and identify ways the City can support them, for example, signage pointing to parking areas. There was support for staff to do that and since the bike lane is scheduled for Summer 2023, staff’s follow up did not have to be immediate.
Council Member Fligor, with support from Council Member Lee Eng, requested a discussion matter on creation of a Grant Writing Subcommittee.
Council Member Weinberg, with support from Vice Mayor Meadows and Council Member Fligor, requested initiation of review of the City's Story Pole Policy. There was discussion as to the appropriate body to begin the review. City Attorney Houston advised that the review should start in the Open Government Subcommittee.
ADJOURNMENT
At 1:17 a.m., Wednesday, March 24, 2022, Mayor Enander adjourned the meeting. _______________________________________
Anita Enander, MAYOR
Attest:
____________________________________
Andrea Chelemengos, MMC
9 Agenda Item # 1.
Reviewed By:
City Manager City Attorney
GE
Finance Director
JH JF
AGENDA REPORT SUMMARY
Meeting Date: April 12, 2022
Subject Public Art Donation: Alegria
Prepared by: Jon Maginot, Assistant City Manager
Approved by: Gabriel Engeland, City Manager
Attachment(s):
1. Donation of Artwork form for Alegria
Initiated by:
Artist
Previous Council Consideration:
None
Fiscal Impact:
There is no immediate fiscal impact. There may be future costs for maintenance of the sculpture, however, these costs are anticipated to be minimal.
Environmental Review:
Not applicable
Policy Question(s) for Council Consideration:
Does the Council wish to accept donation of this artwork? Summary:
The artwork is a donation from the artist
The sculpture would become part of the City’s permanent collection Staff Recommendation:
Accept the donation of Alegria from the artist
10 Agenda Item # 2.
Subject: Title
April 12, 2022 Page 2
Purpose
To review the proposed donation of artwork for Alegria
Background
The sculpture Alegria by Adrian Litman was installed in Village Park in 2017 as part of the City’s Sculpture Loan Program. The artist has offered to donate the sculpture to the City.
Discussion/Analysis
Per the City’s Artwork Donation Policy, the Public Arts Commission reviewed the proposed donation and voted 5-0 (one member was absent) to recommend that the City Council accept the donation. Should the Council accept the donation of artwork, the sculpture will become a part of the City’s permanent collection.
Options
1) Accept the donation of Alegria
Advantages: The City would add a unique piece of art to the City’s permanent public art collection
Disadvantages: The City would be responsible for future maintenance of the piece. This maintenance is anticipated to be minimal.
2) Do not accept the donation of Alegria
Advantages: None identified
Disadvantages: The City does not add this unique artwork to its permanent collection Recommendation
The Public Arts Commission and staff recommend Option 1. 11 Agenda Item # 2.
12 Agenda Item # 2.
13 Agenda Item # 2.
14 Agenda Item # 2.
Reviewed By:
City Manager City Attorney
GE
Finance Director
JH JF
AGENDA REPORT SUMMARY
Meeting Date: April 12, 2022
Subject Authorize City Manager to execute professional services agreement for sewer rate structure analysis with NBS Government Finance Group, dba NBS; find that the approval of the agreement is exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption), 15273 (Rates, Tolls, Fares, and Charges), and 15306 (Information Collection).
Prepared by: Aida Fairman, Engineering Services Manager Reviewed by: James Sandoval, Engineering Services Director Approved by: Gabriel Engeland, City Manager
Attachment: None
Initiated by:
Staff
Previous Council Consideration:
June 13, 2017; March 13, 2018; June 26, 2018; July 10, 2018; June 25, 2019; October 22, 2019; June 9, 2020; June 8, 2021
Fiscal Impact:
Not-to-exceed $105,478
The following action will cost $105,478 for the consultant to perform a Sewer Rate Structure Analysis, Administration of Proposition 218 Process for FY 2024-28, and Annual Administration of the City of Los Altos’ Sewer Service Charge for FY 2023-24. - Breakdown of funds to be used:
o $105,478 from Sewer Fund
- Amount already included in the approved budget: N
- Total budget requested including a 5% contingency is $105,478 15 Agenda Item # 3.
Subject: Professional Services Agreement: Sewer rate Structure Analysis April 12, 2022 Page 2
Environmental Review:
The award of the professional services agreement to NBS, and the preparation of a rate structure analysis, is exempt from review under CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption), 15273 (Rates, Tolls, Fares, and Charges), and 15306 (Information Collection), in that the analysis will not result in any direct or reasonably foreseeable impacts on the physical environment, but instead will be used to determine rates for the purpose of funding existing operating expenses and capital projects to maintain existing sewer service within the City, and none of the circumstances in CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 applies.
Summary:
In 2018, the City went through the Proposition 218 process to adopt Ordinance No. 2018- 445, which established the annual sewer service charge rate for a period of five years (from FY 2018-19 through FY 2022-23).
The City of Los Altos needs to perform a Sewer Rate Analysis and go through the Proposition 218 process in FY 2022-23 to establish the annual sewer service charge rate for the next five years (FY 2023-24 through FY 2027-28). On January 25, 2022, the City advertised a request for proposals (RFP) and received one proposal on February 24, 2022, for the Sewer Rate Structure Analysis, Administration of Proposition 218 Process, and Annual Administration of the City’s Sewer Service Charge.
Staff Recommendation:
Authorize the City Manager to execute an agreement on behalf of the City with NBS in the amount of $105,478 for a Sewer Rate Structure Analysis, Administration of Proposition 218 Process for FY 2024-28, and Annual Administration of the City of Los Altos’ Sewer Service Charge for FY 2023-24
16 Agenda Item # 3.
Subject: Professional Services Agreement: Sewer rate Structure Analysis April 12, 2022 Page 3
Purpose
The City of Los Altos needs to establish the annual sewer service charge rate for Fiscal Years 2023-24 through 2027-28.
Background
In 2017-2018, NBS performed a Sewer Rate Structure Analysis, and the City went through the Proposition 218 process to adopt Ordinance No. 2018-445, which established the annual sewer service charge rate for a period of five years (from FY 2018-19 through FY 2022-23). The sewer service charge that was adopted on July 10, 2018, was based on a hybrid sewer charge model that considered parcel water usage and a fixed charge component. The purpose of the hybrid sewer charge was to ensure adequate funds for the ongoing operation and maintenance and to fund capital improvements of the sewer system in the Los Altos area.
Discussion/Analysis
A new sewer rate structure analysis must be performed to continue adequately funding the sanitary sewer fund. The analysis will again consider a 5-year study period and review upcoming costs associated with the maintenance and operations as well as capital improvements both within the City’s sewer system and the City’s share of cost at the joint wastewater treatment plant located in Palo Alto.
A charge for each parcel based on the benefit received must be calculated in such a way that the total revenue requirement of the Sewer Fund over the next five-year period is met. Some tasks for the consultant include evaluating water use and parcel information for all parcels connected to the sewer, assigning a charge to each parcel based on the benefit received or used, and preparation of the sewer service charge tax roll. In accordance with Municipal Code Sections 10.12.135 and
10.12.140 and Ordinance No. 2018-445, the rate structure for the sewer service charges is comprised of two components: (1) a fixed annual per parcel base charge that is determined on the basis of the number of equivalent dwelling units (“EDU”) assigned to a property; and (2) variable quantity charge. One EDU equates to the quantity of wastewater an average single-family residential costumer contributes to the sewer system. One EDU is assigned to each single-family residential home. The number of EDUs assigned to other customers is based on their expected wastewater flows relative to an average single-family residential customer. The quantity charge is imposed on a per unit basis. The total amount of the quantity charge is based on a customer’s average winter water use from the previous year (using the three wettest months of the previous year) and multiplied by 12 and is designed to reflect a customer’s estimated wastewater flow.
Estimated average winter water usage is used because individual sewer flows are not metered, and winter months’ water usage, when outdoor water usage is least likely to occur, best reflects actual flows into the sewer system.
17 Agenda Item # 3.
Subject: Professional Services Agreement: Sewer rate Structure Analysis April 12, 2022 Page 4
A request for proposals (RFP) was developed and advertised on the City’s website. The City received one proposal. The proposal received from NBS was responsive to the City’s requirements based on their qualifications, experience statements, and description of the required tasks. NBS has demonstrated the experience and expertise needed to develop and present a sewer rate study through a public process that will result in timely submission of the tax roll information to the County Assessor’s Office at a reasonable cost.
The proposed not-to-exceed fee of $105,478 is considered reasonable for the sewer rate structure analysis, administration of Proposition 218, and Annual Administration of the City of Los Altos’ Sewer Service Charge for FY2023-24.
Once the sewer rate structure analysis is completed, staff will return to Council through a public hearing to approve the sewer rates for the next 5-years, and the sewer service charges will be approved annually based on the adopted 5-year rates.
Recommendation
The staff recommends that the City Council authorize the City Manager to execute an agreement on behalf of the City with NBS in the amount of $105,478 and appropriate additional budget from the Sewer Fund, for a Sewer Rate Structure Analysis, Administration of Proposition 218 Process for FY 2024-28, and Annual Administration of the City of Los Altos’ Sewer Service Charge for FY 2023-24.
18 Agenda Item # 3.
ATTACHMENT A
Resolution No. 2022-XX Page 1
4864-6965-0711v1
NON-BC\27916001
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-___
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LOS ALTOS
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT
WITH NBS GOVERNMENT FINANCE GROUP, dba NBS FOR A SEWER RATE STRUCTURE ANALYSIS, ADMINISTRATION OF PROPOSITION 218
PROCESS FOR FY 2024-28, AND ANNUAL ADMINISTRATION OF THE CITY OF LOS ALTOS’ SEWER SERVICE CHARGE FOR FY 2023-24, NOT TO EXCEED $100,455, AND UP TO 5% CONTINGENCY FUNDS NOT TO EXCEED $5,023, AND AMENDING THE FY2021-22 OPERATING BUDGET FOR THE
SEWER FUND
WHEREAS, in 2018, the City went through the Proposition 218 process to adopt Ordinance No. 2018-445, which established the annual sewer service charge rate for a period of five years (from FY 2018-19 through FY 2022-23); and WHEREAS, the City of Los Altos needs to perform a Sewer Rate Analysis and go through the Proposition 218 process in FY 2022-23 to establish the annual sewer service charge rate for the next five years (FY 2023-24 through FY 2027-28); and WHEREAS, on January 25, 2022, the City advertised a request for proposals (RFP) and received one proposal on February 24, 2022, for the Sewer Rate Structure Analysis, Administration of Proposition 218 Process for FY 2024-28, and Annual Administration of the City’s Sewer Service Charge for FY 2023-24; and
WHEREAS, the proposal received from NBS Government Finance Group, dba NBS (“NBS”) was responsive to the City’s requirements based on their qualifications, experience statements, and description of the required tasks; and WHEREAS, NBS has demonstrated the experience and expertise needed to develop and present a sewer rate study through a public process that will result in timely submission of the tax roll information to the County at a reasonable cost.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the City Council of the City of Los Altos hereby authorizes the City Manager to take the following actions:
1. To execute an agreement with NBS in the amount not to exceed $100,455 and up to 5% contingency not to exceed $5,023 for a Sewer Rate Structure Analysis, Administration of Proposition 218 Process for FY 2024-28, and Annual Administration of the City of Los Altos’ Sewer Service Charge for FY 2023-24;
2. Transfer with a Budget Increase of $105,478 from the Sewer Fund to the Professional Services category under the FY 2021-22 Sewer Operating Budget; and
3. To take such further actions as may be necessary or convenient to implement the transactions contemplated hereby.
19 Agenda Item # 3.
ATTACHMENT A
Resolution No. 2022-XX Page 2
4864-6965-0711v1
NON-BC\27916001
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 12th day of April, 2022 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
___________________________
Anita Enander, MAYOR
Attest:
_____________________________
Andrea Chelemengos, MMC, CITY CLERK
20 Agenda Item # 3.
AGENDA REPORT SUMMARY
Reviewed By:
City Manager City Attorney
GE
Finance Director
JH JF
Meeting Date: April 12, 2022
Subject: Emergency Declaration Resolution
Prepared by: Jon Maginot, Assistant City Manager
Approved by: Gabriel Engeland, City Manager
Attachment(s):
1. Resolution No. 2022-xx
Initiated by:
Staff
Previous Council Consideration:
March 12, 2020 (Declaration of Emergency); March 17, 2020; August 24, 2021; October 12, 2021; November 9, 2021; December 7, 2021; January 11, 2022; February 8, 2022; March 8, 2022 Fiscal Impact:
None. However, a local emergency declaration is a prerequisite for requesting state or federal assistance.
Environmental Review:
Not applicable
Policy Question(s) for Council Consideration:
Does the Council wish to renew its existing declaration by adopting a resolution declaring a local emergency to emphasize the need for continued adherence to public health guidance?
Summary:
AB 361 requires the City to adopt a resolution every 30 days extending a local emergency declaration to continue to allow legislative bodies to meet virtually Staff Recommendation:
Adopt a Resolution extending the declaration of a local emergency due to the COVID-19 pandemic 21 Agenda Item # 4.
Subject: Emergency Declaration Resolution
April 12, 2022 Page 2
Purpose
To adopt a resolution extending the existing declaration of emergency Background
On March 12, 2020, the City Manager issued an Emergency Declaration in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. On March 17, 2020, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2020-08 ratifying the Emergency Proclamation. The City Council most recently adopted a resolution on January 11, 2022 continuing the declaration of the existence of a local emergency due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
The threat posed by COVID-19 continues to pose a serious risk to the public health and safety of the City of Los Altos.
Discussion/Analysis
Resolution No. 2021-46 states that the Director of Emergency Services (City Manager) is to report to the City Council within sixty (60) days on the need for further continuing the local emergency.
AB 361, signed into law on September 15, 2021, allows a public agency to continue to hold virtual City Council and Commission meetings while under a declaration of emergency without complying with certain elements of the Ralph M. Brown Act. The bill requires that a legislative body renew the declaration of emergency every 30 days in order to continue meeting in this matter.
AB 361 applies to local agencies until January 1, 2024.
Recommendation
The staff recommends Council adopt the attached resolution extending the declaration of emergency due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
22 Agenda Item # 4.
ATTACHMENT 1
Resolution No. 2022-XX Page 1
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-___
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LOS ALTOS
DECLARING THE EXISTENCE OF A LOCAL EMERGENCY DUE TO THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC
WHEREAS, on March 4, 2020, the Governor issued a proclamation of a state of emergency relating to the respiratory illness known as COVID-19, which is caused by the novel corona virus SARS-CoV02; and
WHEREAS, on March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization declared the existence of a pandemic due to the global spread of COVID-19; and WHEREAS, on March 12, 2020, the Los Altos City Manager, in his capacity as the City’s Director of Emergency Services, proclaimed a local emergency in response to the escalation of COVID-19 to a pandemic, and on March 17, 2020, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2020-08 ratifying and continuing the proclamation of local emergency; and
WHEREAS, on March 16, 2020, the Santa Clara County Health Officer issued the first of successive orders requiring all individuals residing in the County to shelter in their places of residence as specified, to socially distance, and to take other measures to prevent community spread of COVID-19; and
WHEREAS, on March 19, 2020, the Governor issued a statewide shelter-in-place order; and on August 28, 2020, the Governor announced a “Blueprint for a Safer Economy,” which provided protocols for slowly reopening the state’s economy following the initial shelter-in-place mandate; and
WHEREAS, on August 24, 2021; October 12, 2021; November 9, 2021; December 7, 2021; January 11, 2022 and February 8, 2022, the City Council adopted Resolutions extending the declaration of a local emergency; and
WHEREAS, by the beginning of March 2022, over 2,000 Santa Clara County residents have died of COVID-19; and
WHEREAS, due to the diligence of Los Altos residents in complying with health guidance, Los Altos has one of the lowest rates of reported incidence of COVID-19 infection in Santa Clara County; and
WHEREAS, vaccines provide proven protection against COVID-19; and WHEREAS, by the beginning of March 2022, approximately 89 percent of Santa Clara County residents over the age of 5 had been vaccinated, and statewide vaccination rates were higher than the national average; and
23 Agenda Item # 4.
ATTACHMENT 1
Resolution No. 2022-XX Page 2
WHEREAS, the Governor lifted the Blueprint for a Safer Economy on June 15, 2021, and local health restrictions have also been lifted due to sharp declines in COVID-19 case counts since vaccines first became available; and
WHEREAS, despite progress in addressing the pandemic, not all eligible individuals are fully vaccinated, and new, more virulent variants of the SARS-CoV-2 virus are spreading in California and throughout the world; and
WHEREAS, according to the Santa Clara County Health Department, by July 1, 2021, the 7-day average of new COVID-19 cases reported in Santa Clara County was down to 37 cases per day, but three weeks later on July 22, 2021, the 7-day average was up to 188 cases per day; and
WHEREAS, as a result of rising case counts, on August 2, 2021, the Santa Clara County Health Officer issued a new health order requiring the use of face coverings indoors by all persons; and
WHEREAS, despite significant progress, COVID-19 remains a threat to public health and safety in the Los Altos community; and
WHEREAS, throughout the pandemic, the City of Los Altos has taken steps to address the health crisis, for example, by facilitating outdoor dining within the City; and WHEREAS, AB 361 requires the City Council make findings every thirty (30) days reaffirming the existence of a local emergency; and
WHEREAS, in view of the ongoing health crisis, the City Council now desires to affirm its existing declaration of local emergency.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Los Altos that:
1. The City Council has reviewed the need for continuing the declaration of local emergency and finds, based on substantial evidence, that the foregoing recitals are true and correct and that the public interest and necessity require the continuance of the proclamation of local emergency related to COVID-19.
2. Said local emergency shall be deemed to continue to exist until terminated by the City Council of the City of Los Altos.
3. The Director of Emergency Services is hereby directed to report to the City Council within thirty (30) days on the need for further continuing the local emergency and, if deemed appropriate, the City Council may take further action. 24 Agenda Item # 4.
ATTACHMENT 1
Resolution No. 2022-XX Page 3
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 ____, 2022 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
___________________________
Anita Enander, MAYOR
Attest:
_____________________________
Andrea Chelemengos, MMC, CITY CLERK
25 Agenda Item # 4.
Reviewed By:
City Manager City Attorney
GE
Finance Director
JH JF
AGENDA REPORT SUMMARY
Meeting Date: April 12, 2022
Subject Rental Fee Waiver Request by Ye Olde Towne Band and The Serenaders Band Prepared by: Mary Jo Price, Recreation Supervisor
Reviewed by: Donna Legge, Recreation Director
Approved by: Gabriel Engeland, City Manager
Attachment(s):
1. Fee Waiver Policy Memorandum dated March 4, 2008
2. Fee Waiver Request from Ye Olde Towne Band dated March 7, 2022
3. Recreation Facility Rental Fee Schedule
Initiated by:
Ye Olde Towne Band and the Serenaders Band
Previous Council Consideration:
None.
Fiscal Impact:
Approval of the full fee waiver will result in the loss of $5,400 in rental revenue and utilize a total of 90 hours which represents 30 evenings, from 7pm to 10pm, per fiscal year at the Garden House.
The revenue is not budgeted so would require no budget adjustments.
Environmental Review:
Not applicable
Policy Question(s) for Council Consideration:
Does Council wish to support a waiver of rental fees for Ye Olde Towne Band and The Serenaders Band?
Summary:
Fee waivers over $1,000 requires City Council approval Ye Olde Towne Band has requested a rental fee waiver in the amount of $5,400 per year Ye Old Towne Band was previously approved for free use of the Garden House for rehearsals for both Ye Old Towne Band and the Serenaders Band 26 Agenda Item # 5.
Subject: Title
April 12, 2022 Page 2
Staff Recommendation:
Consider the request from Ye Olde Towne Band and the Serenaders Band for an annual waiver of rental fees at Garden House in the amount of $5,400. Staff is recommending that the waiver be granted for one year in anticipation that the current waiver policy will be reviewed and established as a new policy in the next fiscal year.
Purpose
Consider rental fee waiver for Ye Olde Towne Band and the Serenaders Band.
Background
On March 11, 2008, Council adopted the following Fee Waiver Policy:
For fee waiver requests from community and non-profit groups for one-time events or facility usage, the City Manager or his/her designee is authorized to consider the request and to render a decision if the amount of the waiver is less than $1,000. For requests greater than $1,000, a written request shall be placed on the agenda of the City Council for its determination.
The Garden House is a City facility located in Shoup Park at 400 University Avenue and is one of many reservable spaces managed by the Recreation Department. The rental fee schedule was approved at the regular City Council meeting of October 26, 2021, per resolution 2021-54 (Attachment 3). The Garden House is rented regularly throughout the year for a variety of events.
For fiscal year 2021/2022, the Garden House has generated $18,750 in revenue, to date.
Discussion/Analysis
Beginning in 1973, Ye Olde Towne Band has been granted free use for rehearsals at various City facilities including the Hillview Community Center, the Los Altos Youth Center, and the Garden House. Ye Olde Towne Band began using the Garden House in the 1990’s. They currently utilize storage space under the Garden House, also, at no cost. In 2019, the Ye Olde Towne Band and the Serenaders Band were granted 83.5 hours of free use, equivalent to $5,010 in rental revenue. Ye Olde Towne Band is currently requesting 90 hours of free usage per year at the Garden House.
Ye Olde Towne Band and the Serenaders Band provide a public benefit by performing several free concerts each year. For 50 years, they have been performing one free concert per month from May through September at Shoup Park that attract approximately 300 attendees to each concert. They have also performed at the City’s Glorious 4
th event and in both annual downtown parades. In
addition, they provide free recreational and instructional opportunities for the 60 band participants. 27 Agenda Item # 5.
Subject: Title
April 12, 2022 Page 3
With the opening of the Los Altos Community Center and approval of the new facility rental fee schedule for all City facilities, the Recreation Department has streamlined the process for handling all fee waiver requests to include formal approval by City Council. As part of the City Council retreat held on January 18 and 22, 2022, the agenda included a policy question to City Council asking if they wish to subsidize certain users and groups using City facilities, and if so, to what extent? Does the City Council wish to update the current fee waiver policy? Staff is working on scheduling an agenda item on fee waivers in the future.
Recommendation
Consider the request from Ye Olde Towne Band and the Serenaders Band for an annual waiver of rental fees at Garden House in the amount of $5,400. Staff is recommending that the waiver be granted for one year.
28 Agenda Item # 5.
MEMORANDUM
C:\Documents and Settings\skitchens\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK6\feewaiverpolicy.doc
DATE: March 4, 2008
TO: Val Carpenter, Mayor
City Council members
FROM: Douglas J. Schmitz
SUBJECT: FEE WAIVER POLICY
BACKGROUND:
Several times over the past six months, the City Council has been asked to waive municipal fees for facility usage.
In many cities, small waivers are usually addressed by the staff pursuant to guidelines established by the Council. I am proposing that the Council consider the following proposed policy for the future handling of waivers.
POLICY:
For fee waiver requests from community and non-profit groups for one-time events or facility usage, the City Manager or his/her designee is authorized to consider the request and to render a decision IF the amount of the waiver is less than $1000. For requests greater than $1000, a written request shall be placed on the agenda of the City Council for its determination.
The City Manager or his/her designee shall provide notification to the members of the City Council of his/her decision on either the granting or rejecting of a request.
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt the policy for fee waivers for community and non-profit groups up to the listed limits.
29 Agenda Item # 5.
From: John DeLoach <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 7, 2022, 12:42 PM
To: William Wells <[email protected]>
Cc: Donna Legge <[email protected]>; Jaime Chew <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Ye Olde Towne Band & Serenaders Garden House Rehearsals Los Altos Rec Dept
Mr. William Wells, et al;
I am submitting this letter on behalf of Ye Olde Towne Band (YOTB) and the Serenaders Band to obtain a fee waiver for holding our rehearsals in the Garden House. Our band has been enriching the Los Altos community for 50 years with our once a month concert May through September, Glorious 4th program and in both downtown parades. Additional information is attached to this letter as examples of our contributions to the community.
Ye Olde Towne Band is a concert band of about 60 members and have been rehearsing and playing in Los Altos since 1972. Membership is open to all ages, but we have a high percentage of older adults, offering an excellent recreational and instructional opportunity for the community. Over the years, YOTB has rehearsed at the Hillview Community Center, the Los Altos youth Center, and most recently, the Garden House.
We are asking to resume our rehearsals at the Garden House starting this April. The reasonable health restrictions set by the CDC, State, and County of Santa Clara made rehearsals unavailable two years ago, but now, low case levels allow rehearsals to resume. YOTB would like to return to our customary rehearsal hall to prepare for performances at the 2022 Pet Parade and our Last Sunday Summer Concerts.
