CITY COUNCIL MEETING -
AMENDED 5.6.22
AGENDA
7:00 PM - Tuesday, May 10, 2022
via Videoconference
Please Note: Per California Executive Order N-29-20, the City Council will meet via Telephone/Video Conference Only.
Telephone: 1-650-242-4929 Meeting ID: 146 825 8473
https://webinar.ringcentral.com/j/1468258473
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
SPECIAL ITEMS
A. Introduction of New Development Services Director
1 5/10/2022 CITY COUNCIL MEETING - AMENDED 5.6.22 AGENDA Page 2 of 4
REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION
CHANGES TO THE ORDER OF THE AGENDA
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.
B. Public Comment - Items not on the agenda
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: Approve Minutes of the City Council Regular Meeting of April 12, 2022. (A.
Rodriguez)
2. Minutes: Approve Minutes of the City Council Regular Meeting of April 26, 2022. (A.
Rodriguez)
3. Proclamation for retired City Clerk: Affirm the City Council Proclamation for retired City Clerk Andrea Chelemengos
4. The Homestead Rd - Safe Routes to School Project: Approve and forward the Letter of Support for the Homestead Rd SRTS project (M. Lee)
5. Solid Waste Collection Rates: Consider adopting Resolution No. 2022-___, authorizing the increase of Solid Waste Collection Rates by 8.48% effective July 1, 2022; consider California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) exemption finding pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15273(a) (A. Fairman)
6. Emergency Declaration Resolution: Adopt a Resolution extending the declaration of a local emergency due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and authorizing continued remote meetings pursuant to AB 361 (J. Maginot)
7. Approval of Contract Amendment: Authorize the City Manager to execute a contract amendment M-Group in an amount not to exceed $85,000 (total contract amount not to exceed $180,000) for contract planning services (L. Simpson)
8. Resolution No. 2022-__: 2022 City Council Election: Adopt Resolution No. 2022-__ calling for a General Municipal Election to be held on November 8, 2022 for two City Council seats and requesting the services of the County of Registrar of Voters to conduct the election and consolidate it with the General Election (A. Rodriguez)
PUBLIC HEARINGS
2 5/10/2022 CITY COUNCIL MEETING - AMENDED 5.6.22 AGENDA Page 3 of 4
9. Wireless Telecommunications Facilities: 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
Adopt 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
10. Council Legislative Subcommittee Update And Potential Council Action: Receive update from the City Council Legislative Subcommittee; discuss pending legislation including, but not limited to AB 2053, AB 2063, AB 2097, AB 2221, AB 2625, AB 2762, AB 2164, AB 1944, SB 897, SB 922, SB 930, SB 932, & SB 1067
11. Open Government Policy: Council Subcommittee Report
INFORMATIONAL ITEMS ONLY
12. Tentative Council Calendar
13. 2022 Community Priorities Survey
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. 3 5/10/2022 CITY COUNCIL MEETING - AMENDED 5.6.22 AGENDA Page 4 of 4 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. 4 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]
5 Agenda Item # B.
From: Peter McDonald
To: Public Comment
Subject: Loyola Corners Development Plan
Date: Thursday, April 28, 2022 2:39:47 PM
To Los Altos City Council:
Re: Loyola Corners Specific Plan
Dear Council Members:
I'm a resident near the Loyola Corners business district. My understanding is that there is an original plan
in place regarding the zoning for this area. I understand it was determined with different views and interests being
considered. This seems to be a reasonable and fair approach to future development of the Loyola Corners area.
I believe it is important to maintain the intent of the original proposed zoning for this area, considering the
traffic and parking issues that exist for Loyola Corners. The limits included in these original recommendations
should be kept in place for future development of this area. Increased density and height limits will only
create new and undesirable congestion to this area.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
Sincerely,
Peter McDonald
Los Altos
6 Agenda Item # B.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
MINUTES
7:00 PM - Tuesday, April 12, 2022
via Teleconference
CALL MEETING TO ORDER
At 7:00 p.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
Mayor Enander led the Council in the Pledge.
REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION
No Closed Session – Nothing to report.
CHANGES TO THE ORDER OF THE AGENDA
No changes were requested.
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
Gary Hedden, Rashi Sharma, Joe Beninato (with time ceded from Beth Beninato), Teresa Morris, Melissa, and Janet Corrigan provided public comment.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Council Members Weinberg and Lee Eng requested removal of Consent Calendar Agenda Item #3 Professional Services Agreement. Mayor Enander announced that Item #3 would be considered immediately following the Consent Calendar.
1. Minutes: Approve Minutes of the March 22, 2022, Regular Meeting
2. Public Art Donation: Accept the donation of sculpture Alegria and add it to the City’s permanent public art collection.
4. Extension of Local Emergency: Adopt Resolution extending the declaration of a local emergency due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
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. 7 Agenda Item # 1.
4/12/2022 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES Page 2 of 5
Upon motion made by Council Member Lee Eng, Seconded by Vice Mayor Meadows, Consent Calendar Items 1, 2, 4, and 5 were approved 5-0 with the following roll call vote:
AYES: Council Member Fligor, Lee Eng, Weinberg, Vice Mayor Meadows, Mayor Enander
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
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).
Engineering Services Manager Fairman provided information on the matter and answered questions from the Council as did consultant Tim Seufert and City Attorney Houston.
Roberta Phillips provided public comment.
Following Council discussion, Vice Mayor Meadows moved that the Council adopt the resolution authorizing City Manager to execute professional services agreement for sewer rate structure analysis with NBS Government Finance Group, dba NBS and 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). The motion was seconded by Council Member Fligor and the motion passed 5- 0 with the following roll call vote:
AYES: Council Member Fligor, Lee Eng, Weinberg, Vice Mayor Meadows, Mayor Enander
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Council Member Weinberg reported that he had inquired of a potential conflict of interest relative to this matter and the proximity of his residence to Grant Road frontage road along Foothill expressway and its potential to be a Wireless Telecommunications Facilities location. He noted that the City Attorney had reviewed and determined that no conflict existed.
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 8 Agenda Item # 1.
4/12/2022 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES Page 3 of 5
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
Consultant Lloyd Zolla provided a presentation to the Council on the matter and answered questions.
Special Legal Counsel Fox and City Attorney Houston and consultant Michael Afflerbach also provided information and answered questions from the Council.
The following members of the public commented on the matter:
Roberta Phillips, Susan Foster, with time ceded from Al Rooney and Jim Jolly, Jonathan Shores, Steven Aldrich, Melissa, Janet Osbourne, Teresa Morris, Jim Felton, Jeanine Valadez, with time ceded from Raenette R, and Carey Lai.
Since there were no other members of the public wising to speak, Mayor Enander closed the Public Hearing at 9:50 p.m. and called for a brief recess. At 10:05 p.m., the Mayor called the meeting back to order.
Council discussion commenced. Council Members provided input and suggested changes to the ordinance including modifications to the findings to clarify a more balanced approach/intent, consolidation and clarification of the proposed tiers, addition of language to clarify acceptable placement/location of facilities, addition of language referencing Fire Safety Standards and providing protection for landscaping and tree protection, inclusion of insurance requirements, and addition of language relative to severability of conditions. Suggested changes to the Design Guidelines included addition of language addressing orientation of facilities relative to placement and location of existing buildings, clarification of language in Section D1 specifically the terms “inconspicuous as feasible,” and “dominating the surrounding area,” and addition of references to electrical meters. There were also various corrections having to do with numbering, format, completeness, and grammar which the Mayor requested the Council members provide such corrections via email to the City Attorney for inclusion.