YOTB rehearses the last three Thursdays of the month April through September, 7-10pm. YOTB performs a concert in Shoup Park the last Sunday of May through September. It is a highly popular concert among the town’s citizens with attendance at about 300, from children dancing to retirees tapping their toes.
The Serenaders is a 10 piece group (Compact Big Band) that is an off shoot of and governed by YOTB. It is available to provide music for small venues with playing 2 gigs per year for any Los Altos function as payment for rehearsing in the Garden House. The Serenaders rehearse the 2nd Tuesday of the month 7- 10pm year round.
Both bands are staffed by voluntary musicians. We have benefitted from donations from local service clubs, the public and our musicians. These donations provide the funds to pay for insurance, to purchase music, and to maintain the parade float. Both bands are self-sufficient and cause Los Altos no extra work. We clean up after ourselves, have insurance, and would follow whatever Covid protocols are in place to build back community events. Our concert risers and chairs are stored in the store room under the Garden House and our float is housed in the city public works barn. I worked successfully with your predecessor Greg Milano for many years.
YOTB has never paid a fee for use of rehearsal facilities. The city over the years has looked upon YOTB as an asset that provided a musical outlet for its citizens, both players and audiences. It was also understood that by advertising as being sponsored by The City of Los Altos we would have a rehearsal 30 Agenda Item # 5.
facility. See example of sponsorship advertising on attached concert program. Also attached is a past copy of the 2019 Rec Dept’s Sales Receipt showing no payment necessary and the Rec Dept Household Reservation Report showing our schedule.
Attention to this matter is time sensitive as a schedule needs to be published to our players and in the Town Crier. Your direct and timely positive attention to this matter would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you.
John DeLoach
Director
Ye Olde Towne Band
650-465-0521
"Adapt, Improvise, Persist & Overcome"
31 Agenda Item # 5.
32 Agenda Item # 5.
33 Agenda Item # 5.
Sunday Afternoon Concerts in the Park
THE LAST SUNDAY OF EACH MONTH - MAY THROUGH SEPTEMBER – 1:30PM Shoup Park - Los Altos, CA
Ye Olde Towne Band of Los Altos
John DeLoach – Conductor
Always Free Admission
Ye Olde Towne Band welcomes your contributions to defray the cost of maintenance, supplies, music for the concerts, and upkeep of our famous motorized gazebo style parade float. Cash or checks are accepted. Sorry, no credit cards or bit-coin. Make checks payable to Ye Olde Towne Band and give to the Maestro or mail to YOTB, 1040 Estrellita Way Los Altos, CA 94022. Ye Olde Towne Band is a not-for-profit charitable organization under the IRS Code Section 501[c][3] and all donations are tax deductable. 2018 Concert Calendar
May 27
June 24
July 29
August 26
September 30
“Like Us On Facebook”
Ye Olde Towne Band is sponsored by The City of Los Altos, The Los Altos Community Foundation - The Kiwanis & Rotary Clubs of Los Altos - BridgePoint at Los Altos - Lee Smith
Ye Olde Towne Band is a member of the Association of
Concert Bands and is a licensed BMI/ASCAP performance band http://www.windband.org/oldtowne
34 Agenda Item # 5.
The Glorious 4Th of July 2018
Shoup Park, Los Altos, CA
Ye Olde Towne Band
_________________________ Program Music_________________________ (Played from 10:30am to 11:00 am)
Join The Circus
The Liberty Bell March
This Is My Country
Americans We March
Them Bases March
The Black Horse Troop March
The Thunderer March
Colonel Bogey March
The National Emblem March
The Sousa Scramble
The Stars And Stripes Forever March
(Yankee Doodle Dandy) Star Spangled Spectacular (Grand Old Flag) < FROM M129 Concert Finale
(America, America The Beautiful, Battle Hymn, God Bless America) ___________________ When Called To Play__________________ The Star Spangled Banner
_____________________ Time Filler___________________
The Teddy Bear’s Picnic
35 Agenda Item # 5.
2018
Ye Olde Towne Band
Summer Concert Series
Shoup Park – Los Altos, CA
John DeLoach - Conductor
36 Agenda Item # 5.
37 Agenda Item # 5.
38 Agenda Item # 5.
39 Agenda Item # 5.
FACILITY RENTAL FEES FY21/22
All fees hourly unless noted with
an asterisk (*) Max Occupancy
RESIDENT
NON-RESIDENT
NONPROFIT
COMMERCIAL
Dining/Standing
Grand Oak 180/430 $250 $300 $125 $375
Sequoia 48/83 $100 $125 $50 $150
Manzanita 36/49 $80 $100 $40 $120
Maple 25 $80 $100 $40 $120
Birch 24/37 $80 $100 $40 $120
Apricot 36/49 $80 $100 $40 $120
Juniper 20/41 $80 $100 $40 $120
Sycamore 32/62 $80 $100 $40 $120
Cedar 16/61 $80 $100 $40 $120
Grand Oak Kitchen Add-On $50 $75 $25 $100
Courtyard Add-On $50 $60 $25 $100
Lobby $100 $125 $50 $150
Grant Park Community Center
Grant Multi-Purpose Room 120 / 150 $120 $150 $60 $240
Classroom 1 30 $50 $60 $40 $100
Classroom 2 30 $50 $60 $40 $100
Classroom 3 30 $50 $60 $40 $100
Garden House
Garden House $120 $150 $60 $240
Tennis/Bocce Courts
McKenzie Tennis $9 N/A $7
Marymeade Tennis $9 N/A $7
Montclaire Tennis $9 N/A $7
Rosita Tennis $9 N/A $7
LACC Bocce ball $9 N/A $7
San Antonio Club
San Antonio Club $120 $150 $60 $240
FIELDS
Hillview, Rosita, Grant Baseball/ Soccer $50 $60 $25 N/A GYMS - Egan & Blach
Half Gym $85 $110 $45 $160
Full Gym $140 $180 $80 $280
OUTDOOR SPACES
Half Day 75 $145 $180 $55 Eͬ
Full Day 75 $220 $275 $90 Eͬ
Half Day 75 $150 $190
Full Day 75 $220 $275
Half Day 30 $90 $110
Full Day 30 $120 $145
$300
$440
$180
$245
BANNERS
$336
$406
Grant Picnic Area (*)
Fremont/Grant - two weeks $336
Lincoln Park 9 ft͘ - one week
Lincoůn Park 18 ft. - ŽŶĞ week
>ŝŶĐŽůŶϯϬĨƚ͘ͲŽŶĞǁĞĞŬ
Main St - two weeks
San Antonio/ El Camino - two weeks
Ψ168
$500 deposit required for Multi Purpose/$250 Deposit for classrooms Veteran's Community Plaza (*)
Los Altos Community Center
Patriot Corner Picnic Area (*)
$406
$406
Eͬ
Eͬ
Eͬ
Eͬ
40 Agenda Item # 5.
Reviewed By:
City Manager City Attorney
GE
Interim Community
Development Director
JH JF
CALENDAR
AGENDA REPORT SUMMARY
Meeting Date: April 12, 2022
Subject Wireless Telecommunications Facilities Ordinance and Design Guidelines Prepared by: Gabriel Engeland, City Manager
Attachment(s):
1. Resolution 2022-__, Wireless Telecommunications Facilities CEQA Resolution
2. Ordinance 2022-__, Wireless Telecommunications Facilities Locational Standards
3. Resolution 2022-__, Wireless Telecommunications Facilities Design Guidelines
4. Public Comments
Initiated by:
City Council
Fiscal Impact:
None
Environmental Review:
Negative Declaration. An Initial Study/Proposed Negative Declaration was distributed for a 30- day public review on January 26, 2022. No comments specifically directed to the initial study were received by the City. There is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record that the project may have a significant effect on the environment.
Summary Background:
The technology for wireless telecommunications facilities is moving away from large, powerful towers that are very visually intrusive to smaller, less powerful facilities that are less visually intrusive. As a result, a greater number of wireless telecommunications facilities are needed to provide coverage.
Proposed locational standards address this shift in wireless technology by offering a revised, tiered approach to providing additional locations for small wireless telecommunications facilities moving from “preferred” to “less preferred” to “least preferred” locations.
o Preferred locations include non-residential sites and adjacent rights-of-way. o Less Preferred locations include the rights-of-way of expressways, arterials, collectors, and local collectors adjacent to residentially zoned properties. Such 41 Agenda Item # 6.
Subject: Wireless Telecommunications Facilities Ordinance and Design Guidelines April 12, 2022 Page 2
locations could be approved only upon demonstration that no preferred locations are feasible.
o Least preferred sites include rights-of-way along residentially zoned streets. Such locations could be approved only upon demonstrations that no preferred or les preferred sites would be feasible.
Revised and expanded Design Guidelines are proposed to insure that new wireless facilities are tailored to the City’s unique characteristics and preserve the community’s aesthetic quality and rural character. Los Altos is permitted to regulate the placement of wireless facilities on the grounds of aesthetics, traffic safety, noise, and other criteria, but the City cannot regulate the placement of wireless facilities based on the environmental effects of radio frequency (“RF”) emissions that comply with FCC regulations. Neither is a city permitted to require or prohibit any specific type of technology.
Policy Question(s) for Council Consideration:
Does the City Council wish to repeal and replace the City’s current locational, design, and development standards for wireless telecommunications facilities to:
o Expand locations where small wireless telecommunications facilities may be permitted?
o Limit the visual and physical effects of wireless telecommunications facilities through appropriate location, siting, design, and visual screening of facilities? o Expand the City’s existing design guidelines to ensure any small cell installations have aesthetic design and placement in line with community expectations? Staff Recommendation:
1. Approve Resolution 2022-__, Wireless Telecommunications Facilities Adopting a Negative Declaration in compliance with CEQA.
2. Introduce and waive further reading of Ordinance 2022-__, Wireless Telecommunications Facilities Locational Standards, as recommended by the Planning Commission with additional modifications identified in the Agenda Report.
3. Approve Resolution 2022-__, Wireless Telecommunications Facilities Design Guidelines, as recommended by the Planning Commission with additional modifications identified in the Agenda Report.
Purpose
The overarching intent of the proposed Ordinance and Design Guidelines is to make wireless telecommunications reasonably available throughout the community while preserving its 42 Agenda Item # 6.
Subject: Wireless Telecommunications Facilities Ordinance and Design Guidelines
April 12, 2022 Page 3
essential rural character. The proposed Ordinance and Design Guidelines achieve this by minimizing the visual and physical effects of wireless telecommunications facilities through appropriate location, siting, design, and visual screening of facilities; encouraging the installation of wireless telecommunications facilities at locations where other such facilities already exist; and providing for the installation of wireless facilities so as to minimize potential adverse impacts to Los Altos.
Proposed locational standards and design guidelines are intended to better reflect the community’s land use and transportation patterns and address technological advancements in wireless telecommunications facilities away from large, powerful, and very visually intrusive towers and “macro” facilities to smaller, less powerful, and less visually intrusive small wireless facilities.
Background
Current regulation of wireless telecommunications facilities within the City of Los Altos is provided in two documents:
City of Los Altos Resolution No. 2019-35, Design and Siting Guidelines and Standards for Wireless Facilities, which provides design guidelines and locational standards for the installation of wireless facilities within the City.
City of Los Altos Municipal Code Chapter 11.12, Wireless Facilities, which addresses wireless telecommunications facility permit requirements and sets forth standard conditions of approval for such facilities.
The City adopted Resolution No. 2019-35 and Municipal Code Chapter 11.12 in August 2019 following a City Council study session and several public hearings, at which stakeholders discussed wireless and other infrastructure deployment issues; reviewed potential local regulatory responses to the recent changes in federal law in the FCC orders; and expressed their design and location preferences, practical and safety concerns, aesthetic concerns, policy views and the essential local values that make Los Altos a uniquely small suburban community. In the summer of 2019, Los Altos residents identified numerous concerns with the aesthetic impacts of wireless telecommunications facilities focusing on the visual intrusiveness of wireless facilities and their adverse effects on the community, such as:
Cell towers and small cell facilities are unsightly, noisy and add to the visual intrusiveness of existing above-ground electric and telephone lines. Small cell nodes previously proposed by to the City of Los Altos carriers such as AT&T and Verizon, have been visually intrusive and unsightly; 43 Agenda Item # 6.
Subject: Wireless Telecommunications Facilities Ordinance and Design Guidelines
April 12, 2022 Page 4
The City should continue to be judicious about wireless facilities and recognize the need to eliminate visual blight; mitigate noise and heat impacts; and protect residents’ enjoyment of their properties and their market value;
Cell towers should be placed in commercial areas and within the medians of major streets rather than within residential neighborhoods close to people’s homes; and Los Altos neighborhood aesthetic guidelines and property values are among the main reasons people are willing to stay in this great City.
o These same issues of safety, noise, and aesthetics were reiterated by public comments during the Planning Commission’s public hearings.
Discussion/Analysis
Proposed Revisions to Locational Preferences and Standards for Wireless Telecommunications Facilities
In addition to specifying permitted locations for wireless telecommunications facilities, the City’s existing and proposed development standards also establish specific preferences among the various locations where wireless telecommunications facilities could be permitted. Proposed revisions to locational preferences for wireless telecommunications facilities are summarized in Table A, below.
44 Agenda Item # 6.
Subject: Wireless Telecommunications Facilities Ordinance and Design Guidelines
April 12, 2022 Page 5
Table A
Existing and Proposed Locational Preferences for Wireless Telecommunications Facilities Existing Locational Preferences Proposed Locational Preferences Locational Preferences for Wireless Telecommunications Facilities on Properties Outside of Roadway Rights‐of‐Way and Public Easements The order of preference for the location of wireless
telecommunications facilities from most preferred to
least preferred is:
1. Commercial Districts (Office‐Administrative [OA,
OS‐1, OA‐4.5], Commercial [CD, CRS, CT, CRS/OAD)
and the Loyola Corners Specific Plan
2. Public Facilities District (PCF)
The preferred locations for wireless telecommunications facilities include properties within non‐Residential Zoning Districts (Municipal Code Sections 14.04.010 K‐L, N‐S, V) Less preferred locations for wireless
telecommunications facilities include any City‐owned
property and properties within one of the following
Zoning Districts identified in the following subsections of Municipal Code Section 14.04.010.
N. Commercial Neighborhood District (CN); and
S. Public and Community Facilities District (PCF).
T. Public and Community Facilities/Single‐Family
District (PCF/R1‐10)
Locational Preferences for Wireless Telecommunications Facilities within Roadway Rights‐of‐Way and Public Easements
The order of preference for the location of wireless
telecommunications facilities from most preferred to
least preferred is:
1. Commercial Districts (Office‐Administrative [OA, OS‐ 1, OA‐4.5], Commercial [CD, CRS, CT, CRS/OAD) and
the Loyola Corners Specific Plan
2. Public Facilities District (PCF)
Preferred locations for wireless telecommunications
facility within a public right‐of‐way or public utility easement include rights‐of‐way for:
Expressways, Arterials, and Collectors fronting non‐
Residential Zoning Districts (Municipal Code Sections
14.04.010 K‐L, N‐S, V)
Collectors fronting the Public and Community Facilities District (PCF) (Municipal Code Section 14.04.010 S).
Less preferred location for wireless telecommunications facility within a public right‐of‐ way or public utility easement include the following rights‐of‐way and
easements:
Local Collectors fronting non‐Residential Zoning
Districts (Municipal Code Sections Municipal Code
Sections 14.04.010 K‐L, N‐S, V)
Public utility easements fronting non‐Residential
Zoning Districts (Municipal Code Sections Municipal
Code Sections 14.04.010 K‐L, N‐S, V)
45 Agenda Item # 6.
Subject: Wireless Telecommunications Facilities Ordinance and Design Guidelines
April 12, 2022 Page 6
Existing Locational Preferences Proposed Locational Preferences Local streets fronting non‐Residential Zoning Districts (Municipal Code Sections Municipal Code Sections
14.04.010 K‐L, N‐S, V)
Expressways, Arterials, and Collectors fronting
Residential Zoning Districts (Municipal Code Sections
14.04.010 A‐J, M, U, W)
To avoid concentration of facilities along any one street within the City, small wireless telecommunications
facilities may also be located within the rights‐of‐way for local streets fronting Residential Zoning Districts
(Municipal Code Sections 14.04.010 A‐J, M, U, W) where
the facility would be within:
200 feet of the Foothill Expressway right‐of‐way
500 feet of the San Antonio Avenue, El Monte Drive,
Magdalena Avenue, or Homestead Road right‐of‐way;
or
300 feet of a Collector or Local Collector right‐of‐way.
Requirements for Approval of Less Preferred Locations
None. As proposed, applications that involve less‐preferred locations may be approved only if:
1. No preferred location exists within 500 feet from the proposed site; or
2. Any preferred location within 500 feet from the
proposed site would be technically infeasible.
The burden of proof for demonstrating that either of
these two conditions exists is on the applicant and must be satisfied with clear and convincing evidence.
Applications that involve a less‐preferred location are proposed to be required to be accompanied by clear and
convincing written evidence demonstrating the need for
approval of the proposed location rather than a more
preferred location.
The proposed ordinance specifically grants the City
authority to hire an independent consultant at the
applicant’s expense to evaluate the need for the
proposed less‐preferred location.
46 Agenda Item # 6.
Subject: Wireless Telecommunications Facilities Ordinance and Design Guidelines
April 12, 2022 Page 7
Existing Locational Preferences Proposed Locational Preferences Provisions for Approval of a Wireless Telecommunications Facility when no Preferred or Less Preferred Site could Provide Adequate Coverage Municipal Code Section 11.12.090 permits exceptions
to wireless telecommunications standards, including,
but not limited to, exceptions from findings that
would otherwise justify denial, if the city makes the
finding that:
1. Denial of the facility as proposed would violate
federal law, state law, or both; or
2. A provision of this chapter, as applied to applicant, would deprive applicant of its rights under federal
law, state law, or both.
The burden for proving that denial of the facility as
proposed would violate federal law, state law, or
would deprive applicant of its rights under federal law, state law, or both, using the evidentiary standards
required by that law at issue, rests with the applicant.
This section of the Municipal Code explicitly permits
the city to hire an independent consultant, at the
applicant’s expense, to evaluate the issues raised by
the exception request and submit rebuttal evidence to
refute the applicant’s claim.
The proposed ordinance deletes the exception provisions contained in Municipal Code Section 11.12.090.
The proposed ordinance also includes a provision that
would allow for approval of a small wireless
telecommunications facility within the right‐of‐way of a local residential street that is neither a preferred nor a less preferred location if:
1. A combination of macro and small wireless
telecommunications facilities, as well as colocation
with existing facilities of other carriers at preferred and less preferred locations within the City would not
be feasible; and
2. The total number of wireless telecommunications
facilities within Residential Zoning Districts (Municipal Code Sections 14.04.010 A‐J, M, U, W) would be
minimized.
The burden of proof for such demonstration is placed
upon the applicant. In addition, should an applicant
provide such demonstration, proposed Section 14.82.050
requires the City to hire an independent consultant at
the applicant’s expense to evaluate the applicant’s
current network configuration and the applicant’s
demonstration of need for a facility or facilities not
otherwise meeting the locational requirements of the
proposed ordinance.
Proposed Revisions to Design Guidelines and Preferences for Wireless Telecommunications Facilities
Proposed design guidelines for wireless telecommunications facilities retain, reorganize, and supplement existing guidelines by adding a set of basic design principles that would apply to all wireless telecommunications facilities, and identifying configuration preferences along with design guidelines for specific types of wireless facilities. 47 Agenda Item # 6.
Subject: Wireless Telecommunications Facilities Ordinance and Design Guidelines
April 12, 2022 Page 8
Basic Design Principles. Proposed design guidelines add three basic design principles—impact minimization, integration and concealment, and context—to ensure wireless telecommunications facilities within the City are designed and maintained so as to minimize visual, noise, and other impacts on the surrounding community.
1. The first principle, impact minimization, directs that the overall impacts of a wireless telecommunications facility be minimized in relation to aesthetic, land use, noise, traffic, and other considerations. Although this is generally accomplished with the smallest feasible design for any given facility, this principle and subsequent design guidelines recognize that a larger facility may sometimes be appropriate if it is well concealed, compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, and can reduce the overall number of wireless telecommunications facilities required to provide service within the City.
2. The second principle, integration and concealment, provides for new wireless telecommunications facilities and modifications to existing facilities to be visually integrated into their sites and as hidden from view as feasible. Whereas existing preferences for the configuration of wireless telecommunications facilities list various types of configurations in order of preference,1
the principle of integration and
concealment specifies that non-integrated (unconcealed) installations are less preferred and permitted only where an integrated (concealed) facility is either infeasible or would reduce the number and overall visual intrusiveness of wireless telecommunications facilities required to provide service within the City.
3. The third principle, context, recognizes that specific situations require specific design solutions and that what may integrate well and conceal a wireless telecommunications facility at one location might not be appropriate for another situation at a different site.
Overall, a wireless telecommunications facility that introduces a feature that changes the visual character of a site—such as by increasing the height of an onsite structure or 1 The City’s current design standards for wireless telecommunication facilities contained in Resolution No. 2019-35 identify the following order of preference for the configuration of wireless facilities from most preferred to least preferred:
1. Collocation with existing wireless facilities.
2. Roof-mounted.
3. Building-mounted.
4. Mounted on an existing pole or utility pole.
5. Mounted on a pole or utility pole that will replace an existing pole or utility pole.
6. Mounted on a new telecommunication tower.
48 Agenda Item # 6.
Subject: Wireless Telecommunications Facilities Ordinance and Design Guidelines
April 12, 2022 Page 9
introducing a tree species that is not otherwise present—is generally more visually intrusive that a facility that maintains the site’s character, even if the facility is itself concealed from public view.
Design Guidelines Applying to all Wireless Telecommunications Facilities. Proposed design guidelines applying to all wireless facilities within Los Altos expand upon the City’s existing guidelines by adding provisions to require:
Wireless telecommunications facility design to be consistent with the existing and/or proposed landscape design of the adjacent site, using a similar or complementary plant palette.
Retain existing, mature trees wherever feasible.
Any proposed underground vault to be designed and constructed so as to protect existing street trees.
All landscaping proposed to screen, conceal, complement, or soften the visual intrusiveness of a wireless telecommunications facility to remain for the life of the permit, even if not located within the applicant’s lease area.
Noise from backup generators to comply with the noise levels specified in Municipal Code Chapter 6.16.
Passive louvers and/or other passive ventilation to be provided as the primary means of temperature control rather than mechanical ventilation wherever feasible.
Design Guidelines for Wireless Telecommunications Facilities on Properties Outside Public Rights-of-Way and Utility Easements. Proposed design guidelines for wireless telecommunications facilities on properties outside of public rights-of-way and utility easements identify specific preferred and less preferred configurations for building-, and roof-, and polemounted facilities along with specific design guidelines and illustrative examples for the following types of installations.
Preferred Configurations
o Façade-Concealed Antennas. Façade-concealed antennas have antennas, mounting apparatus, and any associated components fully concealed from all sides within a structure that achieves complete architectural integration with the existing building (for example, antennas behind fiber-reinforced plastic [FRP] in a parapet, and equipment inside an existing building), or within outbuildings that are architecturally integrated into a site and are expected components of the setting. 49 Agenda Item # 6.
Subject: Wireless Telecommunications Facilities Ordinance and Design Guidelines
April 12, 2022 Page 10
o Faux Architectural Elements. Faux architectural elements are existing or proposed architectural elements on a building that completely conceal antennas. They are distinguished from façade-concealed antennas in that they appear to be architectural elements of a building.
o Rooftop Concealment. If accessory equipment for roof-mounted facilities cannot be installed inside the building or underground, such accessory equipment may be located on the roof of the building that the facility is mounted on, provided that both the equipment and screening materials are painted the color of the building, roof, or surroundings. Rooftop facilities that appear to be a building façade, architectural element, or parapet are considered to be façade-concealed, façademounted, or faux architectural facilities. Rooftop concealment is considered to be a preferred design where façade integration is not feasible. o Architecturally Designed Stand-Alone Towers. Towers that are designed to appear as buildings or signs, and that conceal antennas completely within them, may be permitted where appropriate to the site on which they are proposed. Examples include, but are not limited to, clock towers and obelisks. o Athletic Field Lights. These include wireless telecommunications facilities that are integrated with lighting used to illuminate large areas for the purposes of recreation. Other Permitted but Less Preferred Designs
o Façade-Mounted Antennas. Façade-mounted antennas are any antennas mounted on the exterior of a building that are not faux architectural elements. o Faux Trees. Wireless telecommunications facilities may be designed to emulate trees where trees similar in size and species are present. Faux trees may also be appropriate when natural trees of similar species are planted concurrent with faux tree installation, depending on the density and size of trees being planted. o Pole-Mounted Telecommunications Facilities. Existing guidelines for facilities mounted to a telecommunications tower on properties outside or public rights-ofway and utility easements, including, but not limited to, attached antennas, are retained in the proposed design guidelines.
Design Guidelines for Wireless Telecommunications Facilities Proposed within Public Rightsof-Way and Utility Easements. Proposed design guidelines for wireless telecommunications facilities within public rights-of-way and utility easements identify specific preferred and less preferred configurations for pole-mounted facilities along with specific design guidelines and illustrative examples for the following types of installations. 50 Agenda Item # 6.
Subject: Wireless Telecommunications Facilities Ordinance and Design Guidelines
April 12, 2022 Page 11
Preferred Configuration
o Use of light poles wherein all equipment, cabling, and antennas are within the pole itself and/or entirely under the ground.
Other Permitted but Less Preferred Configurations
o Use of existing or replacement utility poles.
o Stand-alone poles along rights-of-way with no existing overhead utility poles and lines.
o Use of light poles wherein equipment, cabling, and antennas are not completely within the pole itself and/or entirely under the ground.
Requirements for Approval of Less-Preferred Configurations. Proposed design guidelines add the requirements for applications that involve less-preferred configurations. Such applications may be approved only if the applicant demonstrates that:
No preferred configuration would be technically feasible; or The proposed configuration would be aesthetically superior to a preferred configuration due to existing conditions at the proposed site.
Proposed design guidelines place the burden of proof upon the applicant to demonstrate that one of these two conditions exists and requires that applications for a less-preferred configuration be accompanied by clear and convincing written presentation of evidence demonstrating the need for approval of the proposed configuration rather than a preferred configuration. The proposed design guidelines also authorize the City to retain an independent consultant at the applicant’s expense to evaluate the applicant’s demonstration of need for the proposed less-preferred configuration.
Options for Consideration by the City Council
1,000 Buffer between Small Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (Proposed Ordinance Section 14.82.030 A.4.)
The proposed ordinance would reduce the required separation between small wireless telecommunications facilities from 1,500 to 1,000 feet. In their letters and testimony to the Planning Commission, carriers noted that size limitations for small wireless telecommunications facilities generally precludes co-location of such facilities. The carriers stated that, once a specific carrier would install a small wireless facility, all other carriers would be precluded from 51 Agenda Item # 6.
Subject: Wireless Telecommunications Facilities Ordinance and Design Guidelines
April 12, 2022 Page 12
installing a small facility within 1,000 feet, the long-term net effect of which would be to make service to Los Altos residents and businesses by multiple carriers difficult.
The Planning Commission thus recommended that the City Council adopt one of three alternative methods to replace the proposed 1,000-foot separation requirement for all small wireless telecommunications facilities contained in Section 14.82.030 A.4. of the proposed ordinance by:
1. Making the 1,000-foot buffer applicable only to small wireless facilities belonging to the same carrier and establishing a minimum 200-foot separation between all carriers’ facilities;
2. Reducing the size of the buffer between small wireless facilities to, for example, 700 feet
3. Modifying the 1,000-foot buffer requirement into simply calling it out as a preference for all carriers.
Each of these three options would provide the opportunity for multiple carriers to provide service to residents and businesses throughout the community recognizing changes in technology and the movement from large, powerful telecommunications towers to less powerful and less visually intrusive small wireless telecommunications facilities.
The first option would require, for example, carrier “a” to maintain a 1,000-foot separation between each of its own facilities but permit carrier “b” to install a facility within 1,000 feet of a small facility operated by carrier “a.” The advantage of this option is that it would provide opportunities for multiple carriers to provide service within the community. The disadvantage or this option is that multiple carrier’s small wireless facilities could be located in close proximity.
In the second option, a smaller separation distance between small wireless facilities would replace the currently proposed 1,000-foot separation. This option would resolve issues associated with an individual carrier’s small wireless facility prohibiting other carriers from locating a facility within the 72-acre area surrounding the first carrier’s facility without necessarily providing other carriers with a feasible means to service residents and businesses throughout Los Altos.
The third option would provide for carriers to locate a small wireless facility closer than 1,000 feet to another small facility upon demonstration that provision of adequate service could not be feasibly accomplished by maintaining the preferred 1,000-foot separation between small cell facilities. This option has the same advantage of the first option in that it would provide opportunities for multiple carriers to provide service within the community. 52 Agenda Item # 6.
Subject: Wireless Telecommunications Facilities Ordinance and Design Guidelines
April 12, 2022 Page 13
The City wireless facilities team recommends the adoption of the first option as in our view it most effectively balances the need to allow for the technological advances in wireless facilities while preserving the beauty and aesthetics of Los Altos.
Recommendation: Revise Section 14.82.030 A.4. to read as follows.
4. No wireless telecommunications carrier shall be permitted to locate a Ssmall wireless telecommunications facilityies are not permitted within 1,000 feet of another of its small wireless telecommunications facilitiesy or within 200 feet of any small wireless telecommunications regardless of its ownership and maintenance.
Approval of Facilities along Expressways, Arterials, Collectors, and Local Collectors (Lees Preferred Locations or at Locations not Identified as being Preferred or Less Preferred (Proposed Ordinance Section 14.82.050)
Carriers have recognized that the proposed three-tiered system of location preferences generally seeks to direct wireless facilities away from residential areas or onto wider and busier streets within residential areas, and that “this type of preference system could help guide deployments in the city2.” This system clearly states the city’s preference that wireless telecommunications facilities be located:
1. Outside of residential areas (preferred); or,
2. In less preferred locations along the primary roadways serving Los Altos identified in the General Plan as expressways, arterials, collectors, and local collectors, should it be infeasible to provide service with facilities in preferred locations;
3. Or, in the alternative, along local residential streets should a carrier’s system be incapable of providing service solely with facilities in preferred and less preferred locations.
However, the carriers also argue that the City’s proposed locational standards are essentially a prohibition on wireless telecommunications facilities and that the information to be required by the City in applications for third-tier locations goes too far in seeking an analysis of an applicant’s broader system to find ways to reconfigure its wireless network.” The Planning Commission; City staff; and the City’s outside land use, wireless telecommunications, and legal experts disagree with the carriers’ conclusion. The carriers have misconstrued proposed Ordinance Section 14.82.050 as providing an exceptions process for approving facilities at otherwise prohibited locations rather than a system to ensure that the feasibility of locating a 2 Letter from Aaron Shank, attorney for AT&T Mobility to the Los Altos Planning Commission, March 16, 2022. 53 Agenda Item # 6.
Subject: Wireless Telecommunications Facilities Ordinance and Design Guidelines
April 12, 2022 Page 14
small wireless facility at a third-tier location along a local street is thoroughly explored before approving a wireless facility at a location that is neither preferred nor less preferred.
Proposed Ordinance Section 14.82.050 is intended to replace Municipal Code Section 11.12.090 that permits granting of “exceptions” to locational and other standards and allows for wireless telecommunications facilities to be approved in locations where they would not otherwise be permitted. The proposed Ordinance instead provides a path for approval of a wireless telecommunications facility when no preferred or less preferred site could provide adequate coverage. As currently written, Section 14.82.050 requires applications for facilities on such site to be “accompanied by clear and convincing written evidence that demonstrates the applicant’s existing network configuration serving the City of Los Altos cannot be expanded and/or reconfigured or modified to provide adequate service through a combination of new and relocated wireless telecommunications facilities, as well as colocation with existing facilities of other carriers at preferred and less preferred locations.” Proposed Ordinance Section 14.82.050 provides assurance to the public that a carrier has explored a wide variety of options to provide coverage using facilities within preferred and less preferred locations. It also facilitates the City’s ability to understand and explain to the public why (1) locating a proposed facility within a preferred or less preferred location is infeasible and (2) approval of a location that is neither preferred nor less preferred would be needed to provide coverage.
As discussed at the Planning Commission’s March 17, 2022 public hearing, the focus of the information that is requested for less preferred or third-tier locations is on the feasibility (or lack thereof) of providing coverage using more preferred locations and not to put the City in the position of redesigning a carrier’s system.
Testimony was received by the Planning Commission from residents living along arterials, collectors, and local collectors requesting that the City not permit wireless telecommunications facilities along these roadways adjacent to residentially zoned properties. These residents cited health and safety3
, noise, and visual intrusiveness in support of their requests. In addition, several members of the public testifying before the Planning Commission requested the City assist in providing improved wireless coverage.
3 As noted above, cities cannot regulate the placement of wireless facilities based on the environmental effects of radio frequency (“RF”) emissions that comply with FCC regulations. 54 Agenda Item # 6.
Subject: Wireless Telecommunications Facilities Ordinance and Design Guidelines
April 12, 2022 Page 15
Recommendation: Recognizing these issues and the carriers’ reluctance to publicly disclose their systems’ inner workings, staff recommends that the proposed ordinance be modified to clarify that (1) third-tier sites are the “least preferred” locations for small wireless facilities rather than an exception to otherwise prohibited sites and (2) the review of less preferred and third-tier sites is based on the feasibility (or lack thereof) of more preferred sites. Specific recommended modifications are identified below.
Revise Sections 14.82.040 and 14.82.050 to read as follows:
14.82.040 Requirements for Approval of Less Preferred Locations:
A. Applications that involve a less-preferred location shall be accompanied by clear and convincing written evidence demonstrating that a preferred location per Section 14. 82.030 A or B is infeasible and that the need for approval of the proposed location rather than a more preferred location per the requirements of Section 14.82.040 A or B is needed, including a written description of the facility’s intended service area.
B. Applications that involve less-preferred locations may be approved only if the applicant demonstrates that:
(1) It does not own any property or facilities within 500 feet from the proposed site that could provide service in lieu of the proposed facility;
(2) No preferred location exists within 500 feet from the proposed site; or
(3) Any preferred location within 500 feet from the proposed site would be technically infeasible.
C. The burden of proof for demonstrating compliance with these above noted conditions shall be on the applicant and must be satisfied with clear and convincing evidence.
D. In reviewing a request for a less-preferred location, the City may hire an independent consultant at the applicant’s expense to evaluate the applicant’s demonstration of need for the proposed less-preferred location. 55 Agenda Item # 6.
Subject: Wireless Telecommunications Facilities Ordinance and Design Guidelines
April 12, 2022 Page 16
14.82.050 Requirements for Least Alternative to Wireless Telecommunications Facilities at Preferred and Less Preferred Locations
A. The right-of-way of a local residential street that is neither a preferred nor a less preferred location per the requirements of this Chapter is the least preferred location for a small wireless telecommunications facility. An application for such a least preferred location may be approved for a small wireless telecommunications facility within the right-of-way of a local residential street that is neither a preferred nor a less preferred location per the requirements of this Chapter only if:
(1) A combination of macro and small wireless telecommunications facilities, as well as colocation with existing facilities of other carriers at preferred and less preferred locations within the City would be infeasible; and
(2) The total number of wireless telecommunications facilities within Residential Zoning Districts (Municipal Code Sections 14.04.010 A-J, M, U, W) is minimized.
B. The burden of proof for demonstrating the need for one or more small wireless telecommunications facilities within the right-of-way of a local residential street that are neither a preferred nor a less least preferred location per the requirements of Section 14.82.053 0A shall lie with the applicant and the evidence offered to meet that burden shall be included in the application submitted to the City.
C. Applications pursuant to Section 14.82.050 shall be accompanied by clear and convincing written evidence that demonstrates the applicant’s existing network configuration serving the City of Los Altos cannot be expanded and/or reconfigured or modified to provide adequate service through a combination of new and relocated macro and micro wireless telecommunications facilities, as well as colocation with existing facilities of other carriers at preferred and less preferred locations would be infeasible; and
D. In reviewing a permit request for facilities covered by Section 14.82.050, the City shall hire an independent consultant at the applicant’s expense to evaluate whether achieving the applicant’s stated service objectives through existing or new macro and small wireless facilities in preferred and less preferred locations would be technically infeasible the applicant’s 56 Agenda Item # 6.
Subject: Wireless Telecommunications Facilities Ordinance and Design Guidelines
April 12, 2022 Page 17
current network configuration and demonstration of need to verify that a combination of facilities within the preferred and less preferred locations cannot provide service throughout the City.
Clean-Up Items
Two additional clean-up items should be considered by the City Council:
1. Removal of Section 11.12.050.A.9 (Acoustic Analysis) from the ordinance. Existing Municipal Code Section 11.12.050.A.9, which specified requirements for acoustic analysis of proposed wireless facilities equipment, was recommended to be removed from the Municipal. This was recommended since compliance with City of Los Altos noise standards was made a mandatory condition of approval (proposed Ordinance Section
11.12.060.A.6.e. However, while compliance with City noise standards would be required as a condition of approval, the ordinance remains silent on the specific means of determining that compliance. City staff therefore recommends that the current provisions of Section 11.12.050.A.9 requiring acoustic analysis be incorporated into proposed Ordinance Section 11.12.060.A.6.c as indicated below. e. Noise generated by equipment will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare and shall not exceed the standards set forth in Chapter 6.16 of the Municipal Code.
(1) A written report that analyzes acoustic levels for the proposed wireless telecommunications facility and all associated equipment including, without limitation, all environmental control units, sump pumps, temporary backup power generators, and permanent backup power generators in order to demonstrate compliance with Los Altos Municipal Code, Chapter 6.16, Noise Regulations shall be submitted as part of applications for wireless telecommunications facilities.
(2) The acoustic analysis must be prepared and certified by an engineer and include an analysis of the manufacturers' specifications for all noise-emitting equipment and a depiction of the proposed equipment relative to all adjacent property lines. (3) In lieu of a written report, the applicant may submit evidence from the equipment manufacturer that the ambient noise emitted from all the proposed equipment will not, both individually and cumulatively, exceed the applicable limits. 57 Agenda Item # 6.
Subject: Wireless Telecommunications Facilities Ordinance and Design Guidelines
April 12, 2022 Page 18
Carriers have willingly complied these acoustic analysis requirements. Most times, such compliance has been simply provided in the form of a specifications document that City staff can compare against Los Altos Noise Ordinance standards. Removal of this language would have put the onus on staff to confirm facility noise emission levels only in response to receipt of a noise complaint.
2. Development and Setback Standards for Placement of Wireless Facilities in the right-of-way of a street that does not have curbs and gutters. Current standards in the proposed Design Guidelines address rights-of-way for streets have curbs, gutters, and sidewalks. However, most streets in Los Altos have shoulders instead of curbs, gutters, and sidewalks. Clear requirements are needed for siting wireless facilities within unpaved shoulders parallel to requirements for streets with curbs, gutters, and sidewalks City staff therefore recommends the revisions be added to proposed design guidelines.
Section II.D.2, Design And Development Standards for all Wireless Telecommunications Facilities, to read as follows.
2. Traffic Safety. All facilities shall be designed and located in such a manner as to avoid adverse impacts on traffic safety.
a. Any wireless telecommunications facility attachments placed less than 16 feet above ground level shall not be placed closer than 18 inches to a curb where one is installed or as determined by the Engineering Services Department where no curb is installed, nor shall they extend over a sidewalk (Caltrans Highway Design Manual Section 309).
b. All wireless telecommunications facility equipment shall maintain at least 3 feet separation from any curb cut.
Section IV.B.1.b, to read as follows.
IV. Additional Design and Development Standards for Facilities in the Public Right-of-Way and in Public Utility Easements.
B. Preferred Configurations
1. Light Poles Wherein all Equipment, Cabling, and Antennas are Within the Pole Itself and/or Entirely Under the Ground. b. The maximum height of any antenna mounted to a street light pole shall not exceed seven feet above the existing height of a street light pole in a location where the closest adjacent district is a commercial zoning district and shall not exceed three feet above the existing 58 Agenda Item # 6.
Subject: Wireless Telecommunications Facilities Ordinance and Design Guidelines
April 12, 2022 Page 19
height of a street light pole in any other zoning district. Any portion of the antenna or equipment mounted on such a pole shall be no less than 18 feet above any drivable road surface (including driveways, areas between roadway curb lines where curbs are provided, and as determined by the Engineering Services Department along roadways with shoulders). 59 Agenda Item # 6.
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LOS ALTOS MAKING
FINDINGS ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION UNDER THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
WHEREAS, the City of Los Altos is proposing revisions to its existing standards for development of wireless telecommunications facilities, including a new wireless ordinance to regulate the permissible location of wireless facilities along with revisions to Municipal Code Chapter 11.12 modifying permit requirements; and WHEREAS, the City also proposes to expand existing development standards and design guidelines and preferences for wireless telecommunications facilities; and WHEREAS, the City prepared an Initial Study in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code § 21000 et seq.) and the CEQA Guidelines (14 California Code of Regulations, Title 14 Chapter 3, Section 15000 et seq.); and
WHEREAS, the Initial Study determined that no significant impacts would result from adoption of the proposed wireless telecommunications ordinance and design guidelines; and
WHEREAS, the City issued a Notice of Intent to Adopt a Notice of Declaration (Notice of Intent) on January 26, 2022; and
WHEREAS, the Initial Study/Negative Declaration was made available for a 30- day public review period beginning on January 26 and ending on February 24, 2022; and
WHEREAS, written comments were received during the 30-day public review period and are set forth in Attachment B; and
WHEREAS, none of the information contained in the written comments present substantial evidence that the proposed wireless telecommunications ordinance and design guidelines would have a significant effect upon the environment; and WHEREAS, on March 3, 2022, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed wireless telecommunications ordinance, design guidelines, Attachment 1.
60 Agenda Item # 6.
and Negative Declaration, at which time interested persons and organizations had an opportunity to testify and provide comments; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed and considered the proposed Negative Declaration as required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15074(a); and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission that the above recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council of the City of Los Altos adopt the Negative Declaration contained in Attachment A.
61 Agenda Item # 6.
Attachment A
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
The City Council of the City of Los Altos has considered the project identified below and has adopted the following Negative Declaration pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act:
1. Project Title: Wireless Telecommunications Facilities Ordinance and Design Guidelines
2. Lead Agency: City of Los Altos
3. Contact Person: Gabriel Engeland, City Manager
City of Los Altos
One North San Antonio Road
Los Altos, CA 94022
(650) 947-2632
4. Project Location: Citywide
5. Project Description: The proposed project involves revisions to the City of Los Altos’ existing standards for development of wireless
telecommunications facilities, including an ordinance to regulate permissible locations and preferences for the
location of wireless facilities. These locational standards, which would replace the locational standards now provided in City of Los Altos Resolution No. 2019-35, would be
adopted by ordinance into Chapter 11.82 of the Los Altos Municipal Code.
In addition, the City proposes to expand and supplement existing development standards and design guidelines and preferences for wireless telecommunications facilities
contained in Resolution No. 2019-35 by (1) adding a set of basic design principles that would apply to all wireless telecommunications facilities and (2) identifying
configuration preferences along with design guidelines for specific types of wireless facilities.
6. Findings: The Initial Study prepared for the proposed Wireless Telecommunications Facilities Development Standards and Design Guidelines indicates for each environmental issue it analyzed that environmental impacts would be less than
significant or that no impact would occur. There is no
substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the lead agency (the City of Los Altos), that the project may have a significant effect on the environment.
62 Agenda Item # 6.
Attachment B
Written Comments on the
Proposed Negative Declaration
63 Agenda Item # 6.
64 Agenda Item # 6.
Sincerely,
Los Altos Resident
Ed Nieda
Ave.
65 Agenda Item # 6.
From: Melissa Smith
To: Los Altos Planning Commission
Cc: City Council; Gabriel Engeland
Subject: No Cell Towers Near Homes & Schools
Date: Monday, February 14, 2022 11:27:14 AM
Dear City of Los Altos Planning Commission,
I have learned from the City of Los Altos website that the city is currently seeking to change the wireless emergency ordinance that was put into place in 2019. I implore the City to stay as true to the original ordinance as possible and ensure we don’t have cell towers placed close to schools and homes. While some residents have expressed valid health concerns of placing cell towers so close to our schools and homes, I understand the City is unable to take these concerns into account due to Federal laws. However, there are other issues I’d like the City to consider including visual blight, noise, safety and property values.
Visual blight: The City’s utility poles are visually unappealing. I don’t want to increase the unsightliness with cell towers on the tops of these poles, not to mention a refrigerator’s worth of equipment hanging to the side.
Noise: Cell towers make considerable noise from their cooling fans. Having these towers placed so close to our homes would negatively impact our living environment.
Safety: Most cell towers have a refrigerator’s worth of equipment, including lithium ion batteries that have been known to cause fires. It’s not safe to place flammable materials on combustible wooden poles that could potentially burn down a home or neighborhood.
Property Values: Cell towers placed so close to homes will reduce the attractiveness of homes in the area. According to Realtor Magazine, a study found that 94% of homebuyers would not purchase a home near a cell tower.
Again, please do not place cell towers close to our homes and schools. Please find alternative locations.
Sincerely,
Melissa Smith
Los Altos Resident
66 Agenda Item # 6.
From: Los Altan
To: Los Altos Planning Commission
Cc: City Council; Gabriel Engeland
Subject: No Cell Towers Near Homes & Schools
Date: Monday, February 14, 2022 11:29:36 AM
Dear City of Los Altos Planning Commission,
I have learned from the City of Los Altos website that the city is currently seeking to change the wireless emergency ordinance that was put into place in 2019. I implore the City to stay as true to the original ordinance as possible and ensure we don’t have cell towers placed close to schools and homes. While some residents have expressed valid health concerns of placing cell towers so close to our schools and homes, I understand the City is unable to take these concerns into account due to Federal laws. However, there are other issues I’d like the City to consider including visual blight, noise, safety and property values.
Visual blight: The City’s utility poles are visually unappealing. I don’t want to increase the unsightliness with cell towers on the tops of these poles, not to mention a refrigerator’s worth of equipment hanging to the side.
Noise: Cell towers make considerable noise from their cooling fans. Having these towers placed so close to our homes would negatively impact our living environment.
Safety: Most cell towers have a refrigerator’s worth of equipment, including lithium ion batteries that have been known to cause fires. It’s not safe to place flammable materials on combustible wooden poles that could potentially burn down a home or neighborhood.
Property Values: Cell towers placed so close to homes will reduce the attractiveness of homes in the area. According to Realtor Magazine, a study found that 94% of homebuyers would not purchase a home near a cell tower.
Again, please do not place cell towers close to our homes and schools. Please find alternative locations.
Sincerely,
Los Altos Resident
67 Agenda Item # 6.
From: Ken Elefant
To: Los Altos Planning Commission
Cc: City Council; Gabriel Engeland
Subject: No Cell Towers Near Homes & Schools
Date: Monday, February 14, 2022 12:21:46 PM
Dear City of Los Altos Planning Commission,
I have learned from the City of Los Altos website that the city is currently seeking to change the wireless emergency ordinance that was put into place in 2019. I implore the City to stay as true to the original ordinance as possible and ensure we don’t have cell towers placed close to schools and homes. While some residents have expressed valid health concerns of placing cell towers so close to our schools and homes, I understand the City is unable to take these concerns into account due to Federal laws. However, there are other issues I’d like the City to consider including visual blight, noise, safety and property values.
Visual blight: The City’s utility poles are visually unappealing. I don’t want to increase the unsightliness with cell towers on the tops of these poles, not to mention a refrigerator’s worth of equipment hanging to the side.
Noise: Cell towers make considerable noise from their cooling fans. Having these towers placed so close to our homes would negatively impact our living environment.
Safety: Most cell towers have a refrigerator’s worth of equipment, including lithium ion batteries that have been known to cause fires. It’s not safe to place flammable materials on combustible wooden poles that could potentially burn down a home or neighborhood.
Property Values: Cell towers placed so close to homes will reduce the attractiveness of homes in the area. According to Realtor Magazine, a study found that 94% of homebuyers would not purchase a home near a cell tower.
Again, please do not place cell towers close to our homes and schools. Please find alternative locations.
Sincerely,
Ken Elefant
Los Altos Resident
68 Agenda Item # 6.
From: Phyliss Brazell
To: Los Altos Planning Commission
Cc: City Council; Gabriel Engeland
Subject: No Cell Towers Near Homes
Date: Monday, February 14, 2022 12:23:10 PM
Dear City of Los Altos Planning Commission,
I have learned from the City of Los Altos website that the city is currently seeking to change the wireless emergency ordinance that was put into place in 2019. I implore the City to stay as true to the original ordinance as possible and ensure we don’t have cell towers placed close to homes. While some residents have expressed valid health concerns of placing cell towers so close to our schools and homes, I understand the City is unable to take these concerns into account due to Federal laws. However, there are other issues I’d like the City to consider including visual blight, noise, safety and property values.
Visual blight: The City’s utility poles are visually unappealing. I don’t want to increase the unsightliness with cell towers on the tops of these poles, not to mention a refrigerator’s worth of equipment hanging to the side.