Council Member Weinberg moved that the matter be continued to the meeting of May 10, 2022, to consider the proposed ordinance, resolutions and guidelines as amended with direction that the professional team working on the matter provide redlines with their suggested amendments. The motion was seconded by Mayor Enander and the motion passed with a 5-0 vote.
AYES: Council Member Fligor, Lee Eng, Weinberg, Vice Mayor Meadows, Mayor Enander
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
There was direction that suggestions made by the Council be considered by the entire City wireless team and note any suggestions determined to not be feasible and the reason.
DISCUSSION ITEMS
7. Mid-Year Budget Update: Adopt the Mid-Year 2022 Budget Update and amendments as presented.
9 Agenda Item # 1.
4/12/2022 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES Page 4 of 5
Finance Director Furtado provided a staff report and presentation and answered questions from the Council.
The Mayor called for public comment.
Roberta Phillips commented.
Council discussion commenced. Following discussion, Council Member Fligor moved that the Council allocate $38,000 from the Park In Leu Fees for the feasibility study for a Los Altos Downtown Theater.
The motion was seconded by Council Member Weinberg and the motion passed 3-2 with the following roll call vote:
AYES: Council Member Fligor, Weinberg, and Vice Mayor Meadows NOES: Council Member Lee Eng and Mayor Enander
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Following additional Council discussion, Council Member Weinberg moved that the Council adopt the Mid-Year 2022 Budget Update and amendments as presented. The motion was seconded by Mayor Enander. The motion passed 4-0-1 with the following roll call vote:
AYES: Council Member Fligor, Weinberg, Vice Mayor Meadows, Mayor Enander NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: Council Member Lee Eng
Council Member Lee Eng stated that she abstained based on her need for additional information relative to the City’s financial situation and various related factors.
8. City Council 2022 Strategic Goals and Priorities: Review the City’s 5-Year Strategic Goals and provide modifications as needed.
Assistant City Manager Maginot provided a staff report and presentation and answered questions from the Council as did the City Manager. Council Members commented on the existing goals and discussed modifications.
Roberta Phillips and Freddie provided comments.
Council discussion commenced and there was agreement to add a goal suggested by Council Member Fligor relative to supporting the various business communities and referencing the Downtown Vision Plan. Relative to the new proposed goal the Council clarified that staff should bring to Council those matters requiring additional Council policy or direction beyond the discretion vested in staff.
Council also clarified that adoption of the new Goal is not an endorsement of full implementation of the Downtown Vision Plan.
City Manager Engeland assured the Council that, in general, any policy where staff is unclear of its direction, even if the matter is within the City Manager’s authority, the matter would be brought to the Council for direction prior to staff action.
10 Agenda Item # 1.
4/12/2022 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES Page 5 of 5
Following Council discussion, Mayor Enander moved that the Council eliminate Goal # 8 Transitioning Through Change and replace it with “The City of Los Altos will provide a work culture and environment including competitive compensation and benefits that support recruitment and retention of exceptional employees to provide City services” and add a new Goal # 9 that the City will support all the Business communities and specifically mention the Downtown Vision Plan. (Councilmember Fligor was asked to draft the language based on the Council discussion). The motion was seconded by Council Member Fligor and the motion passed with a 5-0 vote.
AYES: Council Member Fligor, Lee Eng, Weinberg, Vice Mayor Meadows, Mayor Enander
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Staff was directed to bring the Goals back to the April 26th meeting for final adoption.
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) Mayor Enander and Council Member Lee Eng provided a report. Council Member Fligor requested that the Council Legislative Subcommittee add AB 2164 and AB 1944 to their list of bills being tracked.
INFORMATIONAL ITEMS ONLY
A. Tentative Council Calendar
COUNCIL/STAFF REPORTS AND DIRECTIONS ON FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS Council Members reported on the activities of their various assigned Committees/Commissions.
Council Member Meadows, with support from Council Member Fligor and Mayor Enander requested an item on a future agenda to review Commissions in general including the recruitment process, the Commission Handbook and alignment of Commission work plans with the budget.
There was brief discussion regarding the upcoming May 3rd joint meetings with the Council and Commissions.
Council Member Lee Eng mentioned the need for the Open Government Committee to discuss the City’s noticing policy relative to Commissions
ADJOURNMENT
At 2:28 a.m., Wednesday, April 13, Mayor Enander adjourned the meeting. ____________________________
Anita Enander MAYOR
ATTEST:
_____________________________________
Angel Rodriguez, INTERIM CITY CLERK
11 Agenda Item # 1.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
MINUTES
7:00 PM - Tuesday, April 26, 2022
via Teleconference
CALL MEETING TO ORDER
At 7:00 p.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
Bree and Emery Najarianm, with Girl Scout Troop 60477, led the Council in the Pledge.
SPECIAL ITEM
A. Award of Excellence for the Design of the Los Altos Community Center presented by the California Park and Recreation Society
Recreation Manager Chew introduced Lauren Merriman, Recreation Director with the City of Campbell and representing Region 2 of the California Park and Recreation Society who presented the award and spoke about the Los Altos Community Center.
The Mayor thanked all those who participated in the Community Center from the concept to the Grand Opening.
B. Recognition of Red Cross
Larry Hebb, representing the Red Cross, spoke about the community services provided by the organization and its volunteers. He also answered questions from the Council.
The Council thanked Mr. Hebb for the contributions of the Red Cross and thanked him and the volunteers that contribute to the operation of the Red Cross.
C. Staff Recognition
The Mayor and Council acknowledged the upcoming retirement of the City Clerk, and a proclamation was read in her honor.
City Clerk Chelemengos thanked the Mayor and Council for the recognition and for the opportunity to serve the community.
12 Agenda Item # 2.
4/26/2022 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES Page 2 of 5
REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION
No Closed Session – Nothing to report.
CHANGES TO THE ORDER OF THE AGENDA
No changes were requested.
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
Joe Beninato, Teresa Morris, Scott Spielman, Roberta Phillips, and Nancy Martin provided public comment.
CONSENT CALENDAR
1. Minutes: Approve Minutes of the April 12, 2022, Regular Meeting Council Members Weinberg moved to remove from the Consent Calendar the draft minutes of the April 12, 2022, meeting and defer them to the next Council meeting. The motion was seconded by Vice Mayor Meadows and the motion passed 5-0 with the following roll call vote:
AYES: Council Member Fligor, Lee Eng, Weinberg, Vice Mayor Meadows, Mayor Enander
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
2. Contract Award: Award of Maintenance Contract for Full Trash Capture Devices Cleaning and Inspection in the amount of $139,176 and appropriation of $139,176 from the Administrative Fee of the Solid Waste Fund to the Solid Waste Operating Budget 9410-5280
3. Countywide Household Hazardous Waste Collection Program and AB 939 Implementation Fee: Authorize the City Manager to execute the First Amendment to the Agreement for Countywide Household Hazardous Waste Collection Program to provide for funding from the City of Los Altos in the amount of $76,718 for the Countywide Hazardous Waste Disposal Program for FY 2022/23, and consider finding the Council’s action exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15273
4. Council Goals: Adopt a Resolution affirming the City Council 5-Year Strategic Goals There was no public comment.
Upon motion made by Council Member Weinberg, Seconded by Council Member Fligor, Consent Calendar Items 2, 3, and 4 were approved 5-0 with the following roll call vote:
AYES: Council Member Fligor, Lee Eng, Weinberg, Vice Mayor Meadows, Mayor Enander
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
13 Agenda Item # 2.
4/26/2022 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES Page 3 of 5
PUBLIC HEARINGS
6. 705 Vista Grande Avenue Two-Lot Subdivision: Consider adoption of a resolution approving an application for a tentative parcel map to subdivide a 26,708 square foot parcel at 705 Vista Grande Avenue into two lots. The proposed subdivision would create a 12,166 square-foot corner lot, a 10,120 square-foot interior lot, and dedication of the street frontage for the public right-ofway along Springer Road. A categorical exemption pursuant to Section 15315 (Class 15), Minor Land Divisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines will be considered. On March 3, 2022, the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed project during a public hearing and recommended City Council approval.
Interim Planning Service Manager Golden provided a report and answered questions from the Council.
Mr. and Mrs. Tawari, property owners, and Subhendu Datta, project architect, provided information on the applications and answered questions from the Council.
Mayor Enander opened the Public Hearing and Jeannine Valadez commented. At 8:21 p.m. Mayor Enander closed the Public Hearing.
City Attorney Houston answered procedural questions.
Upon motion of Council Member Fligor, seconded by Council Member Weinberg, the Council adopted the resolution of the City Council of the City of Los Altos making required findings, adopting an exemption under the California Environmental Quality Act, and approving the subdivision application for a two-lot tentative parcel map at 705 Vista Grande Avenue with the following 5-0 roll call vote AYES: Council Member Fligor, Lee Eng, Weinberg, Vice Mayor Meadows, Mayor Enander
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
7. 376 First Street: Consider Adoption of a Resolution Making Findings, adopting a Categorical Exemption Under The California Environmental Quality Act, and Approving the Design Review, and Subdivision Applications for a Fifteen-Unit Multiple Family Project at 376 First Street (S.
Golden)
Interim Planning Services Manager Golden provided a report and answered questions from the Council.
City attorney Houston and Ramakrishnan answered questions from the Council.
At 9:16 p.m., Mayor Enander called for a brief recess. At 9:27 p.m., the meeting was reconvened.
Brett Bailey, project architect, providing a presentation and answered questions from the Council.
Mayor Enander opened the Public Hearing for comments. The following individuals commented: Roberta Phillips, Jeanine Valadez, Joe Beninato, and Susan Russell. Since there were no other members of the public wishing to comment, the Public Hearing was closed. 14 Agenda Item # 2.
4/26/2022 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES Page 4 of 5
Council discussion commenced. Upon motion of Council Member Weinberg, seconded by Council Member Fligor, the Council adopted the resolution, as amended to include the correction per the staff addendum, making the required findings, and find the matter as a Categorical Exemption under the California Environmental Quality Act, and approved the Design Review, and Subdivision Applications for a Fifteen-Unit Multiple Family Project at 376 First Street with the inclusion of the receptacles for all proposed bike lockers and relocation of one BMR unit to the third floor. In addition, Council directed staff to collaborate with the applicant for options to push back or reduce the height of the front landscape wall along the sidewalk. The motion passed 3-2 with the following roll call vote:
AYES: Council Member Fligor, Lee Eng, Weinberg, Vice Mayor Meadows, NOES: Council Member Lee Eng and Mayor Enander
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
DISCUSSION ITEMS
8. Council Legislative Subcommittee Update And Potential Council Action: Receive update from the City Council Legislative Subcommittee; discuss pending legislation including, but not limited to AB 2053, AB 2063, AB 2097, AB 2221, AB 2625, AB 2762, AB 2164, AB 1944, SB 897, SB 922, SB 930, SB 932, & SB 1067
Mayor Enander and Council Member Lee Eng presented a report and draft position letters.
The following members of the public commented: Salim Damerdji, Jeanine Valadez, Roberta Phillips, and Susan Russell representing the League of Women Voters.
Council discussion commenced. Vice Mayor Meadows indicated that she would abstain since she was unable to fully review the materials.
Mayor Enander moved that the Council authorize the Council legislative Subcommittee to send the proposed letter on AB 2097 and SB 897 with the understating should the legislation be amended as it moves through the process that the Subcommittee report back to the Council so the Council can decide how to proceed in expressing its position. The motion was seconded by Council Member Lee Eng and the motion passed 3-1-1 with the following roll call vote:
AYES: Council Member Fligor, Lee Eng,, and Mayor Enander NOES: Council Member Weinberg
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: Vice Mayor Meadows
The Council also discussed AB 2164, AB 1944, and SB 932.
INFORMATIONAL ITEMS ONLY
A. Tentative Council Calendar
Council Member Fligor noted an omission on the Calendar and inquired about certain future agenda items and meeting dates.
City Manager Engeland answered scheduling questions from the Council and stated that he would review the meeting dates specifically the date of the Council reorganization. 15 Agenda Item # 2.
4/26/2022 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES Page 5 of 5
COUNCIL/STAFF REPORTS AND DIRECTIONS ON FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS Council Members reported on the activities of their various assigned Committees/Commissions.
There was discussion regarding the Open Government Policy review schedule.
Council also mentioned various administrative matters in which the City Manager and the City Attorney responded to and would report back on.
ADJOURNMENT
At 12:21 a.m., Wednesday, April 27, Mayor Enander adjourned the meeting. ____________________________
Anita Enander MAYOR
ATTEST:
_____________________________________
Angel Rodriguez, INTERIM CITY CLERK
16 Agenda Item # 2.
Reviewed By:
City Manager City Attorney
GE
Finance Director
JH JF
AGENDA REPORT SUMMARY
Meeting Date: May 10, 2022
Subject Proclamation for retired City Clerk
Prepared by: Jon Maginot, Assistant City Manager
Approved by: Gabriel Engeland, City Manager
Attachment(s):
1. City Council Proclamation
Initiated by:
City Council
Previous Council Consideration:
April 26, 2022
Fiscal Impact:
None
Environmental Review:
Not applicable
Policy Question(s) for Council Consideration:
Council is asked to affirm the proclamation given on April 26, 2022 Summary:
Council issued a proclamation recognizing outgoing City Clerk Andrea Chelemengos for her service to the City on April 26, 2022
Staff Recommendation:
Affirm the City Council Proclamation for retired City Clerk Andrea Chelemengos 17 Agenda Item # 3.
Subject: Proclamation for retired City Clerk
May 10, 2022 Page 2
Purpose
To affirm a proclamation given on April 26, 2022
Background
Per the City Council Norms and Procedures “proclamations are discretionary public announcements directing attention to a local resident, organization, or event. The Mayor, without formal action of the Council, may issue proclamations.” On April 26, 2022, the City Council, at the request of the Mayor, issued a proclamation for outgoing City Clerk Andrea Chelemengos in recognition of her retirement.
Discussion/Analysis
Although the issuance of a proclamation is at the discretion of the Mayor, Mayor Enander felt it appropriate that the entire Council sign the proclamation for Ms. Chelemengos. While the issuance of this proclamation is not a formal action and given the desire to have the proclamation be a surprise to Ms. Chelemengos on April 26, Council is now asked to affirm the proclamation.