Noise: Cell towers make considerable noise from their cooling fans. Having these towers placed so close to our homes would negatively impact our living environment.
Safety: Most cell towers have a refrigerator’s worth of equipment, including lithium ion batteries that have been known to cause fires. It’s not safe to place flammable materials on combustible wooden poles that could potentially burn down a home or neighborhood.
Property Values: Cell towers placed so close to homes will reduce the attractiveness of homes in the area. According to Realtor Magazine, a study found that 94% of homebuyers would not purchase a home near a cell tower.
Again, please do not place cell towers close to our homes. Please find alternative locations.
Sincerely,
Los Altos Resident
69 Agenda Item # 6.
70 Agenda Item # 6.
From: Judith Simon
To: Los Altos Planning Commission
Cc: City Council; Gabriel Engeland
Subject: No Cell Towers Near Homes & Schools
Date: Monday, February 14, 2022 12:25:39 PM
Dear City of Los Altos Planning Commission,
I have learned from the City of Los Altos website that the city is currently seeking to change the wireless emergency ordinance that was put into place in 2019. I implore the City to stay as true to the original ordinance as possible and ensure we don’t have cell towers placed close to schools and homes. While some residents have expressed valid health concerns of placing cell towers so close to our schools and homes, I understand the City is unable to take these concerns into account due to Federal laws. However, there are other issues I’d like the City to consider including visual blight, noise, safety and property values.
Visual blight: The City’s utility poles are visually unappealing. I don’t want to increase the unsightliness with cell towers on the tops of these poles, not to mention a refrigerator’s worth of equipment hanging to the side.
Noise: Cell towers make considerable noise from their cooling fans. Having these towers placed so close to our homes would negatively impact our living environment.
Safety: Most cell towers have a refrigerator’s worth of equipment, including lithium ion batteries that have been known to cause fires. It’s not safe to place flammable materials on combustible wooden poles that could potentially burn down a home or neighborhood.
Property Values: Cell towers placed so close to homes will reduce the attractiveness of homes in the area. According to Realtor Magazine, a study found that 94% of homebuyers would not purchase a home near a cell tower.
Again, please do not place cell towers close to our homes and schools. Please find alternative locations.
Sincerely,
Los Altos Resident
71 Agenda Item # 6.
From: Alex Liang
To: Los Altos Planning Commission
Cc: City Council; Gabriel Engeland
Subject: No Cell Towers Near Homes & Schools
Date: Monday, February 14, 2022 12:55:48 PM
Dear City of Los Altos Planning Commission,
I have learned from the City of Los Altos website that the city is currently seeking to change the wireless emergency ordinance that was put into place in 2019. I implore the City to stay as true to the original ordinance as possible and ensure we don’t have cell towers placed close to schools and homes. While some residents have expressed valid health concerns of placing cell towers so close to our schools and homes, I understand the City is unable to take these concerns into account due to Federal laws. However, there are other issues I’d like the City to consider including visual blight, noise, safety and property values.
Visual blight: The City’s utility poles are visually unappealing. I don’t want to increase the unsightliness with cell towers on the tops of these poles, not to mention a refrigerator’s worth of equipment hanging to the side.
Noise: Cell towers make considerable noise from their cooling fans. Having these towers placed so close to our homes would negatively impact our living environment.
Safety: Most cell towers have a refrigerator’s worth of equipment, including lithium ion batteries that have been known to cause fires. It’s not safe to place flammable materials on combustible wooden poles that could potentially burn down a home or neighborhood.
Property Values: Cell towers placed so close to homes will reduce the attractiveness of homes in the area. According to Realtor Magazine, a study found that 94% of homebuyers would not purchase a home near a cell tower.
Again, please do not place cell towers close to our homes and schools. Please find alternative locations.
Sincerely,
Los Altos Resident
Alex Liang
72 Agenda Item # 6.
From: Patrick yuen
To: Los Altos Planning Commission; City Council; Gabriel Engeland Subject: No Cell Towers Near Homes & Schools
Date: Monday, February 14, 2022 1:10:20 PM
Dear City of Los Altos Planning Commission,
I have learned from the City of Los Altos website that the city is currently seeking to change the wireless emergency ordinance that was put into place in 2019. I implore the City to stay as true to the original ordinance as possible and ensure we don’t have cell towers placed close to schools and homes. While some residents have expressed valid health concerns of placing cell towers so close to our schools and homes, I understand the City is unable to take these concerns into account due to Federal laws. However, there are other issues I’d like the City to consider including visual blight, noise, safety and property values.
Visual blight: The City’s utility poles are visually unappealing. I don’t want to increase the unsightliness with cell towers on the tops of these poles, not to mention a refrigerator’s worth of equipment hanging to the side.
Noise: Cell towers make considerable noise from their cooling fans. Having these towers placed so close to our homes would negatively impact our living environment.
Safety: Most cell towers have a refrigerator’s worth of equipment, including lithium ion batteries that have been known to cause fires. It’s not safe to place flammable materials on combustible wooden poles that could potentially burn down a home or neighborhood.
Property Values: Cell towers placed so close to homes will reduce the attractiveness of homes in the area. According to Realtor Magazine, a study found that 94% of homebuyers would not purchase a home near a cell tower.
Again, please do not place cell towers close to our homes and schools. Please find alternative locations.
Sincerely,
Los Altos Resident
Patrick Yuen
---
Cell : 650-996-6181
73 Agenda Item # 6.
From: Sean Chen
To: Los Altos Planning Commission
Cc: City Council; Gabriel Engeland
Subject: No Cell Towers Near Homes & Schools
Date: Monday, February 14, 2022 1:18:04 PM
Dear City of Los Altos Planning Commission,
I have learned from the City of Los Altos website that the city is currently seeking to change the wireless emergency ordinance that was put into place in 2019. I implore the City to stay as true to the original ordinance as possible and ensure we don’t have cell towers placed close to schools and homes. While some residents have expressed valid health concerns of placing cell towers so close to our schools and homes, I understand the City is unable to take these concerns into account due to Federal laws. However, there are other issues I’d like the City to consider including visual blight, noise, safety and property values.
Visual blight: The City’s utility poles are visually unappealing. I don’t want to increase the unsightliness with cell towers on the tops of these poles, not to mention a refrigerator’s worth of equipment hanging to the side.
Noise: Cell towers make considerable noise from their cooling fans. Having these towers placed so close to our homes would negatively impact our living environment.
Safety: Most cell towers have a refrigerator’s worth of equipment, including lithium ion batteries that have been known to cause fires. It’s not safe to place flammable materials on combustible wooden poles that could potentially burn down a home or neighborhood.
Property Values: Cell towers placed so close to homes will reduce the attractiveness of homes in the area. According to Realtor Magazine, a study found that 94% of homebuyers would not purchase a home near a cell tower.
Again, please do not place cell towers close to our homes and schools. Please find alternative locations.
Sincerely,
Los Altos Resident
74 Agenda Item # 6.
--
Sean
75 Agenda Item # 6.
From: Aronson, Jeff
To: Los Altos Planning Commission
Cc: City Council; Gabriel Engeland; Kristine Chin ([email protected]) Subject: No Cell Towers Near Homes & Schools
Date: Monday, February 14, 2022 3:11:07 PM
Attachments: image001.png
Dear City of Los Altos Planning Commission,
We have learned from the City of Los Altos website that the city is currently seeking to change the wireless emergency ordinance that was put into place in 2019. We implore the City to stay as true to the original ordinance as possible and ensure we don’t have cell towers placed close to schools and homes. While some residents have expressed valid health concerns of placing cell towers so close to our schools and homes, we understand the City is unable to take these concerns into account due to Federal laws. However, there are other issues we would like the City to consider including visual blight, noise, safety and property values.
Visual blight: The City’s utility poles are visually unappealing. I don’t want to increase the unsightliness with cell towers on the tops of these poles, not to mention a refrigerator’s worth of equipment hanging to the side.
Noise: Cell towers make considerable noise from their cooling fans. Having these towers placed so close to our homes would negatively impact our living environment.
Safety: Most cell towers have a refrigerator’s worth of equipment, including lithium ion batteries that have been known to cause fires. It’s not safe to place flammable materials on combustible wooden poles that could potentially burn down a home or neighborhood.
Property Values: Cell towers placed so close to homes will reduce the attractiveness of homes in the area. According to Realtor Magazine, a study found that 94% of homebuyers would not purchase a home near a cell tower.
Again, please do not place cell towers close to our homes and schools. Please find alternative locations.
Sincerely,
Jeff & Kristine Aronson
Los Altos
Jeffrey D. Aronson
Partner
DLA Piper LLP (US)
2000 University Avenue
East Palo Alto, CA 94303-2215
76 Agenda Item # 6.
dlapiper.com
The information contained in this email may be confidential and/or legally privileged. It has been sent for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). If the reader of this message is not an intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication, or any of its contents, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please reply to the sender and destroy all copies of the message. To contact us directly, send to [email protected]. Thank you. 77 Agenda Item # 6.
From: mary ann kanyal
To: Los Altos Planning Commission
Cc: City Council; Gabriel Engeland
Subject: Please honor the decision that was agreed to in 2019 and stay true to the original ordinance Date: Monday, February 14, 2022 3:34:57 PM
To: [email protected]
CC: [email protected], [email protected]
Subject: No Cell Towers Near Homes & Schools
Dear City of Los Altos Planning Commission,
I have learned from the City of Los Altos website that the city is currently seeking to change the wireless emergency ordinance that was put into place in 2019. I implore the City to stay as true to the original ordinance as possible and ensure we don’t have cell towers placed close to schools and homes. While some residents have expressed valid health concerns of placing cell towers so close to our schools and homes, I understand the City is unable to take these concerns into account due to Federal laws. However, there are other issues I’d like the City to consider including visual blight, noise, safety and property values.
Visual blight: The City’s utility poles are visually unappealing. I don’t want to increase the unsightliness with cell towers on the tops of these poles, not to mention a refrigerator’s worth of equipment hanging to the side.
Noise: Cell towers make considerable noise from their cooling fans. Having these towers placed so close to our homes would negatively impact our living environment.
Safety: Most cell towers have a refrigerator’s worth of equipment, including lithium ion batteries that have been known to cause fires. It’s not safe to place flammable materials on combustible wooden poles that could potentially burn down a home or neighborhood.
Property Values: Cell towers placed so close to homes will reduce the attractiveness of homes in the area. According to Realtor Magazine, a study found that 94% of homebuyers would not purchase a home near a cell tower.
Again, please do not place cell towers close to our homes and schools. Please find alternative locations.
Sincerely,
Los Altos Resident
Mary Ann Kanyal
78 Agenda Item # 6.
From: REYNETTE AU
To: Los Altos Planning Commission
Cc: City Council; Gabriel Engeland
Subject: No Cell Towers Near Homes & Schools
Date: Monday, February 14, 2022 5:48:15 PM
Dear City of Los Altos Planning Commission,
I have learned from the City of Los Altos website that the city is currently seeking to change the wireless emergency ordinance that was put into place in 2019. I implore the City to stay as true to the original ordinance as possible and ensure we don’t have cell towers placed close to schools and homes. While some residents have expressed valid health concerns of placing cell towers so close to our schools and homes, I understand the City is unable to take these concerns into account due to Federal laws. However, there are other issues I’d like the City to consider including visual blight, noise, safety and property values.
Visual blight: The City’s utility poles are visually unappealing. I don’t want to increase the unsightliness with cell towers on the tops of these poles, not to mention a refrigerator’s worth of equipment hanging to the side.
Noise: Cell towers make considerable noise from their cooling fans. Having these towers placed so close to our homes would negatively impact our living environment.
Safety: Most cell towers have a refrigerator’s worth of equipment, including lithium ion batteries that have been known to cause fires. It’s not safe to place flammable materials on combustible wooden poles that could potentially burn down a home or neighborhood.
Property Values: Cell towers placed so close to homes will reduce the attractiveness of homes in the area. According to Realtor Magazine, a study found that 94% of homebuyers would not purchase a home near a cell tower.
Again, please do not place cell towers close to our homes and schools. Please find alternative locations.
Sincerely,
Reynette Au
30 year Los Altos Resident
79 Agenda Item # 6.
From: Allison Marras
To: Los Altos Planning Commission
Subject: No Cell Towers Near Homes & Schools
Date: Monday, February 14, 2022 6:28:43 PM
Subject: No Cell Towers Near Homes & Schools
Dear City of Los Altos Planning Commission,
I have learned from the City of Los Altos website that the city is currently seeking to change the wireless emergency ordinance that was put into place in 2019. I implore the City to stay as true to the original ordinance as possible and ensure we don’t have cell towers placed close to schools and homes. While some residents have expressed valid health concerns of placing cell towers so close to our schools and homes, I understand the City is unable to take these concerns into account due to Federal laws. However, there are other issues I’d like the City to consider including visual blight, noise, safety and property values.
Visual blight: The City’s utility poles are visually unappealing. I don’t want to increase the unsightliness with cell towers on the tops of these poles, not to mention a refrigerator’s worth of equipment hanging to the side.
Noise: Cell towers make considerable noise from their cooling fans. Having these towers placed so close to our homes would negatively impact our living environment.
Safety: Most cell towers have a refrigerator’s worth of equipment, including lithium ion batteries that have been known to cause fires. It’s not safe to place flammable materials on combustible wooden poles that could potentially burn down a home or neighborhood.
Property Values: Cell towers placed so close to homes will reduce the attractiveness of homes in the area. According to Realtor Magazine, a study found that 94% of homebuyers would not purchase a home near a cell tower.
Again, please do not place cell towers close to our homes and schools. Please find alternative locations.
Sincerely,
Los Altos Resident
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
80 Agenda Item # 6.
From: Yeeping Zhong
To: Los Altos Planning Commission
Cc: City Council; Gabriel Engeland
Date: Monday, February 14, 2022 8:22:19 PM
Dear City of Los Altos Planning Commission,
I have learned from the City of Los Altos website that the city is currently seeking to change the wireless emergency ordinance that was put into place in 2019. I implore the City to stay as true to the original ordinance as possible and ensure we don’t have cell towers placed close to schools and homes. While some residents have expressed valid health concerns of placing cell towers so close to our schools and homes, I understand the City is unable to take these concerns into account due to Federal laws. However, there are other issues I’d like the City to consider including visual blight, noise, safety and property values.
Visual blight: The City’s utility poles are visually unappealing. I don’t want to increase the unsightliness with cell towers on the tops of these poles, not to mention a refrigerator’s worth of equipment hanging to the side.
Noise: Cell towers make considerable noise from their cooling fans. Having these towers placed so close to our homes would negatively impact our living environment.
Safety: Most cell towers have a refrigerator’s worth of equipment, including lithium ion batteries that have been known to cause fires. It’s not safe to place flammable materials on combustible wooden poles that could potentially burn down a home or neighborhood.
Property Values: Cell towers placed so close to homes will reduce the attractiveness of homes in the area. According to Realtor Magazine, a study found that 94% of homebuyers would not purchase a home near a cell tower.
Again, please do not place cell towers close to our homes and schools. Please find alternative locations.
Sincerely,
Los Altos Resident
Yeeping Zhong ( .)
81 Agenda Item # 6.
From: R. K. Johnson
To: Los Altos Planning Commission
Cc: City Council
Subject: The "wireless emergency ordinance" that was put into place in 2019 Date: Tuesday, February 15, 2022 2:54:18 PM
Dear City of Los Altos Planning Commission,
NO CELL TOWERS near homes or schools
I have learned from the City of Los Altos website that the city is currently seeking to change the wireless emergency ordinance that was put into place in 2019. I implore the City to stay as true to the original ordinance as possible and ensure we don’t have cell towers placed close to schools and homes. While some residents have expressed valid health concerns of placing cell towers so close to our schools and homes, I understand the City is unable to take these concerns into account due to Federal laws. However, there are other issues I’d like the City to consider including visual blight, noise, safety and property values.
Visual blight: The City’s utility poles are visually unappealing. I don’t want to increase the unsightliness with cell towers on the tops of these poles, not to mention a refrigerator’s worth of equipment hanging to the side.
Noise: Cell towers make considerable noise from their cooling fans. Having these towers placed so close to our homes would negatively impact our living environment.
Safety: Most cell towers have a refrigerator’s worth of equipment, including lithium ion batteries that have been known to cause fires. It’s not safe to place flammable materials on combustible wooden poles that could potentially burn down a home or neighborhood.
Property Values: Cell towers placed so close to homes will reduce the attractiveness of homes in the area. According to Realtor Magazine, a study found that 94% of homebuyers would not purchase a home near a cell tower.
Again, please do not place cell towers close to our homes and schools. Please find alternative locations.
Sincerely,
Los Altos Resident
82 Agenda Item # 6.
From: Freddie Park
To: Los Altos Planning Commission
Cc: City Council
Subject: 5G cell towers
Date: Saturday, February 19, 2022 4:10:39 PM
Dear Los Altos Planning Commissioners,
I am a resident and home owner of 27+ years in Los Altos. I understand that the city is amending the Urgency Ordinance relating to 5G towers due to the litigation against the city by AT&T and Verizon. I realize we are in between a rock and a hard place regarding the ordinance and federal law. I would ask that you do your very best to make certain that 5G towers are required to be as far away from our homes and schools as possible.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Freddie Park Wheeler
83 Agenda Item # 6.
84 Agenda Item # 6.
85 Agenda Item # 6.
86 Agenda Item # 6.
87 Agenda Item # 6.
88 Agenda Item # 6.
89 Agenda Item # 6.
90 Agenda Item # 6.
91 Agenda Item # 6.
92 Agenda Item # 6.
93 Agenda Item # 6.
94 Agenda Item # 6.
95 Agenda Item # 6.
96 Agenda Item # 6.
97 Agenda Item # 6.
1 April 12, 2022
ORDINANCE NO. ____
AN ORDINANCE OF THE LOS ALTOS CITY COUNCIL AMENDING CHAPTER
11.12 AND ADDING CHAPTER 14.82 RELATING TO WIRELESS
TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES AND UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE
SETTING NEW LOCATIONAL REQUIREMENTS AND REVISING DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS
THE LOS ALTOS CITY COUNCIL HEREBY FINDS AND ORDAINS:
SECTION 1. FINDINGS
A. Pursuant to the California Constitution, Article XI, section 7; California Government Code § 37100 and other applicable law, the City Council may make and enforce within its limits all local, police, sanitary and other ordinances, resolutions and other regulations not in conflict with general laws.
B. Los Altos’ public rights-of-way are a uniquely valuable public resource, closely linked with the City’s rural character and natural beauty. Los Altos has a population of 30,000 and is suburban community near Silicon Valley. The City has a small town, semi-rural atmosphere – with wooded, quiet low-density single-family homes. The regulation of wireless communication facilities both within the public right-of-way and other locations within the City, is necessary to protect and preserve the aesthetics of the community. The City’s General Plan also provides for the undergrounding of new telephone and utility lines, “maintaining the low density, low profile residential character of the community through zoning regulations and design guidelines,” and “ensuring compatibility between residential and non-residential development through zoning regulations and design review.” The City’s concerns for preservation of its community including public safety, visual impact, and aesthetics relate to preserving the residential character of the community by imposing various design standards that relate to location, camouflaging, height, size and spacing of wireless telecommunications facilities. Providing separation between wireless telecommunications facilities and the front of homes along permitted rights-of-way within residential zones serves to reduce the intrusiveness of any new wireless telecommunications facilities.
C. The City is mindful of the need to minimize the potential adverse impacts on the community which includes amongst other things, limiting wireless site visibility and impacts to the City’s aesthetic well-being, while balancing same against the need for sufficient cell coverage for emergency needs and complying with both federal and state laws. The regulation as to wireless site visibility is particularly focused on minimizing visibility from residences, encouraging undergrounding of utilities, and limiting the height of such facilities to be consistent with the single-family residences that predominate the housing stock of Los Altos. In keeping with these goals, the City has revised the locational standards to encourage the location of wireless telecommunications facilities within the rights-of-way of Expressways, Arterials, Collectors, and Local Collectors designated on the City’s General Plan Circulation Map, while continuing to permit these facilities along local non-residential streets. And, allowing for the permitting wireless telecommunications facilities within the rights-of-way of local residential streets in close proximity to Expressways, Arterials, Collectors, and Local Collectors, as an 98 Agenda Item # 6.
2 April 12, 2022
alternative to concentrating facilities along any one street right of way. These sound land use locational provisions will serve to ensure the preservation of the local residential areas while also being mindful of avoiding the over saturation of wireless telecommunication facilities on a single roadway.
D. If not adequately regulated, installation of small cell and other wireless telecommunications facilities within the public right-of-way can pose a threat to the public health, safety and welfare, including disturbance to the right-of-way through the installation and maintenance of wireless telecommunication facilities; traffic and pedestrian safety hazards due to the unsafe location of wireless facilities; impacts to trees where proximity conflicts may require unnecessary trimming of branches or require removal of roots due to related undergrounding of equipment or connection lines; land use conflicts and incompatibilities including excessive height of poles and/or towers; creation of visual and aesthetic blights and potential safety concerns arising from excessive size, heights, noise or lack of camouflaging of wireless telecommunications facilities including the associated pedestals, meters, equipment and power generators; and the creation of unnecessary visual and aesthetic blight by failing to utilize alternative technologies or capitalizing on collocation opportunities, all of which has the potential to yield serious negative impacts on the unique quality and character of Los Altos. The reasonably regulated and orderly development of wireless telecommunication facilities in the public-right-of-way is desirable, and unregulated or disorderly development represents a threat to the health, welfare, and safety of the Los Altos community.
E. The City’s beauty is an important reason for businesses to locate in the City and for residents to live here. Beautiful views enhance property values and increase the City’s tax base.
The City’s economy, as well as the health and well-being of all who visit, work or live in the City, depends in part on maintaining the City’s beauty. The City has been moving towards the undergrounding of various utilities, including the First Street and Lincoln Park Undergrounding Utility projects, and needs to ensure that this effort is not hindered by the addition of numerous wireless telecommunications facilities cabinet, wires, cables, and bulky equipment that visually impede and clutter the City’s public rights of way. The City’s development and operational standards serve to encourage the reduction of all appurtenant equipment, screening of same, and efforts at undergrounding.
F. The City Council takes legislative notice of the various federal court decisions that have set applicable standards and metrics that the City must meet in the regulation of wireless telecommunications facilities. The City recognizes that there is a long–standing test in California that looks to whether and applicant has shown that there is a “significant gap” in service and an applicant has chosen the “least intrusive means of closing that gap.” MetroPCS, Inc v. City & County of San Francisco, 400 F.3d 715,733 (9th Cir. 2005) abrogated on other grounds in TMobile S., LLC v. City of Roswell, Georgia, 574 U.S. 293 (2015). More recently, the FCC adopted an Order in a proceeding focused on small wireless facilities and 5G, which found that local regulations are preempted if those regulations “materially inhibit” the provision of wireless services. The FCC Order goes on to state that local aesthetic requirements that are reasonable in that they are technically feasible and reasonably directed to avoiding or remedying the intangible public harm of unsightly or out-of-character deployments are permissible. In the Matter of Accelerating Wireless Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Inv., 33 F.C.C. Rcd. 9088 (2018), aff’d in part, rev’d in part, City of Portland v United States, 969 F.3d 99 Agenda Item # 6.
3 April 12, 2022
1020, 1032 (9th Cir. 2020). That is, reasonable aesthetic requirements by definition do not “materially inhibit” service. The City is mindful of these various evolving legal decisions and FCC Orders in its provision of these revised siting and various development standards.
G. The City acknowledges that there have been significant changes in federal laws that affect local authority over wireless telecommunication facilities and other related infrastructure deployments have occurred. These changes in federal law have occurred concurrently with an ever-increasing demand for the placement of wireless telecommunication facilities within the public rights of way, in order to offer increased coverage in the way of numerous expanding technologies such as: cell phones, video streaming, and on line access to work from home during the COVID -19 pandemic. In connection with the ever increasing demand for expanding technologies, the City is also mindful of the carriers desire to move forward with 5G and the recent published decision in Environmental Health Trust v. Federal Communications Commission, 9 Fed. 4th 893, 905 (D.C. Cir. 2021) , wherein that Court noted that the FCC had failed to provide a reasoned explanation for its determination that exposure to RF as implicated by various technological developments that have occurred since 1996, including the ubiquity of wireless devices and Wi-Fi, and the emergence of 5G technology.
H. The City takes legislative notice of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") adoption on August 2, 2018, of a Third Report & Order and Declaratory Ruling in the rulemaking proceeding titled Accelerating Wireline and Wireless Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Investment, 33 FCC Red. 7705 (rel. Aug. 3, 2018) (“the August 2018 Order"), that, among other things, contained a declaratory ruling prohibiting express and de facto moratoria for all personal wireless services, telecommunications services and their related facilities; and that the FCC adopted a Declaratory Ruling and Third Report and Order in September of 2018, --- FCC Red. ---, FCC 18-133 (rel. Sep. 27, 2018) (the "September 2018 Order"), which, among many other things, creates new shorter "shot clocks" for small wireless facilities (as defined in the September 2018 Order), alters existing "shot clock" regulations to require local public agencies to do more in less time.