Recommendation
The staff recommends Council affirm the proclamation previously given. 18 Agenda Item # 3.
Proclamation
Of the Mayor
Of the City of Los Altos, California
WHEREAS, ANDREA CHELEMENGOS has dedicated her professional life to public service; and WHEREAS, ANDREA CHELEMENGOS served as Administrative Assistant in the Planning Department of the City of Los Altos from 1989 to 1994; and WHEREAS, ANDREA CHELEMENGOS pursued professional development that led to certification as Master Municipal Clerk (MMC) and served for nearly 30 years as a City Clerk; and WHEREAS, ANDREA CHELEMENGOS has served as City Clerk of the City of Los Altos from 2020 to 2022; and
WHEREAS, as City Clerk for the City of Los Altos, ANDREA CHELEMENGOS has led efforts to modernize many of the City Clerk functions, including implementing an online agenda management system; and
WHEREAS, ANDREA CHELEMENGOS has provided dedicated service to the City during the COVID-19 pandemic despite never attending an in-person Council meeting; and has provided career development to other members of city staff;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that I, Anita Enander, Mayor of the City of Los Altos, and the entire Los Altos City Council and the people of Los Altos, do hereby commend ANDREA CHELEMENGOS for her exemplary leadership and dedication to public service and wish her well in her retirement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the City of Los Altos this 26th day of April 2022.
____________________________________________ ____________________________________________ Anita Enander, MAYOR Sally Meadows, VICE MAYOR
____________________________________________ ____________________________________________ Neysa Fligor, COUNCIL MEMBER Lynette Lee Eng, COUNCIL MEMBER ____________________________________________
Jonathan Weinberg, COUNCIL MEMBER
19 Agenda Item # 3.
AGENDA REPORT SUMMARY
Reviewed By:
City Manager City Attorney
GE
Finance Director
JH JF
Meeting Date: May 10, 2022
Subject: The Homestead Rd - Safe Routes to School Project: Approve and forward the Letter of Support for the Homestead Rd SRTS project
Prepared by: Marisa Lee, Transportation Services Manager Reviewed by: Jim Sandoval, Engineering Services Director Approved by: Gabriel Engeland, City Manager
Attachment(s):
Homestead Rd SRTS Letter of Support
Initiated by: Transportation Services Department
Previous Council Consideration: Request for Letter of Support on April 12, 2022 Environmental Review:
Not applicable
Policy Question(s) for Council Consideration:
None
Summary:
On April 12, 2022, City Council asked Staff to return with a Letter of Support for this project. Please see Attachment A.
Background
The Homestead Rd - Safe Routes to School Project includes a partnership between the cities of Los Altos, Sunnyvale, Cupertino, and the County of Santa Clara. The project was initiated with funding from Santa Clara County Supervisor Joe Simitian in 2018 for a feasibility study to determine operations improvements along Homestead Rd to support school commutes between the various agencies. Both Cupertino Middle School and Homestead High School are located adjacent to Homestead Rd and the school service students in each of the agencies; Supervisor Simitian’s coordination efforts helped to create concept plan line drawings for street improvements in each agency that will result in continuous bicycle and pedestrian pathways. The Santa Clara - Valley Transportation Authority, the current project lead agency, developed a Safe Routes to School grant in 2020 that was funded and the project is currently in the design phase.
20 Agenda Item # 4.
Subject: Homestead Rd SRTS Letter of Support
May 10, 2022 Page 2
The Homestead Road Safe Routes to School Project is located between Crist Drive in Los Altos and Hollenbeck Avenue/Stelling Road in Cupertino, on Vineyard Drive in Los Altos, and on Bernardo Avenue in Sunnyvale. It involves bicycle and pedestrian improvements such as sidewalk gap closures, intersection reconfigurations, multi-use path widening and extending, and installing separated bikeways. In Los Altos this includes the following improvements:
- The intersection of Homestead Road and Fallen Leaf Lane will be upgraded to a signalized intersection
- The intersection of Grant Road/Foothill Expressway/Homestead Road/Vineyard Drive will be reconfigured to close slip lanes and add curb ramps - The trail in the north side of Homestead Road between El Sereno Avenue will be widened then extended out to Bernardo Avenue
- Sidewalk will be added to Vineyard Drive between Deodara Drive and Foothill Expressway
Recommendation
Staff recommends approving and forwarding the Letter of Support for the Homestead Rd SRTS project.
21 Agenda Item # 4.
1 North San Antonio Road
Los Altos, California 94022-3087
May 2, 2022
Active Transportation Program Scoring Committee
California Transportation Commission
1120 N Street, MS 52
Sacramento, CA 95814
To whom it may concern,
I am writing to express support for the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority’s (VTA) application to the Active Transportation Program for the design and construction of Homestead Road Safe Routes to School Project from Grant Road to Hollenbeck Avenue/Stelling Road.
This project will improve pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure along Homestead Road and will make riding a bicycle or walking on Homestead Road feel safer, more comfortable, and more appealing.
Spurred on by concerns brought up by parents and school administration, the County of Santa Clara funded and completed a Safe Routes to School Corridor Study in 2018/19. After completing the study, the County asked VTA to take the lead on implementation. VTA’s application seeks funding for the design and construction of improvements identified in the study and addresses the concerns and input from parents, school administration, neighbors, and other community members. Improvements include separated bike lanes, sidewalk gap closure, a trail extension widened and new sidewalks, high-visibility crosswalks, curb ramps, and pedestrian and bicycle detection upgrades. This project will make it easier and safer for students to travel to and from the schools along the corridor.
This segment of Homestead Road serves three schools and is overloaded during commute and school pickup and drop-off times, with high volumes of drivers, bicyclists, and pedestrians and many, many conflicts.
A very high percentage of middle and high school students bike to school, many traveling on Homestead Road. Large numbers of students walk to the elementary and middle schools. Adult commuter bicyclists ride on Homestead Road to access Foothill Expressway and Don Burnett Bridge, a bicycle and pedestrian bridge over I-280. Traffic is very congested with parents driving children to the three nearby schools, commuters taking Homestead Road to the SR-85 on ramps, and Foothill Expressway, and teens driving to the high school. There is a history of collisions in this area, with 21 bicyclists and pedestrians hit between 2015 and 2019, 15 of the victims were 17 years old or younger.
As a stakeholder who participated in the Homestead Corridor Safe Routes to School Study, I strongly support VTA applying to the Active Transportation Program Competitive Grant.
Sincerely,
Los Altos City Council
22 Agenda Item # 4.
Reviewed By:
City Manager City Attorney
GE
Finance Director
JH JF
AGENDA REPORT SUMMARY
Meeting Date: May 10, 2022
Subject Solid Waste Collection Rates: Consider adopting Resolution No. 2022-___, authorizing the increase of Solid Waste Collection Rates by 8.48% effective July 1, 2022; consider California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) exemption finding pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15273(a) Prepared by: Aida Fairman, Engineering Services Manager Reviewed by: James Sandoval, Engineering Services Director Approved by: Gabriel Engeland, City Manager
Attachments:
1. Maximum Rates for Adoption (FY 2022/23)
A. Resolution No. 2022-___
Initiated by:
Staff, to comply with the Solid Waste Franchise Agreement Previous Council Consideration:
May 11, May 28, 2019, May 12, 2020; May 11, 2021
Fiscal Impact:
An 8.48% increase in rates charged for service affects all ratepayers, including the City.
Environmental Review:
The adoption of increased rates is exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15273(a) in that CEQA does not apply to actions to set rates, tolls, fares, or other charges.
Summary
The City of Los Altos Municipal Code Section 6.12.020 - Charge for solid waste collection service states that “Any and all charges for solid waste collection service shall be set forth in the franchise agreement, contract or the collection service agreement between the city and its franchised hauler.”
23 Agenda Item # 5.
Subject: Resolution No. 2022-___: Solid Waste Rate Adjustment May 10, 2022 Page 2
Mission Trail Waste Systems (MTWS) manages solid waste management for the City pursuant to an Amended and Restated Collection Services Agreement entered as of April 23, 2020 (the “Franchise Agreement”).
Section 4.02.3 of the Franchise Agreement commits the City to increasing the maximum rates charged by MTWS by 8.48% on each July 1st of 2020, 2021, and 2022. In subsequent years, rate increases are tied to inflation and other metrics. Under Sections 4.01 and
4.02.2.6, the City Council is required to take action by resolution to effectuate rate increases in accordance with the Franchise Agreement.
The increase that will be applied to the existing Solid Waste Collection rates is 8.48% and is captured in the Maximum Service Rates exhibit in Attachment 1 to the staff report.
Staff Recommendation:
Adopt Resolution No. 2022-___, authorizing the increase of Solid Waste Collection Rates by
8.48% effective July 1, 2022.
Purpose
Adopt Resolution No. 2022-___, authorizing the increase of Solid Waste Collection Rates by
8.48% effective July 1, 2022.
Background
The City of Los Altos Municipal Code Section 6.12.020 - Charge for solid waste collection service states that “Any and all charges for solid waste collection service shall be set forth in the franchise agreement, contract or the collection service agreement between the city and its franchised hauler.” The Franchise Agreement with Mission Trail Waste Systems (MTWS) provides for periodic rate adjustments based on the Water-Sewer-Trash Consumer Price Index, as defined below, and establishes that the next adjustment would apply to service beginning July 1, 2022.
The Franchise Agreement provides that MTWS shall charge service recipients an amount not to exceed the Maximum Service Rates (Attachment 1) approved by City Resolution as may be adjusted under the terms of the agreement.
The amended and restated Franchise Agreement was executed on April 23, 2020.
Discussion/Analysis
At its October 22, 2019 meeting, the City Council approved an extension of the Franchise Agreement concluded in 2020, which resulted in an amended and restated Franchise Agreement that specifies rate increases of 8.48% on each July 1st of 2020, 2021, and 2022. In subsequent years, annual rate adjustments will be based upon inflation and other metrics set forth in the Agreement. The Franchise Agreement commits the City to the 8.48% increase effective July 1, 2022, and requires that the City Council effectuate the increase by resolution. 24 Agenda Item # 5.
Subject: Resolution No. 2022-___: Solid Waste Rate Adjustment May 10, 2022 Page 3
Recommendation
Adopt Resolution No. 2022-___, authorizing the increase of Solid Waste Collection Rates by
8.48% effective July 1, 2022.
25 Agenda Item # 5.
20 32 64 96
1 $42.45 $45.73 $91.43 $137.17
1 $40.65
1 $40.65
City
Contract
Rate
Garbage Cart Sizes (gallons)
Exhibit 1a
Maximum Service Rates – SFD Services
Effective July 1, 2022
A. CURBSIDE COLLECTION SERVICE
MONTHLY CURBSIDE RATE
2 Additional Curbside Garbage Cart – $42.45 $45.73 $137.17 (added to Line A2) B. ON-PREMISE COLLECTION SERVICE
1 MONTHLY ON-PREMISE RATE $58.31 $61.56 $107.27 $153.00 (5 – 100 ft) $91.43
$16.24 Each 100 feet (add to line B1 or B2)
2 Additional On-Premise Garbage Cart – $58.31 $61.56 $107.27 $153.00 (added to Line B2) 3 Additional Walk-in Distance – $16.24 $16.24 $16.24
D. ADDITIONAL CART EXCHANGE OR REPLACEMENT
C. ADDITIONAL BULKY WASTE COLLECTION
1 Additional On-Call Bulky Waste Collection
(Individual Large Items) $26.39
Each additional large item (over 3
Large Items per Bulky Waste
Collection)
3 Additional On-Call Bulky Waste Collection
(Loose) $40.65
Per cubic yard/occurrence (over 2
Bulky Waste Collections per
Agreement Year)
2 Collection of Large Items $81.30 Each item/each occurrence Containing Freon Disposal Facility Charge Per Ton Newby Island Sanitary Landfill Additional Garbage Cart Exchange Each occurrence
E. ON- CALL HHW COLLECTION
On-Call HHW Collection Each occurrence
F. DISPOSAL COST PER TON COST
4/4/2022 Los Altos Rates 22-23 R3.xlsx
ATTACHMENT 1
26 Agenda Item # 5.
1X Week 2X Week 3X Week 4X Week 5X Week 6X Week
32 Gallon $45.72 $91.42 $137.15 $182.84 $228.58 $274.27 64 Gallon $91.42 $182.87 $274.30 $365.77 $457.18 $548.63 96 Gallon $137.17 $274.28 $411.45 $548.60 $685.77 $822.87 1 CY BIN $179.37 $358.79 $538.15 $717.54 $896.93 $1,076.29 2 CY BIN $358.79 $717.54 $1,076.30 $1,435.07 $1,793.85 $2,152.61 3 CY BIN $538.14 $1,076.29 $1,614.47 $2,152.63 $2,690.78 $3,228.92 4 CY BIN $717.54 $1,435.07 $2,152.63 $2,870.13 $3,587.71 $4,305.27 6 CY BIN $1,076.29 $2,152.63 $3,228.92 $4,305.24 $5,381.54 $6,457.85 0 - 25 feet $33.77
No Charge increment over the first 25 feet
(must be approved by CITY)
$40.65
$26.40
$81.31
$40.65
$40.65
$284.56
$121.97
$121.97
$121.97
$40.65
$121.97
Exhibit 1b
Maximum Service Rates – Commercial and MFD Services
Effective July 1, 2022
Container Size Collection Frequency
Bin Push Rates (rate multiplied by
collection frequency)
per month for each 25 feet
Disposal Charge Per Ton City Contract Rate Newby Island Sanitary Landfill Organic Waste Processing Charge Per Ton City Contract Rate Zanker Road Processing Facility Organic Waste Processing Charge Per Ton MTWS Contract Rate Newby Island Processing Facility, Mixed C&D, Inerts, Green Waste, Wood Waste
Processing Charge Per Ton City Contract Rate Newby Island Processing Facility On-Call Bulky Waste Collection (Loose) Per cubic yard/occurrence On-Call Bulky Waste Collection (Individual Large Items) Each item/each occurrence On-Call Bulky Waste – Large Items Containing Freon Each item/each occurrence Charge for Opening Locked Gate Per month
Charge for CONTRACTOR supplied lock Each lock
Charge for installing lock bar Each locking bar
Charge for special bin delivery Each special bin
Charge for extra bin service same day Each occurrence
Extra Bin Cleaning Each occurrence
Additional Garbage Bin Exchange Each occurrence
Charge for extra bin service not on regular collection day 1/2 of Monthly Rate Additional Bin Garbage Replacement Each occurrence
Charge for collecting manure 95% of Garbage rate
Charge for extra day bin service on regular collection day 1/3 of Monthly Rate 4/4/2022 Los Altos Rates 22-23 R3.xlsx