I. The City recognizes its responsibilities under the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 and state law, and believes that it is acting consistent with the current state of the law in ensuring that irreversible development activity does not occur that would harm the public health, safety, or welfare. The City does not intend that this Ordinance prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting telecommunications service, as those terms are used in the Federal Telecommunications Act; rather, the City includes appropriate regulations to ensure that the installation, augmentation and relocation of wireless telecommunications facilities in the public rights-of-way are conducted in such a manner as to lawfully balance the legal rights of applicants under the Federal Telecommunications Act and the California Public Utilities Code while, at the same time, protect to the full extent feasible against the safety and land use concerns described herein. Indeed, the City has engaged a land use expert to map the available sites that are permissible for the siting of wireless telecommunication facilities under these siting criteria and he concludes that these current locations standards would permit small wireless 100
Agenda Item # 6.
4 April 12, 2022
telecommunications along more than 101,185 linear feet of roadway right-of-way within Los Altos.
J. The overarching intent of this Ordinance is to make wireless telecommunications reasonably available while preserving the essential rural character of Los Altos. This will be realized by: minimizing the visual and physical effects of wireless telecommunications facilities through appropriate design, siting, screening techniques and location standards; encouraging the installation of Wireless Telecommunications Facilities at locations where other such facilities already exist; and encouraging the installation of such facilities where and in a manner such that potential adverse impacts to Los Altos is minimized.
K. The City adopted an Ordinance regulating wireless telecommunication facilities in August of 2019. This occurred after the City held a study session and several public hearings, at which stakeholders discussed wireless and other infrastructure deployment issues, potential local regulatory responses to the recent changes in federal law in the FCC orders and expressed their design and location preferences, practical and safety concerns, aesthetic concerns, policy views and the essential local values that make Los Altos a uniquely small suburban community. The City’s residents in the summer of 2019 called out the numerous concerns at play with aesthetics, and these concerns included numerous objections that were focused on visual blight such as:
Small cell nodes previously proposed by carriers, AT&T and Verizon, to the City of Los Altos were visually intrusive and unsightly;
The City should continue to be judicious about and distaste for visual blight; The need to eliminate visual blight;
The need to consider potential visual blight, to mitigate noise, heat, and exposure to EMF, and to protect our enjoyment of our property and its market value; These cell towers should be placed in commercial areas, in the medians of major streets, and such. They should not be placed in residential neighborhoods; Wireless facilities should be installed in some public/commercial place instead of residential street and so close to people's house. Los Altos neighborhood aesthetic guidelines and property value is one of the main reasons people are willing to stay in this great City.
Cell towers or small cells are unsightly, noisy and add to the visual blight from the existing electric and telephone lines. While urging that small cells should not be placed in a small residential neighborhood cul de sac street but rather, it would be better to locate same on a major street or in the back of a commercial property; Cell towers are ugly and there is no need for extra eye sores; The mounting of "small" refrigerator-sized boxes on the side of an existing utility poles is unsightly and adds to visual blight; and
The cell tower is an eye sore that emits an annoying fan type noise that has a negative impact on the quality of life of the residents who live there or who walk within the community.
101
Agenda Item # 6.
5 April 12, 2022
These same concerns as to visual blight, aesthetic impairment and noise remain at play today.
The visual and aesthetic impacts of the proposed wireless telecommunications facilities is much greater in a residential area versus in a non-residential area such as downtown Los Altos, or Loyola Corners, or along a main arterial or collector streets within Los Altos.
L. On March 3 and March 17, 2022, the City Planning Commission held duly noticed public hearings to consider an Ordinance to add Chapter 14.82 and to amend Chapter 11.12 at which the Planning Commission received, reviewed, and considered the staff report, written and oral testimony from the public and other information in the record, and recommended to the City Council the adoption of this Ordinance regulating the placement of wireless telecommunication facilities.
M. The City recognizes its responsibilities under the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 and state law, and believes that it is acting consistent with the current state of the law in ensuring that irreversible development activity does not occur that would harm the public health, safety, or welfare. The City does not intend that this Ordinance prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting telecommunications service; rather, the City includes appropriate regulations to ensure that the installation, augmentation and relocation of wireless telecommunications facilities in the public rights-of-way are conducted in such a manner as to lawfully balance the legal rights of applicants under the Federal Telecommunications Act and the California Public Utilities Code while, at the same time, protect to the full extent feasible against the safety and land use concerns described herein.
N. It is not the purpose or intent of this Ordinance, nor shall it be interpreted or applied to:
(1) prohibit or to have the effect of prohibiting wireless telecommunications services; or (2) unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent wireless communications services; or (3) regulate the placement, construction or modification of Wireless Telecommunication Facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency ("RF") emissions where it is demonstrated that the Wireless Telecommunication Facilities does or will comply with the applicable FCC regulations; or (4) prohibit or effectively prohibit any entity's ability to provide any interstate or intrastate telecommunications service, subject to any competitively neutral and nondiscriminatory rules or regulation for rights-of-way management; or (5) prohibit or effectively prohibit collocations or modifications that the City must approve under state or federal law; or (6) otherwise authorize the City to preempt any applicable federal or state law.
O. The regulations of wireless installations are necessary to protect and preserve the aesthetic character of the community and to ensure that all wireless telecommunications facilities are installed using the least intrusive means possible. The City is also mindful of the fact that there are a number of different bands that can be utilized by carriers for wireless telecommunication facilities (including 700 MHz, 800 MHz, 1900 MHz, and 2100 MHz), and that these additional available band options need to be reviewed and considered in the determination of the least intrusive alternatives. As well, there are available a number of alternative means to provide coverage within Los Altos, including but not limited to: the 102
Agenda Item # 6.
6 April 12, 2022
upgrading of existing telecommunications facilities, the placement of macro towers, the colocation of wireless telecommunications facilities, the provision of micro towers, etc.
SECTION 2. LOCATIONAL CRITERIA
A. Chapter 14.82 of the Los Altos Municipal Code is added to provide as follows:
Chapter 14.82 Standards for the Location of Wireless Telecommunications Facilities
14.82.010 Purpose
14.82.020 Definitions
14.82.030 Wireless Telecommunications Facilities Locational Preferences
14.82.040 Requirements for Approval of Less Preferred Locations
14.82.050 Alternative to Wireless Telecommunications Facilities at Preferred and Less Preferred Locations
14.82.060 Additional Locational Preferences
14.82.070 Eligible Facilities Requested Per Municipal Code 12.12.100 and Applications Pursuant to Government Code § 65850.6
14.82.010 Purpose
The purpose of the following siting criteria is to provide for the location of wireless telecommunications facilities within the City of Los Altos in a manner that minimizes the visual intrusiveness of wireless telecommunications facilities and provides for coverage throughout the City.
14.82.020 Definitions
The definitions called out in Chapter 11.12 shall apply here unless a specific alternative definition is provided.
14.82.030 Wireless Telecommunications Facilities Locational Preferences A. Wireless Telecommunications Facilities Located within Public Rights-of-Way and Utility Easements
1. Only facilities qualifying for a Section 6409(a) approval and those meeting the definition of a “small wireless facility” shall be permitted within public rights-of-way and public utility easements.
2. The preferred location for a wireless telecommunications facility within a public right-of-way or public utility easement is within the right-of-way of 103
Agenda Item # 6.
7 April 12, 2022
one of the following roadway types as designated on the Los Altos General Plan Circulation Element as may be amended from time to time. (a) Expressways;
(b) Arterials;
(c) Collectors fronting non-Residential Zoning Districts identified in the following subsections of Municipal Code Section 14.04.010.
K. Office-Administrative District, OA (OA);
L. Office-Administrative District (OA-1 and OA-4.5);
O. Commercial Downtown District (CD);
P. Commercial Retail Sales District (CRS);
Q. Commercial Thoroughfare District (CT);
R. Commercial Retail Sales/Office District (CRS/OAD); and V. Loyola Corners Specific Plan Overlay District (LCSPZ). (d) Collectors fronting the Public and Community Facilities District (PCF) (Municipal Code Section 14.04.010 S).
3. Less preferred locations for wireless telecommunications facilities within public rights-of-way and public utility easements include:
(a) Rights-of-way for all streets fronting the Commercial Neighborhood (CN) District (Municipal Code Section 14.04.010 N).
(b) Rights-of-way for Local Collectors fronting non-Residential Zoning Districts (Municipal Code Sections 14.04.010 K-L, O-R, V); and
(c) Public utility easements adjacent to non-Residential Zoning Districts (Municipal Code Sections 14.04.010 K-L, O-R, V) as designated on the City of Los Altos General Plan Circulation Plan (Figure C-1).
(d) Rights-of-way for Local Streets fronting non-Residential Zoning Districts (Municipal Code Sections 14.04.010 K-L, O-R, V); (e) Rights-of-way for Expressways, Arterials, Collectors, and Local Collectors fronting Residential Zoning Districts identified in the following subsections of Municipal Code Section 14.04.010. 104
Agenda Item # 6.
8 April 12, 2022
1. Single-Family District (R1-10);
2. Single-Family District (R1-H);
3. Single-Family District (R1-20);
4. Single-Family District (R1-40);
5. Single-Story Single-Family Overlay District (R1-S);
6. Multiple-Family District (R3-4.5);
7. Multiple-Family District (R3-5);
8. Multiple-Family District (R3-3);
9. Multiple-Family District (R3.1.8);
10. Multiple-Family District (R3-1);
11. Commercial Downtown/Multiple-Family District (CD/R3);
12. Planned Community (PC); and
13. W. Planned Unit Development (PUD).
(f) To avoid concentration of wireless telecommunications facilities within the right-of-way of any one street within the City, small wireless telecommunications facilities may also be located within the street rights-of-way for local streets fronting Residential Zoning Districts (Municipal Code Sections 14.04.010 A-J, M, U, W) where the facility would be:
i. Within 200 feet of the Foothill Expressway right-of-way; ii. Within 500 feet of the San Antonio Avenue, El Monte Drive, Magdalena Avenue, or Homestead Road right-ofway; iii. Within 300 feet of a Collector or Local Collector right-ofway. (g) Rights-of-way for Expressways, Arterials, Collectors, Local Collectors and public utilities easements fronting a school in the Public and Community Facilities District (Municipal Code Section
14.04.010 S)
4. No wireless telecommunications carrier shall be permitted to locate a Ssmall wireless telecommunications facilityies are not permitted within 105
Agenda Item # 6.
9 April 12, 2022
1,000 feet of another small wireless telecommunications facility it operates or within 200 feet of any small wireless telecommunications regardless of its ownership and maintenance.
5. Placement Criteria
(a) No portion of any wireless communications facility within a public right-of-way shall overhang a property line.
(b) Wireless telecommunications facilities and any associated equipment or improvements shall not physically interfere with or impede access to any:
1. Worker access to any above-ground or underground
infrastructure for traffic control, streetlight or public transportation, including without limitation any curb
control sign, parking meter, vehicular traffic sign or signal, pedestrian traffic sign or signal, barricade reflectors;
2. Access to any public transportation vehicles, shelters, street furniture or other improvements at any public
transportation stop;
3. Worker access to above-ground or underground
infrastructure owned or operated by any public or private utility agency;
4. Fire hydrant or water valve;
5. Access to any doors, gates, sidewalk doors, passage doors, stoops or other ingress and egress points to any building appurtenant to the rights-of-way; or
6. Access to any fire escape.
(c) No wireless telecommunications facility within a roadway right-ofway adjacent to Residential Zoning Districts (Municipal Code Sections 14.04.010 A-J, M, U, W) shall be placed within the central fifty percent (50%) of an immediately adjacent parcel’s street frontage unless:
1. No feasible alternative exists within 500 feet of the proposed location.
2. Landscaping and/or screening is provided to conceal the facility from view from adjacent dwelling units to the
extent feasible.
106
Agenda Item # 6.
10 April 12, 2022
For corner lots, this standard shall apply to both roadway frontages.
6. Wireless telecommunication facilities within roadway rights-of-way adjacent to non-Residential Zoning Districts (Municipal Code Sections
14.04.010 K-L, O-R, V) should be located on poles that are as close as feasible to shared property lines between two adjacent lots and not directly in front of a business.
7. Wireless telecommunication facilities should be located on poles that are as close as feasible to shared property lines between two adjacent lots and should not be located directly in front of a business.
8. All components of a wireless telecommunications facility shall be located so as not to cause any physical or visual obstruction to pedestrian or vehicular traffic, impair the public's use of the right-of-way, or create safety hazards to pedestrians and motorists.
9. Wireless telecommunications facilities shall not be located so as to interfere with access to fire hydrants, fire stations, fire escapes, water valves, underground vaults, valve housing structures, or any other vital public health and safety facility.
107
Agenda Item # 6.
11 April 12, 2022
10. Facilities mounted to a telecommunications tower, above-ground accessory equipment, or walls, fences, landscaping or other screening methods shall be setback a minimum of 18 inches from the front of a curb.
11. Wireless telecommunication facilities shall be located on poles that are outside of driveways and shall not impair intersection sight lines.
B. Wireless Telecommunications Facilities Located on Properties Outside of Public Rights-of-Way and Public Utility Easements
1. The preferred locations for wireless telecommunications facilities include properties within one of the following Zoning Districts identified in the following subsections of Municipal Code Section 14.04.010.
K. Office-Administrative District, OA (OA);
L. Office-Administrative District (OA-1 and OA-4.5);
O. Commercial Downtown District (CD);
P. Commercial Retail Sales District (CRS);
Q. Commercial Thoroughfare District (CT);
R. Commercial Retail Sales/Office District (CRS/OAD); and V. Loyola Corners Specific Plan Overlay District (LCSPZ).
2. Less preferred locations for wireless telecommunications facilities include any City-owned property and properties within one of the following Zoning Districts identified in the following subsections of Municipal Code Section 14.04.010.
N. Commercial Neighborhood District (CN); and
S. Public and Community Facilities District (PCF).
T. Public and Community Facilities/Single-Family District (PCF/R1- 10)
3. Location of Wireless Telecommunications Facilities on Properties Outside of Public Rights-of-Way and Public Utility Easements
(a) No portion of a wireless telecommunications facility may be permitted to encroach into any applicable setback for main structures for the zoning district within which it is located unless the facility is designed per the City’s Design Guidelines. 108
Agenda Item # 6.
12 April 12, 2022
(b) Wireless telecommunications facilities and any associated equipment or improvements shall not physically interfere with or impede access to any:
i. Worker access to above-ground or underground
infrastructure owned or operated by any public or private utility agency;
ii. Fire hydrant or water valve;
iii. Doors, gates, sidewalk doors, passage doors, stoops or other ingress and egress points to any building; or
iv. Fire escape.
(c) No wireless telecommunications facility shall be located so as to replace or interfere with parking spaces in such a way as to reduce the total number of parking spaces below the number that is required, nor shall any facility be located so as to interfere with require access to parking spaces.
14.82.040 Requirements for Approval of Less Preferred Locations A. Applications that involve a less-preferred location shall be accompanied by clear and convincing written evidence demonstrating that a preferred location per Section 14. 82.030 A or B is infeasible and that the need for approval of the proposed location rather than a more preferred location is needed, including a written description of the facility’s intended service area.
B. Applications that involve less-preferred locations may be approved only if the applicant demonstrates that:
(1) It does not own any property or facilities within 500 feet from the proposed site that could provide service in lieu of the proposed facility;
(2) No preferred location exists within 500 feet from the proposed site; or
(3) Any preferred location within 500 feet from the proposed site would be technically infeasible.
C. The burden of proof for demonstrating compliance with these above noted conditions shall be on the applicant and must be satisfied with clear and convincing evidence.
109
Agenda Item # 6.
13 April 12, 2022
D. In reviewing a request for a less-preferred location, the City may hire an independent consultant at the applicant’s expense to evaluate the applicant’s demonstration of need for the proposed less-preferred location.
14.82.050 Requirements for Least Alternative to Wireless Telecommunications Facilities at Preferred and Less Preferred Locations
A. The right-of-way of a local residential street that is neither a preferred nor a less preferred location per the requirements of this Chapter is the least preferred location for a small wireless telecommunications facility. An application for such a least preferred location may be approved for a small wireless telecommunications facility within theright-of-way of a local residential street that is neither a preferred nor a less preferred location per the requirements of this Chapter only if:
(1) A combination of macro and small wireless telecommunications facilities, as well as colocation with existing facilities of other carriers at preferred and less preferred locations within the City would be infeasible; and
(2) The total number of wireless telecommunications facilities within Residential Zoning Districts (Municipal Code Sections 14.04.010 A-J, M, U, W) is minimized.
B. The burden of proof for demonstrating the need for one or more small wireless telecommunications facilities within the right-of-way of a local residential street that are neither a preferred nor a less least preferred location per the requirements of Section 14.82.0530A shall lie with the applicant and the evidence offered to meet that burden shall be included in the application submitted to the City.
C. Applications pursuant to Section 14.82.050 shall be accompanied by clear and convincing written evidence that demonstrates the applicant’s existing network configuration serving the City of Los Altos cannot be expanded and/or reconfigured or modified to provide adequate service through a combination of new and relocated macro and small wireless telecommunications facilities, as well as colocation with existing facilities of other carriers at preferred and less preferred locations would be infeasible; and
D. In reviewing a permit request for facilities covered by Section 14.82.050, the City shall hire an independent consultant at the applicant’s expense to evaluate whether achieving the applicant’s stated service objectives through existing or new macro and small wireless facilities in preferred and less preferred locations would be technically infeasiblethe applicant’s current network configuration and demonstration of need to verify that a 110
Agenda Item # 6.
14 April 12, 2022
combination of facilities within the preferred and less preferred locations cannot provide service throughout the City.
14.82.060 Additional Locational Preferences
A. Mid-block locations are preferred to more visible corners and intersections unless:
(1) The wireless telecommunications facility is mounted on a traffic signal control pole or streetlight;
(2) The wireless telecommunications facility is designed per the City’s Design Guidelines.
B. The location of a new pole, if permitted, is preferred:
(1) Within the parkway strip if one is present.
(2) In alignment with existing trees, utility poles, and streetlights. (3) At an equal distance between trees, when possible, with a minimum separation of 15 feet from the tree’s trunk or outside of the tree's drip line, whichever is greater, such that no disturbance occurs within the critical root zone of any tree.
14.82.070 Eligible Facilities Requested per Municipal Code Section 12.12.100 and Applications Pursuant to Government Code Section 65850.6 Eligible facilities requested per Municipal Code Section 12.12.100 and applications pursuant to California Government Code Section 65850.6 (see Municipal Code Section 12.12.110), are permitted within all Zoning Districts and within all public rights-of-way.
SECTION 3. WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES; PERMIT
PROVISIONS
A. Title 11.12 of the Municipal Code for the City shall be repeal and/or amended to make the following changes to the existing text of Chapter 11.12:
1. Section 11.12.040.A is repealed and replaced as follows:
Section 11.12.040A. Permit Required. No wireless telecommunications facility shall be located or modified within the City on any property, including the public right-of-way, without the issuance of a permit as required by this Chapter. Such permit must comply with the locational standards set forth in Chapter 14.82 of the City’s Municipal Code regulating zoning. In addition, such permit shall be subject to the conditions of Chapter 11.12, along with the City’s Design Guidelines calling forth various design and placement standards adopted by the City Council by resolution, and shall be in addition to any other permit required pursuant to the Los Altos Municipal Code.
111
Agenda Item # 6.
15 April 12, 2022
2. Section 11.12.050.A.9 is repealed and replaced as follows:
3. Section 11.12.050.A.9. Intentionally omitted
4. Section 11.12.050.B.1.c. is repealed and replaced as follows:
Section 11.12. 050.B.1.c. Analysis of an application that involves a less-preferred location as set forth in the locational standards of this Chapter, to determine if the applicant owns any property or facilities within 500 feet of the proposed site that could provide service in lieu of the proposed facility, and whether there is a preferred location within 500 feet and to determine whether any such preferred location is technically feasible.
5. Section 11.12.050.E.2 is repealed and replaced as follows:
Section 11.12.050.E.2 Submittal Appointment. All applications must be filed with the City at a pre-scheduled appointment. Applicants may generally submit one application per appointment, but may schedule successive appointments for multiple applications whenever feasible and not prejudicial to other applicants. Any application received without an appointment, whether delivered in person or through any other means, will not be considered duly filed until a submittal appointment is obtained.
6. Section 11.12.060 is repealed and replaced as follows:
11.12.060 - Conditions of approval for all facilities.
A. In addition to compliance with the requirements of this Chapter, upon approval all facilities shall be subject to each of the following conditions of approval, as well as any modification of these conditions or additional conditions of approval deemed necessary by the City:
1. Before the permittee submits any application for a building permit or other permits required by the Los Altos Municipal Code, the permittee must incorporate the wireless telecommunication facility permit granted under this Chapter, all conditions associated with the wireless telecommunications facility permit and the approved plans and any photo simulations (the "approved plans") into the project plans.
2. The permittee must construct, install and operate the wireless telecommunications facility in strict compliance with the approved plans.
The permittee shall submit an as built drawing within ninety (90) days after installation of the facility.
3. Where feasible, as new technology becomes available, the permittee shall:
a. Place above-ground wireless telecommunications facilities below ground, including, but not limited to, accessory equipment that has 112
Agenda Item # 6.
16 April 12, 2022
been mounted to a telecommunications tower or mounted on the ground; and
b. Replace larger, more visually intrusive facilities with smaller, less visually intrusive facilities, after receiving all necessary permits and approvals required pursuant to the Los Altos Municipal Code.
4. The permittee shall submit and maintain current at all times basic contact and site information on a form to be supplied by the City. The permittee shall notify the city of any changes to the information submitted within seven days of any change, including change of the name or legal status of the owner or operator. This information shall include, but is not limited to, the following:
a. Identity, including the name, address and twenty-four (24) hour local or toll free contact phone number of the permittee, the owner, the operator, and the agent or person responsible for the maintenance of the facility.
b. The legal status of the owner of the wireless telecommunications facility, including official identification numbers and FCC certification.
c. Name, address, and telephone number of the property owner if different than the permittee.
5. The permittee shall not place any facilities that will deny access to, or otherwise interfere with, any public utility, easement, or right-of-way located on the site. The permittee shall allow the city reasonable access to, and maintenance of, all utilities and existing public improvements within or adjacent to the site, including, but not limited to, pavement, trees, public utilities, lighting and public signage.
6. To minimize environmental effects of installation and operations, wireless telecommunications facilities shall comply with the following performance standards:
a. Where ground disturbance is required for installation of a wireless telecommunications facility, applicable best management practices (BMPs) shall be implemented to minimize loss or topsoil and site erosion and to reduce diesel particulate (PM10) and PM2.5 emissions.
b. In the event of an unanticipated discovery of historical, archaeological, or Tribal cultural resources during construction, ground-disturbing activities shall be halted until a City-approved qualified consulting archaeologist assesses the significance of the find according to CEQA Guidelines §15064.5. If any find is 113
Agenda Item # 6.
17 April 12, 2022
determined to be a potential Tribal cultural resource or a unique archaeological resource, the City, consulting archaeologist, and the applicable Tribal authority would determine the appropriate measures to be taken. Any Tribal cultural resources identified would be subject to Tribal mitigation requirements. Any archaeological resources recovered would be subject to scientific analysis, professional museum curation, and documentation according to current professional standards.
c. Installations of wireless telecommunications facilities shall meet the most current California Building Code standards required at the time of construction to reduce the potential for substantial adverse effects related to ground shaking.
d. In the event of an unanticipated discovery during project construction, ground-disturbing activities would be halted until a qualified paleontologist meeting the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP) Standards determines their significance, and, if significant, supervises their collection for curation. Any fossils collected during site-specific development project-related excavations, and determined to be significant by the qualified paleontologist, shall be prepared to the point of identification and curated into an accredited repository with retrievable storage. e. Noise generated by equipment will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare and shall not exceed the standards set forth in Chapter 6.16 of the Municipal Code. (1) A written report that analyzes acoustic levels for the proposed wireless telecommunications facility and all associated equipment including, without limitation, all environmental control units, sump pumps, temporary backup power
generators, and permanent backup power generators in order to demonstrate compliance with Los Altos Municipal
Code, Chapter 6.16, Noise Regulations shall be submitted as part of applications for wireless telecommunications facilities. (2) The acoustic analysis must be prepared and certified by an engineer and include an analysis of the manufacturers'
specifications for all noise-emitting equipment and a depiction of the proposed equipment relative to all adjacent property lines.
(3) In lieu of a written report, the applicant may submit evidence from the equipment manufacturer that the ambient noise
emitted from all the proposed equipment will not, both
individually and cumulatively, exceed the applicable limits. 114
Agenda Item # 6.
18 April 12, 2022
f. Where temporary closure of a sidewalk or roadway travel lane would be necessary for installation of a wireless
telecommunications facility, preparation and implementation of a Traffic Control Plan approved by the City Engineer shall be required. Should installation of a wireless telecommunications facility occur adjacent to a transit stop and require temporary relocation of the stop, the applicant for such facility shall provide needed improvements for such a temporary transit stop.
6. At all times, all required notices and signs shall be posted on the site as required by the FCC and California Public Utilities Commission, and as approved by the City. The location and dimensions of a sign bearing the emergency contact name and telephone number shall be posted pursuant to the approved plans.
7. At all times, the permittee shall ensure that the facility complies with the most current regulatory and operational standards including, but not limited to, radio frequency emissions standards adopted by the FCC and antenna height standards adopted by the Federal Aviation Administration. Permittee shall conduct on-site testing to ensure the facility is in compliance with all radio frequency emissions standards adopted by the FCC. Tests shall occur upon commencement of operations, and annually thereafter. Copies of the reports from such testing shall be submitted to the city within thirty (30) days of the completion of testing. The City may retain a consultant to perform testing to verify compliance with current regulatory and operational standards.
8. If the City Manager determines there is good cause to believe that the facility may emit radio frequency emissions that are likely to exceed FCC standards, the City Manager may require the permittee to submit a technically sufficient written report certified by a qualified radio frequency emissions engineer, certifying that the facility is in compliance with such FCC standards.
9. Annual Certification. Each year on July 1, the permittee shall submit an affidavit which shall list, by location, all facilities it owns within the city by location, and shall certify (1) each such installation remains in use; (2) that such in-use facility remains covered by insurance; and (3) each such installation which is no longer in use. Any facility which is no longer in use shall be removed by permittee within sixty (60) days of delivery of the affidavit.
10. Permittee shall pay for and provide a performance bond, which shall be in effect until the facilities are fully and completely removed and the site reasonably returned to its original condition, to cover permittee's 115
Agenda Item # 6.
19 April 12, 2022
obligations under these conditions of approval and the Los Altos Municipal Code. The bond coverage shall include, but not be limited to, removal of the facility, maintenance obligations and landscaping obligations. The amount of the performance bond shall be set by the City Manager in an amount rationally related to the obligations covered by the bond and shall be specified in the conditions of approval.
11. Permittee shall defend, indemnify, protect and hold harmless the City, its elected and appointed council members, boards, commissions, officers, officials, agents, consultants, employees, and volunteers from and against any and all claims, actions, or proceeding against the city and its elected and appointed council members, boards, commissions, officers, officials, agents, consultants, employees and volunteers to attack, set aside, void or annul, an approval of the City, Planning Commission or City Council concerning this permit and the project. Such indemnification shall include damages, judgments, settlements, penalties, fines, defensive costs or expenses, including, but not limited to, interest, attorneys' fees and expert witness fees, or liability of any kind related to or arising from such claim, action, or proceeding. The City shall promptly notify the permittee of any claim, action, or proceeding.
Nothing contained herein shall prohibit city from participating in a defense of any claim, action or proceeding. The City shall have the option of coordinating the defense, including, but not limited to, choosing counsel for the defense at permittee's expense.
12. All conditions of approval shall be binding as to the applicant and all successors in interest to permittee.
13. A condition setting forth the permit expiration date in accordance with Section 11.12.060 shall be included in the conditions of approval.
7. Section 11.12.080 A. is repealed and replaced as follows:
Section 11.12.080. Findings.
A. Where a wireless telecommunication facility requires a telecom use permit as provided for in this Chapter, the City shall not approve any application unless, all of the following findings are made:
1. The proposed facility complies with the locational and siting standards set forth in Chapter 14.82 and with all applicable building, electrical and fire safety codes.
2. The proposed facility complies with all applicable provisions of Chapter
14.82 and with the Design Guidelines adopted by the City.
3. The proposed facility complies with all applicable building, electrical and fire safety codes.
116
Agenda Item # 6.
20 April 12, 2022
4. The proposed facility has been designed and located to achieve compatibility with the community to the maximum extent reasonably feasible.
5. The applicant has submitted a statement of its willingness to allow other carriers to collocate on the proposed wireless telecommunications facility wherever technically and economically feasible and where colocation would not harm community compatibility.
8. Section 11.12.090 Exceptions is repealed in its entirety.
9. Section 11.12.160.B is repealed and replaced as follows:
Section 11.12.160B. After the expiration of the wireless telecommunications permit provided for in Section A, above, a permittee shall apply for a new permit and comply with all the requirements of the City Code then at play.
10. Section 11.12.160. C and D are repealed in their entirety.
11. Section 11.12.180.A is repealed and replaced as follows:
A. Permittee’s Removal Obligation. Upon the expiration date of the permit, or upon earlier termination or revocation of the permit, or abandonment of the facility after a period of ninety (90) days, the permittee, owner, or operator shall remove its wireless telecommunications facility and restore the site to its natural condition except for retaining the landscaping improvements and any other improvements at the discretion of the City. Removal shall be in accordance with proper health and safety requirements and all ordinances, rules, and regulations of the City. The facility shall be removed from the property within 30 days, at no cost or expense to the City. If the facility is located on private property, the private property owner shall also be independently responsible for the expense of timely removal and restoration.
Should the City be required to remove the facility or restore a site within the public right-of-way, the owner/operator of the facility shall reimburse the City for its actual costs.
12. Section 11.02.080.C is repealed and replaced as follows:
Section 11.02.080.C. A copy of any decision on an application made under this section shall be provided to the applicant, and to any party who submitted comments to the City Manager pursuant to notice required by this Chapter. Decisions shall also be posted on the Los Altos website within twenty-four (24) hours of their issuance or as soon as reasonably practicable, in a manner clearly identifying the application to which the decision relates. And, the decision shall also be posted on the site of the proposed wireless telecommunications facility.
SECTION 4. DESIGN STANDARDS
The City Council hereby reviews the prior Design Standards called forth in Resolution No. 2019- 35 adopted on August 5, 2019 and repeals same in its entirety and concurrently adopts New Design Guidelines in a separation resolution to regulate the design standards for wireless telecommunication facilities.
117
Agenda Item # 6.
21 April 12, 2022
SECTION 5. CEQA
The Initial Study prepared for the proposed Wireless Telecommunications Facilities Development Standards and Design Guidelines indicates for each environmental issue it analyzed that environmental impacts would be less than significant or that no impact would occur. There is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the lead agency (the City of Los Altos), that the project may have a significant effect on the environment.
SECTION 6. SEVERABILITY
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be unconstitutional or otherwise invalid by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. The Los Altos City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted the remainder of this ordinance, including each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion irrespective of the invalidity of any other article, section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion.
SECTION 7. AUTHORITY AND EFFECTIVE DATE.
This Ordinance is enacted pursuant to the authority conferred upon the Los Altos City Council by Government Code Section 36934 and will be effective thirty (30) days after second reading.
______________________________
Anita Enander
Mayor, City of Los Altos
__________________________
Attest: Andrea Chelemengos
City Clerk
ORDINANCE NO. ______ of the City of Los Altos adopted on _____________, 2022 by the following roll call vote of the City Council:
Vote:
Vice Mayor Sally Meadows: ___________________________
Councilmember Lynette Lee Eng: ___________________________ Councilmember Neysa Fligor: ___________________________ Councilmember Jonathan D. Weinberg: ___________________________
118
Agenda Item # 6.
Attachment 3
1 April 12, 2022
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-____
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
LOS ALTOS ADOPTING DESIGN GUIDELINES AND
STANDARDS FOR WIRELESS FACILITIES
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LOS ALTOS DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. FINDINGS
A. Pursuant to the California Constitution, Article XI, section 7; California Government Code § 37100 and other applicable law, the City Council may make and enforce within its limits all local, police, sanitary and other ordinances, resolutions and other regulations not in conflict with general laws.
B. It is in the public interest for the City to establish reasonable, uniform and comprehensive design and siting guidelines for the installation of wireless facilities . The City having previously established design guidelines pursuant to Resolution No. 2019-35 adopted on August 5, 2019 (hereinafter “the Existing Design Guidelines”), now wishes to rescind the Existing Design Guidelines and replace them with new design guidelines set forth below in the Appendix as discussed below in Section 2 (“New Design Guidelines”), in order to protect the City of Los Altos and its aesthetics and preserve the public health and safety of the community.
C. These New Design Guidelines are intended to, and should be applied to, protect and promote public health, safety and welfare, and also balance the benefits that flow from wireless services with the City's local rules which include, without limitation, the aesthetic character of the City, its neighborhoods and community.
D. Los Altos’ public rights-of-way are a uniquely valuable public resource, closely linked with the City’s rural character and natural beauty. Los Altos has a population of 30,000 and is suburban community near Silicon Valley. The City has a small town, semi-rural atmosphere – with wooded, quiet low-density single-family homes. The regulation of wireless communication facilities both within the public right-of-way and other locations within the City, is necessary to protect and preserve the aesthetics of the community. The City’s General Plan also provides for the undergrounding of new telephone and utility lines, “maintaining the low density, low profile residential character of the community through zoning regulations and design guidelines,” and “ensuring compatibility between residential and non-residential development through zoning regulations and design review.” The City’s concerns for preservation of its community including public safety, visual impact, and aesthetics relate to preserving the residential character of the community by imposing these New Design Guidelines that relate to location, camouflaging, height, size and spacing of wireless telecommunications facilities. As well, the New Design Guidelines also provide separation between wireless telecommunications facilities and the front of homes along permitted rights-of-way within residential zones serves to reduce the intrusiveness of any new wireless telecommunications facilities.
E. The City is mindful of the need to minimize the potential adverse impacts on the community which includes amongst other things, limiting wireless site visibility and impacts to 119
Agenda Item # 6.
Attachment 3
2 April 12, 2022
the City’s aesthetic well-being, while balancing same against the need for sufficient cell coverage for emergency needs and complying with both federal and state laws. These New Design Guidelines are particularly focused on minimizing visibility from residences, encouraging undergrounding of utilities, and limiting the height of such facilities to be consistent with the single-family residences that predominate the housing stock of Los Altos. In keeping with these goals, these New Design Guidelines serve to ensure the preservation of the local residential areas.
F. These New Design Guidelines serve to help minimize and/or alleviate possible threats to the public health, safety and welfare of the City of Los Altos, including but not limited to, potential disturbance to the right-of-way through the installation and maintenance of wireless telecommunication facilities; traffic and pedestrian safety hazards due to the unsafe location of wireless facilities; impacts to trees where proximity conflicts may require unnecessary trimming of branches or require removal of roots due to related undergrounding of equipment or connection lines; land use conflicts and incompatibilities including excessive height of poles and/or towers; creation of visual and aesthetic blights and potential safety concerns arising from excessive size, heights, noise or lack of camouflaging of wireless telecommunications facilities including the associated pedestals, meters, equipment and power generators; and the creation of unnecessary visual and aesthetic blight by failing to utilize alternative technologies or capitalizing on collocation opportunities, all of which has the potential to yield serious negative impacts on the unique quality and character of Los Altos.
G. The reasonably regulated and orderly development of wireless telecommunication facilities in the public-right-of-way is desirable, and unregulated or disorderly development represents a threat to the health, welfare, and safety of the Los Altos community.
H. The City’s beauty is an important reason for businesses to locate in the City and for residents to live here. The City’s economy, as well as the health and well-being of all who visit, work or live in the City, depends in part on maintaining the City’s beauty. The City has been moving towards the undergrounding of various utilities, including the First Street and Lincoln Park Undergrounding Utility projects, and needs to ensure that this effort is not hindered by the addition of numerous wireless telecommunications facilities cabinet, wires, cables, and bulky equipment that visually impede and clutter the City’s public rights of way. The New Design Guidelines serve to encourage the reduction of all appurtenant equipment, screening of same, and efforts at undergrounding.
I. The City Council takes legislative notice of the various federal court decisions and FCC Order that have recognized the City’s ability to impose the New Design Guidelines to protect the aesthetics of Los Altos. In fact, the FCC Order goes on to state that local aesthetic requirements that are reasonable in that they are technically feasible and reasonably directed to avoiding or remedying the intangible public harm of unsightly or out-of-character deployments are permissible. In the Matter of Accelerating Wireless Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Inv., 33 F.C.C. Rcd. 9088 (2018), aff’d in part, rev’d in part, City of 120
Agenda Item # 6.
Attachment 3
3 April 12, 2022
Portland v United States, 969 F.3d 1020, 1032 (9th Cir. 2020) and see also Sprint PCS v. City of Palos Verdes Estates (2009) 583 F.3d 716.
J. The City acknowledges that there has been an ever-increasing demand for the placement of wireless telecommunication facilities within the public rights of way, in order to offer increased coverage in the way of numerous expanding technologies such as: cell phones, video streaming, and on line access to work from home during the COVID -19 pandemic. In connection with the ever increasing demand for expanding technologies, the City is also mindful of the carriers desire to move forward with 5G and the potential increase in applications for wireless facilities within this small suburban community has the potential to greatly impact the quality of life and the bucolic nature of the community.
K. The overarching intent of the New Design Guidelines is to make wireless telecommunications reasonably available while preserving the essential rural character of Los Altos. The New Design Guidelines will foster such by minimizing the visual and physical effects of wireless telecommunications facilities through appropriate design, screening techniques and location standards; and encouraging the installation of such facilities where and in a manner such that potential adverse impacts to Los Altos is minimized.
L. The City adopted its Current Design Guidelines back in August of 2019. This occurred after the City held a study session and several public hearings, at which stakeholders discussed wireless and other infrastructure deployment issues, and expressed their design and location preferences, practical and safety concerns, aesthetic concerns, policy views and the essential local values that make Los Altos a uniquely small suburban community. The City’s residents in the summer of 2019 called out the numerous concerns at play with aesthetics, and these concerns included numerous objections that were focused on visual blight such as:
Small cell nodes previously proposed by carriers, AT&T and Verizon, to the City of Los Altos were visually intrusive and unsightly;
The City should continue to be judicious about and distaste for visual blight; The need to eliminate visual blight;
The need to consider potential visual blight, to mitigate noise and heat; Wireless facilities should be regulated in order to preserve Los Altos’ neighborhood aesthetic guidelines;
Cell towers or small cells are unsightly, noisy and add to the visual blight from the existing electric and telephone lines;
Cell towers are ugly and there is no need for extra eye sores; The mounting of "small" refrigerator-sized boxes on the side of an existing utility poles is unsightly and adds to visual blight; and
The cell tower is an eye sore that emits an annoying fan type noise that has a negative impact on the quality of life of the residents who live there or who walk within the community.
These same concerns as to visual blight, aesthetic impairment and noise remain at play today. 121
Agenda Item # 6.
Attachment 3
4 April 12, 2022
SECTION 2. DESIGN GUIDELINES: REPEAL OF PRIOR RESOLUTION.
The City Council previously adopted Resolution No. 2019-35 on August 5, 2019. The Council hereby repeals Resolution No. 2019-35 in its entirety as of the effective date of Ordinance No. 2022-___ setting forth locational standards for wireless telecommunications facilities (“Wireless Locational Ordinance”) This Resolution and the Design Guidelines found in the attached Appendix shall only become effective if the Council adopts the proposed Wireless Ordinance.
SECTION 3. NEW DESIGN GUIDELINES.
The City Council hereby adopts the New Design Guidelines set forth the Appendix, which New Design Guidelines are incorporated with this Resolution SECTION 4. DEFINITIONS
The definitions set forth in Section 11.12.020 of the Municipal Code are incorporated by reference into this Resolution. In addition, the Appendix provides definitions for “Small Cell Facility” and Underground Areas.”
SECTION 5. SEVERABILITY.
If any provision of this Resolution or its application to any person or circumstances is held invalid, such invalidity has no effect on the other provisions or applications of the Resolution that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this extend, the provisions of this Resolution irrespective of the invalidity of any portion thereof.
SECTION 6. EFFECTIVE DATE.
The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution and cause it, or a summary of it to be published as required by law. This Resolution shall become effective as of the effective date of Ordinance No. 2022- ,_setting forth locational standards for wireless telecommunications facilities.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Los Altos this ___ day of ______________, 2022.
_____________________________
Anita Enander
Mayor, City of Los Altos
__________________________
Attest: Andrea Chelemengos
City Clerk
122
Agenda Item # 6.
Attachment 3
5 April 12, 2022
APPENDIX TO CITY OF LOS ALTOS RESOLUTION 2022-___
DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR WIRELESS
TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES
I. Definitions
A. Small Cell Facility: shall have the same meaning as “small wireless facility” in 47 C.F.R. 1.60020), or any successor provision (which is a personal wireless services facility that meets the following conditions that, solely for convenience, have been set forth below):
1. The facilitya. is mounted on a structure 50 feet or less in height, including antennas, as defined in 47 C.F.R. Section 1.1320(d), or
b. is mounted on a structure no more than 10 percent taller than other adjacent structures, or
c. does not extend an existing structure on which it is located to a height of more than 50 feet by more than 10 percent, whichever is greater;
2. Each antenna associated with the deployment, excluding associated antenna equipment (as defined in the definition of antenna in 47 C.F.R.
Section 1.1320(d)), is no more than three cubic feet in volume;
3. All other wireless equipment associated with the structure, including the wireless equipment associated with the antenna and any pre-existing associated equipment on the structure, is no more than 28 cubic feet in volume;
4. The facility does not require antenna structure registration under 47 C.F.R. Part 17;
5. The facility is not located on Tribal lands, as defined under 36 C.F. R.
Section 800.16(x); and
6. The facility does not result in human exposure to radio frequency radiation in excess of the applicable safety standards specified in 47 C.F.R. Section 1.1307(6).
B. Underground areas: Those areas where there are no electrical facilities or facilities of the incumbent local exchange cattier in the right of way; or where the wires associated with the same are or are required to be located underground; or where the same are scheduled to be converted from overhead to underground. Electrical facilities are distribution facilities owned by an electric utility and do not include transmission facilities used or intended to be used to transmit electricity at nominal voltages in excess of 35,000 volts.
123
Agenda Item # 6.
Attachment 3
6 April 12, 2022
II. Design And Development Standards for all Wireless Telecommunications Facilities.
A. Purpose. The purpose of this section is to provide guidelines to applicants and the City that prescribe clear, reasonable, and predictable design criteria to reduce visual and land use impacts associated with wireless telecommunication facilities in the City. Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit a wireless telecommunication facility in any location or configuration that it is otherwise prohibited by the City’s locational and development standards found in Chapter 14.82.
The design and development standards set forth in this section apply to all wireless telecommunications facilities no matter where they are located. Wireless telecommunications facilities shall be designed and maintained so as to minimize visual, noise, and other impacts on the surrounding community and shall be planned, designed, located, and erected in accordance with the design and development standards in this section.
B. Basic Design Principles. The following describes basic principles upon which wireless telecommunications facilities design guidelines are based. They are intended to provide guidance in the application of the general and detailed design guidelines in the review and evaluation of site-specific wireless telecommunications facilities permit applications.
1. Impact Minimization. The overall impacts of a wireless telecommunications facility shall be minimized in relation to aesthetic, land use, noise, traffic, and other considerations. Although this is generally accomplished with the smallest feasible design for any given facility, a larger facility may sometimes be appropriate if it is well concealed, compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, and can reduce the overall number of wireless telecommunications facilities required to provide service within the City.
2. Integration and Concealment. Integration and concealment of a wireless telecommunications facility and its resulting visibility are a function of site context as well as the design and placement of a facility on a specific site. a. Overall, new wireless
telecommunications
facilities and modifications
to existing facilities shall be
visually integrated into their
sites and as hidden from
view as feasible.
b. Non-integrated
(unconcealed) installations
are less preferred and
permitted only where an
integrated (concealed)
facility is either infeasible or Figure 1: This well-concealed wireless telecommunications facility has its antennas architecturally integrated into the building. 124
Agenda Item # 6.
Attachment 3
7 April 12, 2022
would reduce the number and overall visual intrusiveness of wireless telecommunications facilities required to provide service within the City. c. Complete concealment (e.g., no visible exterior equipment) is preferred over other methods.
d. Covering or painting antennas and equipment does not necessarily mean they are well-concealed and must be evaluated based on their actual ability to conceal the facility. Factors to be considered include the visibility of exterior pole equipment on a pole regardless of its color and concealment methods (antenna skirts, fiberglass paneling, fiber-reinforced plastic [FRP] boxes, etc.) themselves. e. RF safety barriers shall be the least visible barrier feasible. When feasible, striping and restricted access shall be used instead of posts, chains, and/or fencing. When barriers must be visible, building materials should be integrated into the design of the facility and its adjacent surroundings. f. Any feature that is represented on plans and photo simulations submitted to the City as providing concealment (adjacent landscaping, paint colors, architectural elements, etc.) shall be present for the life of the project, and therefore need to be within the applicant’s control.
g. Future modifications to a site or facility reduce concealment that was provided with the initial installation shall not be permitted unless no feasible alternative exists, or the proposed modification involves colocation and an overall reduction of the visual intrusiveness of wireless telecommunications facilities within the City.
3. Context. Specific situations require specific design solutions. What integrates well into one site and conceals a wireless telecommunications facility might not be appropriate for another situation. Proposed designs shall therefore be evaluated based on the following considerations.
a. Concealment behind a parapet might be a good design solution; however, designs that raise the parapet or only a portion of the parapet might not be. b. Façade-mounted antennas or a cupola might be appropriate for certain styles of architecture, but not for others.
c. Placement of a wireless telecommunications facility on an existing pole or a replacement pole might or might not be visually unobtrusive, depending on the extent to which the facility adds to the height of the pole and the presence and extent of external equipment and cabling added to the pole. d. Placement of a new pole within a street right-of-way might or might not be appropriate depending on the location of any nearby utility poles, streetlights, or traffic signals.
125
Agenda Item # 6.
Attachment 3
8 April 12, 2022
e. Placement of a new pole on a property outside of a right-of-way (such as on a new flagpole) might or might not be appropriate depending on its design and location in relation to buildings and other onsite features.
f. A wireless telecommunications facility that fits into its context (e.g., a faux tree within an area having existing trees) is generally more integrated (concealed) than one that does not (e.g., a faux tree in the middle of a non-landscaped parking lot or a faux tree that is poorly designed or of a species not otherwise present in the area).
g. New wireless telecommunications facilities are generally appropriate as a means of reducing the overall number of facilities within the community but might be visually intrusive depending on their height, design, and placement.
C. No Speculative Facilities. A wireless telecommunications facility, telecommunications collocation facility, or telecommunications tower that is built on speculation and for which there is no wireless tenant shall be prohibited within the City.
D. General Guidelines.
1. Concealment. Each facility shall be designed to be as visually inconspicuous as feasible, to prevent the facility from dominating the surrounding area, and to conceal the facility from predominant views from surrounding properties, all in a manner that achieves compatibility with the community.
a. Cabling and equipment should be concealed wherever feasible. Where cabling and/or equipment cannot feasibly be fully concealed from public view, they should be designed and located so as to minimize their visual intrusiveness.
2. Traffic Safety. All facilities shall be designed and located in such a manner as to avoid adverse impacts on traffic safety.
a. Any wireless telecommunications facility attachments placed less than 16 feet above ground level shall not be placed closer than 18 inches to a curb where one is installed or as determined by the Engineering services Department where no curb is installed, nor shall they extend over a sidewalk (Caltrans Highway Design Manual Section 309).
b. All wireless telecommunications facility equipment shall maintain at least 3 feet separation from any curb cut.
3. Antennas. The applicant shall use the least visible antennas possible to accomplish the coverage objectives. Antenna elements shall be flush mounted, to the extent reasonably feasible. All antenna mounts shall be designed so as not to preclude probable future collocation by the same or other operators or carriers. Antennas shall be situated to reduce visual impact without compromising their function. Whip antennas need not be screened.
126
Agenda Item # 6.