27 Agenda Item # 5.
$872.95 Per Pull $991.44 Per Pull
$872.95 Per pull $991.44 Per Pull
$991.44 Per pull $999.44 Per Pull
$999.44 Per pull $999.44 Per Pull
$999.44 Per pull $999.44 Per Pull
City Contract
Rate
$195.17 Per week
$162.63 Per hour
$243.92 Per pull
$40.67 Per month
Exhibit 1c
Maximum Service Rates – SFD, MFD and Commercial Debris Box Services Effective July 1, 2022
10 CY Debris Box 10 CY Compactor
15 CY Debris Box 15 CY Compactor
20 CY Debris Box 20 CY Compactor
Organic Waste Processing City Contract
Rate Zanker Road Processing Facility Charge Per Ton
30 CY Debris Box 30 CY Compactor
40 CY Debris Box 40 CY Compactor
Disposal City Contract
Rate Newby Island Sanitary Landfill Charge Per Ton
Organic Waste Processing MTWS
Contract Rate
Newby Island Processing Facility,
Charge Per Ton (must be approved by CITY)
Mixed C&D, Inerts, Green Waste, Wood Waste
Processing Charge Per Ton Newby Island Processing Facility All 10, 20, 30, 40 CY debris boxes and compactors are pull rates only; disposal or processing will be based on actual disposal processing and the Franchise Fee will be 15% of the gross receipts per box (including collection, processing or disposal). The total customer rate will be the total cost for the collection, processing or disposal and the franchise fee.
Demurrage Per Charge (not dumped every 7 days)
Per hour Stand-by Charge (box not ready to be pulled)
Saturday Service
Charge for Opening Locked Gate
Notes:
4/4/2022 Los Altos Rates 22-23 R3.xlsx 28
Agenda Item # 5.
1X Week 2X Week 4X Week 5X Week 6X Week
32 Gallon $38.85 $77.72 $155.40 $194.28 $233.12
64 Gallon $77.74 $155.44 $310.90 $388.60 $466.32
96 Gallon $116.59 $233.15 $466.31 $582.90 $699.46
1 CY BIN $152.48 $304.96 $609.91 $762.36 $914.84
2 CY BIN $304.96 $609.91 $1,219.80 $1,524.78 $1,829.73
3 CY BIN $457.44 $914.84 $1,829.73 $2,287.15 $2,744.58
4 CY BIN $609.91 $1,219.80 $2,439.65 $3,049.56 $3,659.42 6 CY BIN $914.84 $1,829.73 $3,659.42 $4,574.32 $5,489.19 10 CY Debris Box $742.01 Per Pull $842.71 Per Pull
15 CY Debris Box $742.01 Per pull $842.71 Per Pull
20 CY Debris Box $842.71 Per pull $849.53 Per Pull
30 CY Debris Box $849.53 Per pull $849.53 Per Pull
40 CY Debris Box $849.53 Per pull $849.53 Per Pull
$9,255.52 per month
$111,066.17 per 12 months
$48.78 per ton MTWS transfer facility in Santa Clara
Exhibit 1d
Maximum Service Rates – City Services
Effective July 1, 2022
Container Size
Collection Frequency
3X Week
15 CY Compactor
$116.56
$233.18
$349.76
$457.44
$914.84
$1,372.31
$1,829.73
$2,744.58
10 CY Compactor
Disposal City Contract Rate Newby Island Sanitary Landfill Charge Per Ton 20 CY Compactor
30 CY Compactor
40 CY Compactor
Public Containers Collection 7 days/week (as included in Exhibit 2) Green Waste Drop-off
Organic Waste Processing City Contract Rate Zanker Road Processing Facility Charge Per Ton Organic Waste Processing MTWS Contract Rate Newby Island Processing Facility, (must be Charge Per Ton approved by CITY)
Mixed C&D, Inerts, Green Waste, Wood
Waste Processing Charge Per Ton City Contract Rate Newby Island Processing Facility Notes:
All 10, 20, 30, 40 CY debris boxes and compactors are pull rates only; disposal or processing will be based on actual disposal processing and the Franchise Fee will be 15% of the gross receipts per box (including collection, processing or disposal). The total customer rate will be the total cost for the collection, processing or disposal and the franchise fee. 4/4/2022 Los Altos Rates 22-23 R3.xlsx
29 Agenda Item # 5.
Hourly Rate
$121.97
Labor Position or Equipment Type Make & Model Hourly Rate Truck and One person As needed $284.56
Exhibit 1f
Maximum Service Rates – Emergency Service Rates - Equipment Effective July 1, 2022
Exhibit 1e
Maximum Service Rates – Emergency Service Rates - Employees Effective July 1, 2022
Labor Position
As needed
4/4/2022 Los Altos Rates 22-23 R3.xlsx
30 Agenda Item # 5.
ATTACHMENT A
Resolution No. 2022-___ Page 1
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-___
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LOS ALTOS
AUTHORIZING THE INCREASE OF SOLID WASTE COLLECTION RATES BY 8.48% EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2022
WHEREAS, the City of Los Altos Municipal Code Section 6.12.020 (Charge for solid waste collection service) states that “Any and all charges for solid waste collection service shall be set forth in the franchise agreement, contract or the collection service agreement between the City and its franchised hauler.”; and WHEREAS, the franchise agreement between the City of Los Altos and Mission Trail Waste Systems provides for a flat rate increase of 8.48-percent (8.48%) per year for the first three years of the extended franchise term, the last of which with an effective date of July 1, 2022 (Section 4.02.3 of the Franchise Agreement); and WHEREAS, the franchise agreement requires the City Council to effectuate rate increases by resolution; and
WHEREAS, the City Council’s action in setting solid waste disposal fees is exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15273(a).
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Los Altos, that:
(1) The City Council hereby finds that the foregoing recitals are true and correct. (2) To effectuate the increase required under the franchise agreement, the City Council hereby authorizes the attached rate schedule to be applied to solid waste collection services within the service area provided for in the agreement.
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 10th day of May, 2022 by the following vote:
31 Agenda Item # 5.
ATTACHMENT A
Resolution No. 2022-___ Page 2
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
___________________________
Anita Enander, MAYOR
Attest:
_____________________________
Andrea Chelemengos, CMC, CITY CLERK
32 Agenda Item # 5.
Reviewed By:
City Manager City Attorney
GE
Finance Director
JH JF
AGENDA REPORT SUMMARY
Meeting Date: May 10, 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; April 12, 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 33 Agenda Item # 6.
Subject: Emergency Declaration Resolution
May 10, 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 subsequently adopted resolutions monthly beginning in October 2021 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
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 manner. 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.
34 Agenda Item # 6.
Resolution No. 2022-XX Page 1
ATTACHMENT 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 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 2020-08 ratifying and continuing the proclamation of local emergency; and
WHEREAS, on August 24, 2021, and October 12, 2021, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2021-46 and Resolution No. 2021-51 respectively extending the declaration of a local emergency; and
WHEREAS, by the beginning of March 2022, over 2,000 Santa Clara County residents had 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
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, although breakthrough infections are rare for fully vaccinated individuals, available COVID-19 vaccines have proven less effective against variants than against prior strains of the SARS-CoV-2 virus; 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 35 Agenda Item # 6.
Resolution No. 2022-XX Page 2
ATTACHMENT 1
WHEREAS, AB 361 requires the City Council to 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. At this if deemed appropriate, the City Council may take further action.
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
36 Agenda Item # 6.
AGENDA REPORT SUMMARY
CONSENT CALENDAR
Agenda Item # 5
Reviewed By:
City Manager City Attorney
GE
Finance Director
JH JF
3Meeting Date: May 24, 2022
Subject: Contract Amendment: M-Group Contract Planning Services Prepared by: Laura Simpson, Interim Planning Director
Approved by: Gabriel Engeland, City Manager
Attachment(s): None
Initiated by:
Staff
Previous Council Consideration:
None
Fiscal Impact:
The total contract amount for Council approval is $180,000 ($95,000 original agreement + $85,000 contract amendment). These funds will come from the General Fund and will be offset by salary savings due to vacancies within the Community Development Department, as well as planning application fees for new development.
Environmental Review:
Not applicable
Policy Question(s) for Council Consideration:
Does the Council wish to amend the contract with M-Group to provide additional planning services?
Summary:
The City currently has an agreement with M-Group to provide contract planning services. A contract amendment is needed to allow M-Group to continue providing planning contract services until vacant planning positions are filled.
Staff Recommendation:
Authorize the City Manager to execute a contract amendment M-Group in an amount not to exceed $85,000 (total contract amount not to exceed $180,000) for contract planning services. 37 Agenda Item # 7.
Subject: Contract Amendment: Financial Consulting Services May 10, 2022 Page 2
Purpose
To amend the contract with M-Group for contract planning services.
Background
On February 13, 2022, the City entered into a contract with M-Group for contract planning services.
In the absence of a permanent Planning Manager, and with a vacant sustainability coordinator and vacant senior planner position, staff from M-Group is assisting the City by providing three part-time contract planners.
Discussion/Analysis
The original contract with M-Group is for an amount not to exceed $95,000. In order to provide the planning expertise the City requires during this time of transition, it is recommended that the City Council approve a contract amendment to increase the contract to $180,000 and to extend the contract to provide planning contract services through December 31, 2022. Staff from M-Group will continue to help the City with planning project application review and to prepare commission and Council staff reports and presentations. The Sustainability Coordinator position is being filled by a part-time contract planner until the end of the fiscal year. At that time the position will be filled for FY 2023 and will be funded through the Solid Waste fund. It should be noted, that as the City fills staff vacancies within the Community Development Department and the City no longer needs contract planning services, the City will end work with contract planners. With the vacancies of several positions, there are sufficient funds to fund the contract amendment.
Recommendation
The staff recommends the approval of this contract amendment. 38 Agenda Item # 7.
Agreement_October 2018 -1-
Professional Services_BBK
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE CITY OF LOS ALTOS, CALIFORNIA
AND M-GROUP
FOR CONTRACT SENIOR PLANNER SERVICES
THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into as of the ________________, by and between the CITY OF LOS ALTOS, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as “CITY,” and M-Group, hereinafter referred to as “CONSULTANT.”
RECITALS
WHEREAS, CITY desires to retain a qualified consulting firm to perform contract senior planner services; and
WHEREAS, CITY has determined that CONSULTANT possesses the skills, experience and certifications required to provide the services required by the CITY; and WHEREAS, CONSULTANT is an independent consultant providing similar professional services to numerous other cities; and
WHEREAS, CITY desires to retain CONSULTANT to provide professional services under the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants, conditions and promises identified herein, the parties mutually agree as follow:
1. SCOPE OF SERVICES.
A. CONSULTANT. CONSULTANT shall assist the CITY by executing the following scope of services in a satisfactory and proper manner in accordance with requirements provided by the City Manager, or designee. Services will include, but not be limited to, the items noted in CONSULTANT’s proposal attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit A.
2. SCHEDULE. Services of CONSULTANT are to commence upon the execution of this Agreement and shall continue in full force and effect until it is terminated. It is intended that the termination of this Agreement be contemporaneous with final acceptance of all services described in Exhibit A by the Los Altos City Manager, or designee. CONSULTANT shall meet the completion date as indicated on Exhibit A.
3. TERM. The term of this Agreement shall continue in full force and effect until March 30, 2022.
Changes in Scope of Services and Payment Schedule, Exhibit A, can be amended, as needed, thirty (30) days prior to the expiration of each fiscal year. If the Agreement is terminated, it is intended 21-06
DocuSign Envelope ID: 698929D5-4B24-4FDC-A14A-0199F036FA2C 12/13/2021 | 3:34:29 PM PST
39 Agenda Item # 7.
Agreement_October 2018 -2- Professional Services_BBK
that the termination of the Agreement be contemporaneous with final acceptance of all services by CITY.
4. COMPENSATION. CONSULTANT will perform the work outlined above and will invoice CITY upon completion of the project. CONSULTANT’s total compensation, including reimbursed expenses, for the services set forth for the Contract shall not exceed $45,000 as outlined in Exhibit A.
A. Compensation. The compensation shall be paid to CONSULTANT based on the following hourly rates guide:
Senior Planner $155/hour
The total contract value shall not to exceed $45,000.
B. Method of Payment. As a condition precedent to any payment to CONSULTANT under this Agreement, CONSULTANT shall submit monthly to the CITY a statement of account which clearly sets forth the designated items of work for which the billing is submitted. Each statement of account shall also include a detailed record of the month’s actual reimbursable expenditures.
CITY shall review CONSULTANT’s monthly statement and pay CONSULTANT for services rendered hereunder at the rates if acceptable and in the amounts provided hereunder on a monthly basis in accordance with the approved monthly statements. Payment will be made according to the CITY’s standard Payment Schedule and Terms.
5. OWNERSHIP OF WORK. All documents furnished to CONSULTANT by CITY and all reports and supportive data prepared by CONSULTANT by this Agreement are CITY’s property, for the exclusive use of the CITY, shall be given to CITY at the completion of CONSULTANT services.
6. COMPLIANCE WITH LAW. CONSULTANT shall comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws, codes, ordinances and regulations, including Cal/OSHA requirements.
CONSULTANT represents to CITY that it has, and will maintain through the term of the Agreement, all licenses, permits, qualifications, insurance and approvals of whatsoever nature, which are legally required for CONSULTANT to practice its profession. CONSULTANT shall maintain a City of Los Altos Business License.
7. STANDARD OF CARE. CONSULTANT’s services will be performed in accordance with generally accepted professional practices and principles and in a manner consistent with the level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the profession currently practicing under similar conditions.
8. INSURANCE. CONSULTANT shall procure and maintain for the duration of the contract insurance as described in Exhibit B against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder and the results of that work by the CONSULTANT, its agents, representatives, employees or subcontractors.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 698929D5-4B24-4FDC-A14A-0199F036FA2C 40 Agenda Item # 7.
Agreement_October 2018 -3- Professional Services_BBK
9. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE PARTIES. CONSULTANT is, and at all times shall remain, an independent contractor, not an agent or employee of the CITY. CONSULTANT shall be solely responsible for all acts of its employees, agents or sub-consultants, including any negligent acts or omissions. CONSULTANT shall have no authority to act on behalf of the CITY or to bind the CITY to any obligation whatsoever, unless the CITY provides prior written authorization to CONSULTANT. As an independent contractor, CONSULTANT shall not be entitled to any benefit, right or compensation from the CITY other than those provided for in this Agreement.