Attachment 3
9 April 12, 2022
4. Landscaping.
a. 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 the landscaping is used for screening.
b. The wireless telecommunications facility’s design shall be consistent with the existing and/or proposed landscape design of the adjacent site, using a similar or complementary plant palette.
c. Existing, mature trees shall be retained when feasible. Any existing landscaping removed or damaged by installation shall be replaced in kind. d. Additional landscaping shall be planted, irrigated, and maintained where such vegetation is deemed necessary by the City to provide screening or to block the line of sight between facilities and adjacent uses. Landscaping to screen wireless telecommunications facilities shall not, however, block the lines of sight and create hazards for motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians. e. Any proposed underground vaults shall be designed and constructed so as to protect existing street trees, including roots within the tree’s drip line. (1) A report from an experienced arborist shall be provided to the City upon request confirming the tree’s root system has been adequately protected. f. Landscaping proposed to screen, conceal, complement, or soften the visual intrusiveness of a wireless telecommunications facility shall remain for the life of the permit, even if not located within the applicant’s lease area. Adequate provisions shall be entered into with property owners to ensure that required landscaping is not removed, and that it is properly maintained. Landscaping outside the applicant’s control is generally not considered to provide concealment, but concealment provided by such landscaping can be considered on a case-bycase basis.
5. Signage. Wireless telecommunications facilities and wireless telecommunications collocation facilities shall not bear any signs or advertising devices other than certification, watting, or other signage required by law or permitted by the City.
6. Lighting. A wireless telecommunications facility shall not be illuminated unless lighting is specifically required by the Federal Aviation Administration or other government agency, or the lighting is in association with the illumination of an athletic field on City or school property. Lighting arresters and beacon lights are not permitted unless required by the Federal Aviation Administration or other government agency. Legally required lightning arresters and beacons shall be included when calculating the height of facilities such as telecommunications towers, lattice towers, and monopoles.
127
Agenda Item # 6.
Attachment 3
10 April 12, 2022
7. Noise.
a. Each wireless telecommunications facility and wireless telecommunications collocation facility shall be operated in such a manner so as to minimize any disruption caused by noise.
b. At no time shall any facility be permitted to generate noise exceeding the noise levels specified in Municipal Code Chapter 6.16 except for backup generators operated during periods of power outages.
c. Backup generators shall only be operated during periods of power outages, and shall not be tested on weekends, on holidays, or on weekdays between the hours of 5:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.
d. Where feasible, passive louvers and/or other passive ventilation shall be provided as the primary means of temperature control.
8. Security. Each wireless telecommunications facility and wireless telecommunications collocation facility shall be designed to be resistant to, and minimize opportunities for, unauthorized access, climbing, vandalism, graffiti, and other conditions that would result in hazardous situations, visual blight, or attractive nuisances. The City may require the provision of warning signs, fencing, anti-climbing devices, or other techniques to prevent unauthorized access and vandalism when, because of its location or accessibility, a facility has the potential to become an attractive nuisance.
The applicant shall cover any costs associated with the techniques described herein.
9. Modification of Existing Equipment. At the time of modification of a wireless telecommunications facility, existing equipment shall, to the extent feasible, be modified or replaced to reduce visual, noise, and other impacts. This shall include the reduction of the size of the ground cabinet and/or replacement with an underground vault. Examples include, but are not limited to, undergrounding the equipment or replacing larger, more visually intrusive facilities with smaller, less visually intrusive facilities.
III. Additional Design and Development Standards for Facilities Outside of the Public Right-of-Way and Public Utility Easements.
A. Basic Requirements. Facilities located outside the public right-of-way and public utility easements are subject to the design and development standards set forth in this section in addition to the design and development standards that apply to all facilities (Section 4).
B. Preferred Designs.
1. Façade-Concealed Antennas. Façade-concealed antennas have antennas, mounting apparatus, and any associated components fully concealed from all sides within a structure that achieves complete architectural integration with the existing building (for example, antennas behind fiber-reinforced plastic [FRP] in a parapet, and 128
Agenda Item # 6.
Attachment 3
11 April 12, 2022
equipment inside an
existing building), or within
outbuildings that are
architecturally integrated
into a site and are expected
components of the setting.
This preferred installation
type has the following
additional characteristics.
a. Cables and cable trays
are completely hidden
from view with cables
routed internally or
buried underground.
(1) Exterior cable trays
designed to replicate an existing vertical element may be considered on a case-by-case basis.
(2) Standard cable trays painted and textured to match the existing building are indicative of a façade-mounted facility rather than the preferred façadeconcealed facility. b. Equipment and equipment areas shall be completely hidden. (1) Associated equipment shall be completely concealed inside an existing building, inside an underground vault, or by the same method as the antennas (RRUs, RRHs, surge suppressors, and similar).
(2) Screen walls, fences, and
prefabricated facilities are
generally not indicative
of building-concealed
facilities; however,
equipment enclosures
designed to replicate
existing buildings and
structures may be
considered on a case-bycase basis. This guideline
shall apply to any
existing or proposed
mechanical equipment
that serves the wireless
Figure 2: This completely concealed wireless telecommunications facility, including antennas, is cited in the City of San Diego's Land Development Manual in its guidelines for wireless communications facilities.
Figure 3: Antennas are concealed behind the circular element. 129
Agenda Item # 6.
Attachment 3
12 April 12, 2022
telecommunications facility, including, but not limited to, generators, air conditioning units, and similar equipment.
c. FRPs shall be both textured and painted to match adjacent building faces. Paint and texture should match completely.
d. There should be no noticeable transitions (e.g., seams or differences in paint or texture) between FRP and adjacent surfaces.
e. If concealed within a parapet, the top, sides, and rear of antennas and associated components shall also be enclosed or otherwise screened from view. No wireless telecommunications facility components, including antenna, mounting apparatus, cabling, or equipment, should be visible.
f. If a project extends the parapet upward, the extensions should have symmetry in all visible dimensions. Antennas and concealment elements shall not dominate the element on which they are placed.
2. Faux Architectural Elements. Faux architectural elements are existing or proposed architectural elements on a building that completely conceal antennas. They are distinguished from façadeconcealed antennas in that
they appear to be
architectural elements of a
building.
a. This preferred installation
type may take a variety of
forms, such as tower
elements and cupolas.
Architectural integration
may also include tapered
columns (which may hide
façade-mounted antennas
individually), wing walls,
dormers, statues, façademounted signage, and
other elements.
b. This preferred installation
type shall be appropriate
to the architectural
context and have the
following additional
characteristics:
Figure 4: A cupola (above) and a clock tower (below) conceal antennas. 130
Agenda Item # 6.
Attachment 3
13 April 12, 2022
(1) Design that matches the style of the building and is designed as a feature commonly found on the type or style of building upon which the element is proposed; and
(2) Colors and textures that match the existing building, including finishing features such as reveals, windows, tapers, cornices, tiling, roofing materials, and trim.
c. Antennas and related equipment shall not encroach from a building into the public right-of way or onto an adjacent property.
3. Rooftop Concealment. If accessory equipment for roof-mounted facilities cannot be installed inside the building or underground, such accessory equipment may be located on the roof of the building that the facility is mounted on, provided that both the equipment and screening materials are painted the color of the building, roof, or surroundings. Rooftop facilities that appear to be a building façade, architectural element, or parapet are considered to be façade-concealed, façade-mounted, or faux architectural facilities. Rooftop concealment is considered to be a preferred design where façade integration is not feasible.
a. Roof-mounted facilities shall be designed and constructed to be fully concealed or screened in a manner compatible in color, texture, and type of material with the existing architecture of the building on which the facility is mounted. Screening shall not increase the bulk of the structure nor alter the character of the structure. (1) All screening materials for roof-mounted facilities shall be of a quality and design that is architecturally integrated with the design of the building or structure.
(2) Rooftop concealment shall be appropriate to the architectural setting, matching the colors and textures of existing building (including features such as reveals, cornices, tiling, roofing materials, and trim), and shall be designed as a feature commonly found on the type or style of building upon which the facility is proposed.
(3) Integration into existing rooftop elements is preferred over creating new rooftop elements unless integration would be architecturally undesirable. (4) The height of rooftop screening shall not exceed the maximum height permitted by the zoning district within which the facility is located. (5) Roof-mounted wireless telecommunications facilities shall not be visible from any side and may need to be concealed from the top if adjacent structures are taller and have views onto the roof where wireless telecommunications facilities are proposed to be mounted.
(6) Equipment located on the roof of an existing structure shall be set back or located to minimize visibility, especially from the public right of-way or 131
Agenda Item # 6.
Attachment 3
14 April 12, 2022
viewing locations accessible to the public. Rooftop screening elements will generally need to be set back from the roof edge at least as far as they are tall. (7) Rooftop screening shall not dominate a façade. For example, an antenna screen that approaches the height of a building story and runs most of the length of a façade containing windows would substantially increase building height but not appear as part of the structure. In this case, it would be more desirable to extend the parapet and make the building itself appear taller. b. Unconcealed rooftop installations such as lattice towers, monopoles, and rack mounts that are visible from the public right-of-way or viewing locations accessible to the public shall not be permitted.
4. Architecturally Designed Stand-Alone Towers. Towers that are designed to appear as buildings or signs, and that conceal antennas completely within them, may be permitted where appropriate to the site on which they are proposed. Examples include, but are not limited to, clock towers and obelisks. a. Architecturally designed stand-alone towers shall be of high-quality design and provide variation in planes, textures, colors, or treatments to avoid the look of a simple box.
b. Clock towers shall have a functioning clock at all times. c. A separate sign permit may be required for any onsite sign used to conceal antennas.
d. A wireless telecommunications facility permit may not be used to request signage that does not comply with Municipal Code standards for signage.
5. Athletic Field Lights. The guidelines in this section are for lights used to illuminate large areas for the purposes of recreation. For lights used to illuminate the immediate area for pedestrian or driver safety, see Section C.4, Parking Lot Light Standards, below.
a. Antennas shall be mounted as close as possible to the pole and within an antenna shroud that conceals the antennas and any associated components. No wireless telecommunications facility component except the antenna shroud shall be visibly mounted to a pole.
b. Antennas and mounting components shall be painted the same color as the pole. c. All cables and conduit to and from the light standard shall be routed from the caisson up into the pole. Cable coverings may be permitted in limited circumstances where they would be minimally visible.
d. When a wireless telecommunications facility is proposed on a field with no existing lighting or no functional lighting, the applicant shall provide additional lighting as required to provide a functionally illuminated sports field. Partial lighting of a sports field is not acceptable.
132
Agenda Item # 6.
Attachment 3
15 April 12, 2022
C. Other Permitted Designs.
1. Façade-Mounted Antennas. Façade-mounted antennas are any antennas mounted on the exterior of a building that are not faux architectural elements. Façade- mounted antennas shall:
a. Employ a symmetrical, balanced design.
(1) No interruption of architectural lines or horizontal or vertical reveals should occur.
(2) Antennas should be no longer or wider than the façade on which they are proposed and shall not encroach into window areas or protrude above or below the surface on which they are mounted.
(3) Antennas should be mounted with their tops at the roofline unless there is an obstacle, or unless to do so would decrease concealment. b. Use the smallest mounting brackets available to provide the smallest offset from the building.
c. Limit the distance from the front of the antenna (or antenna shroud/FRP) to the face of the building to 12 inches. Panel antennas may be mounted up to 18 inches away from a building façade when the applicant provides evidence demonstrating that the wireless communication facility cannot operate without incorporating a tilt greater than 12 inches.
d. Fit each antenna into the design of an existing façade, with each antenna being no longer or wider than the portion of the façade upon which it is mounted. The antennas should not interrupt the architectural lines of the façade. e. Conceal associated
mounting brackets
and cable from
view. Any pipes or
similar apparatus
used to attach panel
antennas to a
building façade
shall not extend
beyond the length
or width of the
panel antenna.
Measurements may
be verified during
inspection.
Figure 5: Although façade-mounted boxes are not preferred, this example from San Diego achieves integration with the structure.
133
Agenda Item # 6.
Attachment 3
16 April 12, 2022
f. If a façade-mounted facility dominates a façade element, use façade-mounted FRP boxes that look like an extension of the façade.
g. If not covered by an FRP box, use skirts and chin covers to conceal mounting hardware, create a cleaner appearance, and minimize visual impact. Chin covers shall be designed to replicate the antenna profile. Transitions between antennas and screening devices should not be visible (no gaps). Antennas should appear to be the same length, width, and depth, spaced uniformly. h. Match the color and texture of concealment measures to adjacent building surfaces, including includes trim, reveals, lines, and similar features. No visible transition lines or gaps should occur.
i. Avoid exposed cabling.
j. If not covered by an FRP box, provide a unified appearance. If antennas differ in shape or size, they should all be given unified dimensions using skirts and chin straps spaced uniformly across a façade.
k. Locate ventilation openings on the top or bottom of screening elements only. l. Not encroach from a building into the public right-of way or onto an adjacent property.
2. Faux Trees. Wireless telecommunications facilities may be designed to emulate trees where trees similar in size and species are present. Faux trees may also be appropriate when natural trees of similar species are
planted concurrent with faux tree
installation, depending on the density
and size of trees being planted.
a. Faux trees shall be of a type and
size to adequately conceal antennas
within them while appearing
natural.
(1) Faux trees shall replicate the
shape, structure, and color of
live trees, and be designed to
look like the tree species they
intend to replicate (e.g., a faux
pine tree shall be shaped like a
pine tree). Branching shall not
make the tree look top-heavy or
unnatural. Figure 6: In this example, antennas are concealed by the faux "mono-pine."
134
Agenda Item # 6.
Attachment 3
17 April 12, 2022
(2) If no trees exist within the immediate area, the applicant shall create a landscape setting that integrates the faux tree with added species of a similar height and type.
(3) All branches at the antenna level shall extend a minimum of 24 inches beyond the entire vertical length of the antennas for maximum concealment. Antenna socks shall not count toward this requirement.
(4) Faux trees shall be designed with a minimum of four branches per foot for full density coverage with limited spacing between the branches unless three dimensional (3D) models justify lower branch counts.
(5) There shall be no gaps in branch coverage. All branch ports shall be used for branches. Branches shall blend down the tree with no abrupt transitions. (6) Poles should be five feet shorter than the overall height of the faux tree to allow branching at the top of the tree.
(7) Due to the physical form of palm trees and the difficulty of providing concealment for wireless telecommunications facilities, faux palms shall not be permitted.
b. Applications proposing faux tree installations shall provide detailed specifications during plan review, including:
(1) 3D-modeled photo simulations illustrating branches, foliage, pole, and equipment; and
(2) Sufficient samples, models, or other means to demonstrate the quality, appearance, and durability of the faux tree.
c. Projects shall not be approved at final inspection if they do not match the approved exhibits, including photo simulations.
3. Flagpoles and Similar Vertical Elements. This section addresses the design of wireless telecommunications facilities designed as flagpoles or other stand-alone pole-like elements that are not used for illumination or above-ground utilities. a. Flagpoles shall replicate the design, diameter, and proportion of the vertical element they are intended to imitate and shall maintain a tapered design. b. Generally, flagpoles should be 30 feet or less in height and not exceed 9 inches in diameter.
(1) Flagpoles that are higher than 30 feet and/or exceed 9 inches in diameter may be permitted where the flagpole is located in a suitable setting and appropriately tapered to maintain the appearance of an authentic flagpole. b. Antennas and any pole-mounted equipment shall be enclosed within the flagpole.
Flagpoles shall not have an antenna shroud.
135
Agenda Item # 6.
Attachment 3
18 April 12, 2022
c. Flagpoles shall comply with the U.S. Flag Code at all times. d. All cables shall be routed directly from the ground up through the pole.
4. Parking Lot Light Standards. These guidelines are for lights used to illuminate the immediate area for vehicular and pedestrian safety within a parking lot. a. Light standards used for wireless telecommunications facilities shall:
(1) Replicate the design, diameter, and proportion of the vertical element they are intending to imitate; and
(2) Replicate as closely as possible the design of any other lighting standard within the parking lot, including but not limited to the height of other parking lot lighting standards and the design, material, and color of nearby light poles.
b. All cables and conduit to and from the light standard shall be routed from the caisson through the pole to the antennas.
c. All antennas shall be concealed inside an antenna shroud of a shall be compatible with the diameter of the pole or concealed within the pole. d. Light fixtures shall be sized and balanced with the design and height of the overall light pole.
D. Pole-Mounted Telecommunications Facilities.
1. Facilities mounted to a telecommunications tower, including, but not limited to, the attached antennas, shall be designed to be the minimum functional height and width required to adequately support the proposed facility and meet Federal Communications Commission (FCC) requirements. The applicant shall provide documentation satisfactory to the City Manager establishing compliance with this paragraph.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. Monopoles shall be no greater in diameter or other cross-sectional dimensions than is necessary for the proper functioning of the facility.
136
Agenda Item # 6.
Attachment 3
19 April 12, 2022
E. Accessory Equipment.
1. All accessory equipment associated with the operation of any wireless telecommunications facility shall be fully screened or camouflaged and located in a manner to minimize its visibility to the greatest extent feasible.
2. Accessory equipment for facilities mounted to a telecommunications tower shall be visually screened by locating the equipment either within a nearby building, in an underground vault (with the exception of required electrical panels) or in another type of enclosed structure, which shall comply with the development and design standards of the zoning district in which the accessory equipment is located. Such enclosed structure shall be architecturally treated and adequately screened from view by landscape plantings, decorative walls, fencing or other appropriate means, selected so that the resulting screening will be visually integrated with the architecture and landscaping of the surroundings.
F. Signage.
1. All wireless facilities must include signage that accurately identifies the equipment owner/operator, the site name or identification number, and a toll-free number to the owner/operator's network operations center.
2. Wireless facilities may not bear any other signage or advertisements unless expressly approved by the City, required by law or recommended under existing and future FCC or other United States governmental agencies for compliance with RF emissions regulations.
3. RF notification signs shall be placed where appropriate, and not at pedestrian eye level, unless required by the FCC or other regulatory agencies.
IV. Additional Design and Development Standards for Facilities in the Public Right-ofWay and in Public Utility Easements.
A. Basic Requirements. Facilities located in the public right-of-way and in public utility easements are subject to the design and development standards set forth in this section in addition to the design and development standards that apply to all facilities. Only pole-mounted antennas shall be permitted in the right-of-way. All other telecommunications towers are prohibited.
B. Preferred Configurations
1. Light Poles Wherein all Equipment, Cabling, and Antennas are Within the Pole Itself and/or Entirely Under the Ground.
a. Use of light poles for wireless telecommunications facilities may be permitted where there are existing light poles or in areas where a new light pole would be appropriate (e.g., intersections).
137
Agenda Item # 6.
Attachment 3
20 April 12, 2022
b. The maximum height of any antenna mounted to a street light pole shall not exceed seven feet above the existing height of a street light pole in a location where the closest adjacent district is a commercial zoning district and shall not exceed three feet above the existing height of a street light pole in any other zoning district. Any portion of the antenna or equipment mounted on such a pole shall be no less than 18 feet above any drivable road surface (including driveways, areas between roadway curb lines where curbs are provided, and as determined by the Engineering Services Department along roadways with shoulders).
c. Antennas shall be fully shrouded unless full shrouding would impede signal propagation. Antenna shrouds shall be the same diameter as the pole, unless multiple antennas (no more than three) are provided, in which case the maximum total diameter of antennas and shrouds shall be no greater than 29 inches. d. Associated equipment at the bottom of a pole (the “base”) shall be concealed in a pole base that is:
(1) Up to 20 inches square and four feet tall; or
(2) Within a side-mounted shroud up to 16 inches wide, 12 inches deep and 5.5 feet tall.
e. To prevent accumulation of trash, facilities shall be designed to avoid flat surfaces in the transition from the base to the upper pole.
f. Poles shall be painted and textured to City standards to match existing streetlights in the vicinity.
C. Less Preferred Configurations.
1. Existing or Replacement Utility Poles.
a. All installations on utility poles shall
fully comply with the California
Public Utilities Commission (CPUC)
general orders (GOs), including, but
not limited to, GO 95.1.
b. The maximum height of any antenna
mounted to an existing utility pole
shall not exceed 24, unless required
by General Order 95, in which case
the maximum height shall not exceed
48 inches above the height of an
existing utility pole, exclusive of
mounting hardware. No portion of the Figure 7: Landscaping conceals wireless telecommunications equipment mounted on the
exterior of this pole located on Distel Drive.
138
Agenda Item # 6.
Attachment 3
21 April 12, 2022
antenna or equipment mounted on a pole shall be less than:
(1) 18 feet above any drivable road surface; or
(2) 7 feet above any portion of the right-of-way outside of the drivable road surface (e.g., parkways, medians).
c. Unless otherwise required by General Order 95:
(1) All antennas shall be shrouded. Antenna shrouds should have an outer diameter of 15" or less and measure no more than five cubic feet in size. (2) The shroud should be no more than 4 feet tall, including antenna, radio head, mounting bracket, and all other hardware necessary for a complete installation.
2. Stand-Alone Poles along Rights-of-Way with No Existing Overhead Utility Lines. a. Where a stand-alone pole is proposed
within a right-of-way or public utility
easement with no overhead utility lines,
the preferred configuration is for all
equipment to be concealed within the
pole itself, with an antenna/shroud
mounted directly to the top of the pole
and no visible transitions. No
equipment shall be visible outside the
pole. Equipment may, however, be
placed in an underground vault.
b. Antennas and shrouds shall be no wider
than 21 inches.
c. Associated equipment at the bottom of
a pole (the “base”) shall be concealed in
a pole base that is:
(1) up to 20 inches square and four feet
tall; or
(2) within a side-mounted shroud up to
16 inches wide, 12 inches deep and
5.5 feet tall.
c. To prevent accumulation of trash, facilities shall be designed to avoid flat surfaces in the transition from the base to the upper pole.
d. Stand-alone poles match the height and color of any nearby streetlight or utility pole.
Figure 8: Stand-alone small cell poles (as shown in
this example) are not preferred but may be
permitted if enclosure of all equipment within the
pole or in an underground vault is technically
infeasible.
139
Agenda Item # 6.
Attachment 3
22 April 12, 2022
3. Light Poles Wherein Equipment, Cabling, and Antennas are Not Completely within the Pole Itself and/or Entirely Under the Ground. a. Use of light poles for wireless telecommunications facilities may be permitted only in areas where light poles are appropriate.
b. The maximum height of any antenna mounted to a street light pole shall not exceed seven feet above the existing height of a street light pole in a location where the closest adjacent district is a commercial zoning district and shall not exceed three feet above the existing height of a street light pole in any other zoning district. Any portion of the antenna or equipment mounted on such a pole shall be no less than 18 feet above any drivable road surface or 7 feet above any portion of the right-of-way outside of the drivable road surface (e.g., parkways, medians.
c. Antenna shrouds shall be the same diameter as the pole unless multiple antennas are proposed, in which case, the antennas and shrouds shall be no wider than 21 inches.
d. Associated equipment at the bottom of a pole (the “base”) shall be concealed in a pole base that is:
(1) up to 20 inches square and four feet tall; or
(2) within a side-mounted shroud up to 16 inches wide, 12 inches deep and 5.5 feet tall.
e. To prevent accumulation of trash, facilities shall be designed to avoid flat surfaces in the transition from the base to the upper pole. f. Poles shall be painted and textured to City standards to match existing streetlights in the vicinity
D. Requirements for Approval of Less-Preferred Configurations.
1. Application Requirements. Applications that involve less-preferred configurations may be approved only if the applicant demonstrates that:
a. No preferred configuration would be technically feasible; or b. The proposed configuration would be aesthetically superior to a preferred configuration due to existing conditions at the proposed site.
The burden of proof for demonstrating that one of these two conditions exists shall lie with the applicant.
2. Accompanying Evidence. Applications that involve a less-preferred configuration shall be accompanied by clear and convincing written evidence demonstrating the need for approval of the proposed configuration rather than a preferred configuration. 140
Agenda Item # 6.
Attachment 3
23 April 12, 2022
3. Independent Consultant. In reviewing a request for a less-preferred configuration, the City may hire an independent consultant at the applicant’s expense to evaluate the applicant’s demonstration of need for the proposed less-preferred configuration.
E. Pole Requirements.
1. Pole Height and Width Limitations.
a. All poles for wireless telecommunications facilities shall be designed to be the minimum functional height and width required to support the proposed antenna installation and meet FCC requirements. Poles, antennas, and similar structures shall be no greater in diameter or other cross-sectional dimension than is necessary for the proper functioning of the facility.
b. Pole-mounted equipment shall not exceed nine cubic feet in dimension.
2. Requirements for Replacement Poles. If an applicant proposes to replace a pole in order to accommodate the facility, the pole shall match the appearance of the original pole to the extent feasible, unless another design better accomplishes the objectives of this section. Such replacement pole shall not exceed the height of the pole it is replacing by more than seven feet.
3. Requirements for New Poles. New poles shall be designed to resemble existing poles in the right-of-way, including size, height, color, materials, and style, unless (a) the existing poles are scheduled to be removed and not replaced, or (b) another design better accomplishes the objectives of this section.
F. Pole-Mounted Facilities Requirements.
1. Facilities Mounted to a Telecommunications Tower.
a. Facilities mounted to a telecommunications tower, including, but not limited to, the attached antennas, shall be designed to be the minimum functional height and width required to adequately support the proposed facility and meet FCC requirements. The applicant shall provide documentation satisfactory to the City Manager establishing compliance with this paragraph. In any event, facilities mounted to a telecommunications tower shall not exceed the applicable height limit for structures in the applicable zoning district. b. 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 telecommunications tower and shall be camouflaged or hidden to the fullest extent feasible without jeopardizing the physical integrity of the tower.
2. Monopoles.
a. Monopole installations shall be situated so as to utilize existing natural or manmade features including topography, vegetation, buildings, or other structures to provide the greatest amount of visual screening.
141
Agenda Item # 6.
Attachment 3
24 April 12, 2022
b. 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.
c. Monopoles shall be no greater in diameter or other cross-sectional dimension than is necessary for the proper functioning of the facility.
G. Accessory Equipment.
1. All accessory equipment associated with the operation of any wireless telecommunications facility shall be screened or camouflaged and located in a manner to minimize the equipment’s visibility to the greatest feasible extent.
2. Accessory equipment for facilities within public rights-of-way shall be visually screened to the extent feasible by locating the equipment either in an underground vault (with the exception of required electrical panels), or by landscape plantings.
3. Space Occupied. Facilities shall be designed to occupy the least amount of space in the right-of-way that is technically feasible.
4. Cables. All cables, including, but not limited to, electrical and utility cables, between the pole and any accessory equipment shall be placed underground, if feasible.
5. Wires. Except for wood utility poles and other solid core poles, all new wires needed to service the wireless telecommunications facility shall be installed within the width of the existing utility pole so as to not exceed the diameter and height of the existing utility pole.
6. Equipment Undergrounding. All equipment (other than the antenna, antenna supports, ancillary wires, cables and any electric meter) shall be installed underground wherever feasible.
7. With the exception of the electric meter, which shall be pole-mounted to the extent feasible, all accessory equipment shall be located underground to the extent feasible.
All wireless equipment installed on poles should be completely contained within an equipment shroud. Equipment shroud and lines should be painted, treated or finished to match existing utility pole and line aesthetics. Utility line installations should have a non-reflective color and finish. Required electrical meter cabinets shall be adequately screened and camouflaged.
H. Americans with Disabilities Act Compliance. All facilities shall be built in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and no facility shall be approved that would render any portion of the right-of-way noncompliant with the ADA.
I. Other Requirements.
1. Facilities on Decorative Streetlights Prohibited. Small wireless facilities shall not be located on decorative streetlights.
142
Agenda Item # 6.
Attachment 3
25 April 12, 2022
2. Pole Height Calculation. Legally required lightning arresters and beacons shall be included when calculating the height of facilities. Pole height shall be is measured from the top of foundation, which should be flush with the ground, to the top of pole or top of antenna, whichever is greater.
3. New Pole Material and Finish New pole material and finishes should match the existing materials of the City standard streetlight poles or match aesthetics and materials of existing decorative poles.
4. Disturbance of Topography and Vegetation. Disturbance of existing topography and on-site vegetation shall be minimized unless such disturbance would substantially reduce the visual impacts of the facility.
5. Separation of Service. Separation of service shall be provided by installing all new electrical conduit(s) or using empty conduit(s) with the conduit owner’s express consent in writing.
6. Facilities on Streetlight or Traffic Signal Control Poles. For proposed facilities on streetlight or traffic signal control poles, a hand hole should be provided at the top of the pole to maintain fiber and electrical service for streetlights and future attachments.
7. Pole Foundation Calculations. Pole foundation calculations shall be prepared and stamped by a California professionally licensed structural engineer and provided to the City for review. Pole foundation calculations shall account for all new and existing pole attachments and the pole.
8. Pole Structural Calculations. Pole structural calculations, including seismic loads, showing the load impacts of the wireless facility on City streetlight and traffic signal control poles, shall be prepared and stamped by a California professionally licensed structural engineer and provided to the City for review.
9. Design Wind Velocity. Design wind velocity shall be 115 miles per hour (mph) minimum in accordance with TlA-222 rev G, IBC 2012 with ASC 710, and amendments for local conditions.
10. Trench Backfill. Asphalt concrete sections for trench backfills shall be a thickness 143
Agenda Item # 6.
City of Los Altos
Wireless Telecommunications Facilities
Ordinance and Design Guidelines
City Council Public Hearing
APRIL 12, 2022
144
Agenda Item # 6.
Purpose of Ordinance and
Design Guidelines
Coverage Impacts
Provide for
adequate
coverage
and
advanced
technology.
Minimize
impacts
and visual
intrusiveness
of wireless
facilities.
Customize to Los Altos
145
Agenda Item # 6.
Locational Standards
146
Agenda Item # 6.
Existing
Permitted
Locations
147
Agenda Item # 6.
Factors Considered in Locational
Standards
Locational Standards
Legal
Constraints
Technology
Trends
Los Altos
Physical
Setting
148
Agenda Item # 6.
Los Altos
Land Use
Pattern
149
Agenda Item # 6.
Location of
Expressways,
Arterials,
Collectors, and
Local Collectors
150
Agenda Item # 6.
Wireless Telecommunications
Facilities Technology Trends
Less visually intrusive.
Smaller, less powerful
antennas.
Closer spacing.
Difficult to co-locate
facilities.
Therefore, more
facilities.
Large visually
intrusive towers.
Greater power
allows for:
•Greater spacing;
•Co-location; and
•Fewer facilities.
Small Facilities
“Macro” Facilities
151
Agenda Item # 6.
Legal Constraints
Cannot regulate
based on radio
frequency (RF)
emissions.
Cannot require or
prohibit any specific
technology.
152
Agenda Item # 6.
Proposed Revisions to Locational
Standards
Existing Locational Standards
Excludes Residential Zones (private
properties and rights-of-way).
500-foot buffer from schools.
1,500-foot buffer between small
facilities.
Proposed Locational Standards
Excludes Residential Zones (private
properties outside of rights-of-way
only).
Includes rights-of-way for:
Expressways, Arterials, Collectors, and
Minor Collectors;
Local commercial streets;
Local residential streets within 200-500
feet of Expressways, Arterials,
Collectors, and Minor Collectors; and
Potentially, other local residential
streets based on a systemwide
review of carriers’ facilities.
1,000-foot buffer between small
facilities. 153
Agenda Item # 6.
Proposed
Preferred and
Less Preferred
Locations
154
Agenda Item # 6.
Three-tiered Approach to
Wireless Facilities Locations Locational Preferences
Preferred:
Non-Residential Areas
Less Preferred:
Expressways, Arterials, Collectors,
Local Collectors and adjacent rightsof-way within Residential Areas Permitted only if providing coverage in
preferred locations is infeasible.
Least Preferred:
Rights-of-way for local residential
streets
Permitted only if coverage from facilities in
preferred and less preferred locations is
infeasible.
155
Agenda Item # 6.
Design Guidelines
This Not This
Antenna
Equipment
156
Agenda Item # 6.
Proposed Revisions to Design
Guidelines
Add explicit design principles for all wireless facilities.
Modify configuration preferences.
Supplement existing guidelines and add illustrations.
157
Agenda Item # 6.
Proposed Design Principles for
Wireless Facilities
Minimize
Impacts
Visual
Noise
Other
Integration and
Concealment
1.Facilities are to be visually integrated into their sites and as hidden from view as feasible.
Unconcealed design permitted only if a concealed facility is infeasible or would reduce the number and overall visual intrusiveness of facilities.
Context What integrates well into one site and conceals a wireless telecommunications facility might not be appropriate for another situation. 158
Agenda Item # 6.
Expanded Design Guidelines
Specific design
preferences for
facilities within:
•Rights-of-way
•Private
properties
Landscape
design.
• Retain existing,
mature trees
wherever
feasible.
• Retain
landscaping for
the life of the
facility.
Design
underground
vaults to
protect
existing
street trees.
Provide
passive
rather than
mechanical
ventilation
where
feasible.
159
Agenda Item # 6.
Recommendation
Approve:
Resolution 2022-__, Adopting a Negative Declaration in compliance with CEQA
Ordinance 2022-__, Wireless Telecommunications Facilities Locational Standards, as recommended by the Planning
Commission with additional modifications
1,000-foot separation between small wireless facilities Demonstration of feasibility for approval of less preferred sites or design configurations
Criteria for “Least Preferred Sites” replacing proposed systemwide review
Resolution 2022-__, Wireless Telecommunications Facilities Design Guidelines, as recommended by the Planning Commission with additional modifications 160
Agenda Item # 6.
PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE
The following is public correspondence received by the City Clerk’s Office after the posting of the original agenda. Individual contact information has been redacted for privacy. This may not be a comprehensive collection of the public correspondence, but staff makes its best effort to include all correspondence received to date.
To send correspondence to the City Council, on matters listed on the agenda please email [email protected]
161
Agenda Item # 6.
From: Roberta Phillips
To: City Council; Public Comment
Subject: Small Cell Node Towers/ Council Meeting April 12,2022 Date: Tuesday, April 5, 2022 11:48:41 AM
Dear Council Members
I attended the Planning Commission meeting March 3,2020m and many questions were not answered regarding the small cell node towers in Los Altos I live on San Antonio Road which is targeted for small cell node towers. I am in the R1 district which is residential and now the new proposal wants to ignore that . I am concerned about the noise. The road is already noisey and adding more noise is unacceptable. Adding more poles is visually unacceptable. Please stop industrializing my neighborhood.
At the Planning Commision meeting it was stated that changing the current ordinance will NOT result in dropping the current lawsuits. If the carriers still plan on suing the City, then so be it.
I don't see the reasoning that some residential neighborhoods are protected and others are not.
How is that fair ?
Below is the email I sent to the Planning Commision.
RobertaPhillips
Roberta Phillips > Sun, Feb 27, 2:51 PM
to planningcommission, City
Dear Planning Commissioners
The existing ordinance 11.12 may or may not be sufficient to address the installation of 5 G small cell nodes in Los Altos. If a change is not absolutely necessary then please do not change it and stick with what we have now. What has case law proven ? What are we as a City allowed to do or not do, to allow or prohibit 5G? What are ourattorneys recommending as to what will fly with a judge? What is happening with the pending lawsuits? Will changing the ordinance end the lawsuits ? How many small cell node towers are needed in Los Altos ? What is the maximum distance towers need to be spread apart to have the system work? Does AT&T and Verizon want 20 or 200 or 2000? Can the equipment be shared by carriers or will we need to have twice or three times as many as necessary to support 5G from two or three or four carriers ? Before you have this information , I suggest you change nothing as you do not know the consequences of your actions.
The staff seems to be taking the approach of identifying sites based on expressway, arterial ,collector and local collector streets. Perhaps another approach would be to eliminate R1 zoning and school sites as areas where 5G will not be allowed. I see no justifiable reason to industrialize our city by picking certain streets such as San Antonio Rd or El Monte or Cuesta to industrialize, while not touching other residential neighborhoods. If the cell node towers are safe in one area, they should be safe in all areas.
The unsiteleness of the equipment does not belong in R1 residential neighborhoods. The noise generated is not acceptable in the R1 districts.
I am looking forward to the commission finding out the answers to my questions, and ones you may have yourself.
Sincerely
Roberta Phillips
162
Agenda Item # 6.
163
Agenda Item # 6.
From: Roberta Phillips
To: City Council; Public Comment
Subject: Council meeting April 12,2022 #6 Wireless Telecommunications Facitlites Date: Thursday, April 7, 2022 9:57:16 AM
Dear Council Members
There are still a lot of questions that have not been answered.
1. Is the proposed small cell node facilities for 4G or 5G or any "G' that may come in the future?
2. A friend in Los Altos has a poll that is currently used by the carriers. It makes a lot of noise because of the fans. Will the new facilities have fans ?Do the fans run day and night? What noise levels are acceptable under our ordinances? There is already noise from traffic.Noise is culmination and adding more noise is unacceptable..
3. Why target San Antonio Rd? I do not want to industrialize this street as sections are R1.There are already tons of polls and it does not seem to be room for any more polls. This is visually unattractive and certainly does not fit with the village character. Are the residents who live on SanAntonio Rd second class citizens?
4. At the Planning Commission meeting it was asked if this new plan would stop the lawsuits.
The answer was no. Why change the ordinance if it does not solve the problem of lawsuits ? Sincerely
Roberta Phillips
164
Agenda Item # 6.
From: Jane Osborn
To: Public Comment; City Council; Gabriel Engeland; Planning Services Subject: Public Comment, Agenda Item #6. April 12, 2022, Wireless Facilities Ordinance Date: Friday, April 8, 2022 5:04:35 PM
Dear Honorable Mayor, Vice-Mayor and Council,
This is an edited version of a letter I sent to the planning commission on March 17, 2022.
I'm writing in regard to the proposed revision of the ordinance that determines placement of 5G "small" cell towers (aka, "facilities") within the city. My husband and I were very supportive of the original emergency ordinance passed in 2019. We are opposed to this revised ordinance that is being considered at the upcoming council meeting, especially in it's current form.
This is an important issue, which has a very high degree of interest among residents. This was evidenced by the high turnout at the public meetings held in 2019, at which hundreds of people attended in-person, in addition to people who attended on-line. The turnouts were the highest I have ever seen at council meetings or study sessions over a period of several years.
There was standing room only at LAYC, and more chairs had to be brought in--as it was packed close to the back wall. Dozens of people gave testimony expressing concerns during the series of hearings that were held in 2019. Many, if not most of these people appeared to be speaking from a position of experience or expertise in regard to one or more of the areas of concern that they were addressing in their comments.
We are assuming that this revised (amended) ordinance is in response to lawsuits from two of the wireless carriers.
My husband and I have many concerns about the revised 5G ordinance, but I will touch on three of them.
• It is our opinion that there was not sufficient notice to the public for the 30 day period within which we would be allowed to respond to the recommendation for a negative declaration of environmental impact. I first learned of this revised ordinance when I received the notice of the planning commission meeting in my in-box on 2/25/22. Apparently the deadline for the public to respond to the recommendation for a negative declaration of environmental impact was 2/24/22. It is my impression that there was not adequate notice to the public both in regard to sufficient time and with respect to visibility of the notice.
Considering the degree of interest on the part of residents, there should have been better prior notice. I did not even see a reference to this in any of the weekly city manager newsletters.
Similarly, we feel that the public and the council would have benefited from a longer period of prior notice with regard to agenda item #6 before holding a public hearing on this very complex and consequential matter. I realize that a one week notice is customary.
However, this revised ordinance is a 119 page document. In my opinion, more time is needed for people to read, digest and respond to this information. This latest draft appears to have been rather extensively revised since it was first presented to the planning commission on March 3, 2022. This is a complex issue with many facets. In addition, these amendments will create significant consequences, including negative consequences, for some residents. It is expected that there could be a very high degree of public interest on this topic, as evidenced by 165
Agenda Item # 6.
the extensive and widespread interest shown during a series of public hearings held in 2019.
There has not been much public notice that this issue is being re-considered by the council, other than meeting notices. I suspect that most residents, including residents who have an interest in this topic, are unaware that this issue is being re-considered, and have not yet seen a draft of the amended ordinance. Under the circumstances, we are hoping that the council will hold more than one public hearing on this matter, in order to allow the public to weigh-in with their opinions and concerns.
• The ordinance appears to divide the residents of the city into two classes, or sub groups. One sub group, people who live on local roads, (or people in the first class), appear to be protected from the negative effects of 5G "small" cell towers on their streets. The second group, which is less privileged (a second class), are not protected equally or to the same degree as the first group,. This second group (the apparent second class) are people who live on local collector streets, collector streets, and arterial streets, or people who live on local roads, but near the local collector, collector, arterial streets, and the expressway.
It appears that this second subgroup of residents is not protected equally from the known and/or suspected negative effects of 5 G small wireless facilities, such as: Visual blight, which will make our residential streets look more industrial; Noise, which was measured by a council member to be 56 dB at one location; Expected loss of property value, (which was estimated by realtors who gave testimony in 2019 to be as much as 20%).
The second sub group also is not as protected from the suspected/potential negative cognitive, academic and other health effects due to Rf emissions--which have been suggested in the research findings of hundreds of scientific studies which have been reported in a growing body of peer reviewed scientific literature.
We are very aware that cities are not allowed to consider health effects due to Section 704 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which appears to be outdated and was passed when wireless technology was at a much earlier stage in it's development, and when there were far fewer research findings available. However, this does not mean that adverse academic, cognitive, and other neurological and health effects do not exist.
Many residents have been left with the impression that a subgroup of residents have been targeted to be the "sacrificial lambs" in order to make a lawsuit go away.
It is possible that the people drafting this ordinance did not intend to marginalize one group of residents in this fashion. However, it is my impression that this does not look good, and does not appear to represent good public policy.
• I was very surprised to hear that the city was recommending a negative declaration of environmental effects, especially in view of the fact that the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) won a lawsuit against the FCC in August 2019, as explained in this publication:
https://mdsafetech.org/2019/12/08/nepa-the-nrdc-and-5g-neighborhood-cell-towers/ The ruling in this lawsuit appears to give Native American Tribes and all cities "...the right to require a National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) analysis (provide proof of 166
Agenda Item # 6.
exemption) before cell towers are placed.". According to the publication referenced above, this would apply to placement of small cell towers (AKA "wireless facilities").
It is noteworthy that the NRDC was able to present enough evidence of actual or potential harm to the environment from wireless facilities, (which includes impact on the "human environment"), that they were able to prevail in a lawsuit against the FCC in a federal court.
I would like to note that the NRDC is a highly regarded organization, which appears to be staffed by scientists and attorneys with a science background, who are attempting to safeguard the environment. It is significant to note that they were given a rating of 96.1 out of 100 by Charity Navigator.
We realize that the city is in a very challenging situation. Please do your best to protect the residents from both known and suspected/potential negative effects of wireless facilities, including loss of aesthetics, expected loss of property values, auditory pollution and noise, and to protect the health and well being of residents in the most equitable manner possible.
Thank you very much for your consideration.
Respectfully,
Jane Osborn, PhD
E. Jane Osborn, Ph.D. Nationally Certified School Psychologist, NCSP Licensed Educational Psychologist, LEP Cognitive and Developmental Psychology.
167
Agenda Item # 6.
From: James Tringali
To: Public Comment
Cc: Theresa Tringali
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT - AGENDA ITEM #6 - April 12, 2022 Date: Saturday, April 9, 2022 6:12:41 PM
Dear City of Los Altos Planning Commission,
We are appalled seeing the suggestion in the latest draft ordinance (Feb 22, 2022) of using churches as an acceptable back door for embedding small cell towers in our neighborhoods. We don’t see how placing small cell towers on church property has less impact on visual blight, noise, safety and our property values than placing them on school property.
We implore the City to stay as true to the original 2019 wireless emergency ordinance as possible and ensure we don’t have cell towers placed close to schools, churches and homes. While some residents have expressed valid health concerns of placing cell towers so close to our schools, churches and homes, We understand the City is unable to take these concerns into account due to Federal laws.
However, there are other issues We’d like the City to consider including visual blight, noise, safety and property values.
Visual blight: The City’s utility poles are visually unappealing. We don’t want to increase the unsightliness with cell towers on the tops of these poles, not to mention a refrigerator’s worth of equipment hanging to the side.
Noise: Cell towers make considerable noise from their cooling fans. Having these towers placed so close to our homes would negatively impact our living environment.
Safety: Most cell towers have a refrigerator’s worth of equipment, including lithium ion batteries that have been known to cause fires. It’s not safe to place flammable materials on combustible wooden poles that could potentially burn down a home or neighborhood.
Property Values: Cell towers placed so close to homes will reduce the attractiveness of homes in the area. According to Realtor Magazine, a study found that 94% of home buyers would not purchase a home near a cell tower.
Please do not place cell towers close to our homes, churches and schools. Please find alternative locations.
Sincerely,
Los Altos Residents
James and Theresa Tringali
168
Agenda Item # 6.
From: Trina Weller
To: Public Comment
Date: Monday, April 11, 2022 7:52:40 PM
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
169
Agenda Item # 6.
From: Melissa Smith
To: Public Comment
Date: Tuesday, April 12, 2022 11:18:34 AM
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,
Melissa Smith
170
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:
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 community. In addition, after reading the new 2022 proposed Wireless Facilities Ordinance it appears that some 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, minor modifications to existing facilities, permiting 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%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. 171
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.
172
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. 173
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; 174
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.
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 175
Agenda Item # 6.
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 176
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.
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 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 177
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 178
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.
179
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, 180
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.
181
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 182
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.
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 183
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.
184
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. 185
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/ 186
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 187
Agenda Item # 6.
From: Arisha S
To: Public Comment; City Council
Date: Tuesday, April 12, 2022 11:33:02 AM
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,
Ariadna Solovyova
Mountain View resident, frequent Los Altos visitor
188
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:
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 community. In addition, after reading the new 2022 proposed Wireless Facilities Ordinance it appears that some 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, minor modifications to existing facilities, permiting 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%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. 189
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.
190
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. 191
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; 192
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.
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 193
Agenda Item # 6.
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 194
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.
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 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 195
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 196
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.
197
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, 198
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.
199
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 200
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.
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 201
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.
202
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. 203
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/ 204
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 205
Agenda Item # 6.
From: Brent Smith
To: Public Comment; City Council
Date: Tuesday, April 12, 2022 11:49:11 AM
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,
Brent Smith
Los Altos resident
206
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:
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 community. In addition, after reading the new 2022 proposed Wireless Facilities Ordinance it appears that some 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, minor modifications to existing facilities, permiting 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%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. 207
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.
208
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. 209
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; 210
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.
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 211
Agenda Item # 6.
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 212
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.
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 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 213
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 214
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.
215
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, 216
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.
217
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 218
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.
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 219
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.
220
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. 221
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/ 222
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 223
Agenda Item # 6.
From: Valentina Landa
To: Public Comment; City Council
Date: Tuesday, April 12, 2022 12:40:42 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.
Thank you,
Valentina
224
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:
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 community. In addition, after reading the new 2022 proposed Wireless Facilities Ordinance it appears that some 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, minor modifications to existing facilities, permiting 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%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. 225
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.
226
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. 227
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; 228
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.
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 229
Agenda Item # 6.
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 230
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.
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 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 231
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 232
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.
233
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, 234
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.
235
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 236
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.
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 237
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.
238
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. 239
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/ 240
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 241
Agenda Item # 6.
From: Rachel Cooley
To: Public Comment; City Council
Date: Tuesday, April 12, 2022 1:33:16 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,
Rachel Cooley
242
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:
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 community. In addition, after reading the new 2022 proposed Wireless Facilities Ordinance it appears that some 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, minor modifications to existing facilities, permiting 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%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. 243
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.
244
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. 245
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; 246
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.
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 247
Agenda Item # 6.
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 248
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.
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 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 249
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 250
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.
251
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, 252
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.
253
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 254
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.
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 255
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.
256
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. 257
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/ 258
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 259
Agenda Item # 6.
RESOLUTION NO. 21-17
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF MALIBU ADOPTING ENGINEERING,
DESIGN AND LOCATION STANDARDS, CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
AND BASIC APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR WIRELESS
COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES ON LAND OTHER THAN PUBLIC
RIGHT-OF-WAY; AND FINDING THE SAME EXEMPT FROM THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
The City Council of the City of Malibu does hereby find, resolve and order as follows:
SECTION 1. Recitals
A. Malibu Municipal Code (MMC) Chapter 17.46 governs the permitting, installation, and regulation of wireless communications facilities in the City, other than those in the public right-of-way, which are subject to MMC Chapter 12.02.
B. Section 17.46.060(D) provides that “[a]ll applicants shall engineer, design and locate the wireless communications facilities in accordance with the standards and wireless regulations set forth separately though the resolution adopted by the City Council.” C. Being authorized to do so, the City wishes to establish engineering, design and development standards applicable to wireless installations.
D. The City also wishes to set standard conditions of approval and basic application requirements applicable to wireless permits.
E. On April 12_, 2021 the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing and received testimony from City staff and all interested parties regarding the and the standards, conditions and requirements.
Purpose. The purpose of this document is to (1) establish design and location standards (Standards) for wireless communications facilities on land other than public right-ofway; (2) set standard conditions of approval for Wireless Permits (WPs); and (3) set basic application requirements for WPs.
Definitions. For the purposes of these Standards, the definitions set forth in Malibu Municipal Code (MMC) Section 17.46.040 are incorporated by reference into this Resolution and in addition the following definitions apply:
A. “Park” A parcel, parcels of land or a portion of a parcel intended for active public recreation uses. Parks may include sports fields, playgrounds community buildings and unique or specialized activity areas. Land dedicated for open space and trails are not considered parks for the purposes of this Chapter.
260
Agenda Item # 6.
Resolution No. 21-17