10. INDEMNIFICATION. To the fullest extent permitted by law, CONSULTANT shall defend (with counsel reasonably approved by CITY), indemnify and hold CITY, the City Council, members of the City Council, its employees, representatives, agents and volunteers harmless from any and all suits, damages, costs, fees, claims, demands, causes of action, liabilities, losses expenses, damage or injury of any kind, in law or equity, to property or persons, including wrongful death and financial losses (collectively, “Claims”) in any manner arising out of, pertaining to, or incident to any alleged acts, errors or omissions, or willful misconduct of CONSULTANT or CONSULTANT’S officers, assistants, subcontractors, employees or agents in connection with the performance of CONSULTANT’s services or this Agreement, including without limitation the payment of all consequential damages, expert witness fees and attorneys’ fees and other related costs and expenses.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, to the extent CONSULTANT’s services are subject to Civil Code Section 2782.8, (Design Professionals) the above indemnity shall be limited, to the extent required by Civil Code Section 2782.8, to Claims that arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of CONSULTANT. CONSULTANT’s obligation to indemnify shall not be restricted to insurance proceeds, if any, received by CITY, the City Council, members of the City Council, its employees, or authorized volunteers.
11. CALIFORNIA LABOR CODE REQUIREMENTS. CONSULTANT is aware of the requirements of California Labor Code Sections 1720 et seq. and 1770 et seq., which require the payment of prevailing wage rates and the performance of other requirements on certain “public works” or “maintenance” projects. If the services are being performed as part of an applicable “public works” or “maintenance” project, as defined by the Prevailing Wage Laws, and if the total compensation is $1,000 or more, CONSULTANT agrees to fully comply with such Prevailing Wage Laws, if applicable. CONSULTANT shall defend, indemnify and hold the CITY, its elected officials, officers, employees and agents free and harmless from any claims, liabilities, costs, penalties or interest arising out of any failure or alleged failure to comply with the Prevailing Wage Laws. It shall be mandatory upon the CONSULTANT and all sub-consultants to comply with all California Labor Code provisions, which include but are not limited to prevailing wages (Labor Code Sections 1771, 1774 and 1775), employment of apprentices (Labor Code Section 1777.5), certified payroll records (Labor Code Section 1776), hours of labor (Labor Code Sections 1813 and 1815) and debarment of contractors and subcontractors (Labor Code Section 1777.1).
If the services are being performed as part of an applicable “public works” or “maintenance” project, then pursuant to Labor Code Sections 1725.5 and 1771.1, CONSULTANT and all subconsultants performing such services must be registered with the Department of Industrial Relations. CONSULTANT shall maintain registration for the duration of the Project and require the same of any sub-consultants, as applicable. This Project may also be subject to compliance monitoring and enforcement by the Department of Industrial Relations. It shall be DocuSign Envelope ID: 698929D5-4B24-4FDC-A14A-0199F036FA2C 41 Agenda Item # 7.
Agreement_October 2018 -4- Professional Services_BBK
CONSULTANT’s sole responsibility to comply with all applicable registration and labor compliance requirements.
12. TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, the CITY may terminate this Agreement without cause at any time upon giving ten days written notice to CONSULTANT. In the event of such a termination, CONSULTANT shall be entitled to any compensation owed for services rendered up to the effective date of termination.
13. MAINTENANCE OF RECORDS. Books, documents, papers, accounting records, and other evidence pertaining to costs incurred shall be maintained by CONSULTANT and made available at all reasonable times during the contract period and for four (4) years from the date of final payment under this Agreement for inspection by CITY.
14. ORGANIZATION. CONSULTANT shall assign Radha Hayagreev as Contract Senior Planner.
The Contract Senior Planner shall not be removed from the Project or reassigned without the prior written consent of CITY.
15. WRITTEN NOTIFICATION. Any notice, demand, request, consent, approval, or communications that either party desires or is required to give to the other party shall be in writing and either served personally or sent by prepaid, first class mail. Any such notice, demand, etc., shall be addressed to the other part at the address set forth herein below. Either party may change its address by notifying the other party of the change of address. Notice shall be deemed communicated within 48 hours from the time of mailing it mailed as provided in this section.
CITY: City of Los Altos
Jon Maginot, Deputy City Manager
1 N. San Antonio Road
Los Altos, CA 94022
CONSULTANT: M-Group
Heather Bradley
51 Campbell Avenue #1247
Campbell, CA 95009
16. PARTIAL INVALIDITY. If any provision of this Agreement is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, void or unenforceable, the remaining provisions will nevertheless continue in full force without being impaired or invalidated in any way.
17. WAIVER. Waiver of a breach or default under this Agreement shall not constitute a continuing waiver of a subsequent breach of the same or any other provision of the Agreement.
18. NO IMPLIED WAIVERS. The failure of either party at any time to require performance by the other party of any provisions hereof shall not affect in any way the full right to require such performance at any time thereafter. Nor shall the waiver by either party of a breach of any provision hereof be taken or held to be a waiver of the provision itself.
19. ASSIGNMENT. The parties recognize that a substantial inducement to CITY for entering into this Agreement is the professional reputation, experience and competence of CONSULTANT.
CONSULTANT, therefore, shall not assign, delegate, nor transfer any rights or obligations DocuSign Envelope ID: 698929D5-4B24-4FDC-A14A-0199F036FA2C 42 Agenda Item # 7.
Agreement_October 2018 -5- Professional Services_BBK
pursuant to this Agreement, except as specified in this Agreement, without the prior written consent of CITY. Any assignment of any right or obligation or subcontracting of any work without CITY consent shall be void and of no effect.
20. TAXES. CONSULTANT agrees to file tax returns and pay all applicable taxes on amounts paid pursuant to this Agreement, and shall be solely liable and responsible to pay such taxes and other obligations, including, but not limited to, state and federal income and FICA taxes.
CONSULTANT agrees to indemnify and hold CITY harmless from any liability which it may incur to the United States of America or the State of California as a consequence of CONSULTANT’s failure to pay, when due, all such taxes and obligations. In the event CITY is audited for compliance regarding withholding or other applicable taxes, CONSULTANT agrees to furnish CITY with proof of payment of taxes on these earnings.
21. NONDISCRIMINATION. CONSULTANT shall not discriminate against any person related to the performance under this Agreement (including any employee or applicant) or the basis of race, color, religious creed, national origin, gender, physical or mental disability, marital status, or sexual orientation.
22. DEFAULT. In the event CONSULTANT fails to provide the services set forth in this Agreement due to the fault of CONSULTANT, CITY shall have the right to either do the work itself or hire an outside contractor to perform those services.
23. TIME OF ESSENCE. Time is of the essence for each and every provision of this Agreement.
24. CITY’S RIGHT TO EMPLOY OTHER CONSULTANTS. CITY reserves its right to employ other consultants in connection with this Project or other projects.
25. VENUE. In the event that suit shall be brought by either party hereunder, the parties agree that trial of such action shall be held exclusively in a state court in the County of Santa Clara, San Jose, California.
26. CONSTRUCTION. To the fullest extent allowed by law, the provisions of this Agreement shall be construed and given effect in the manner that avoids any violation of statute, ordinance, regulation or law.
27. AMENDMENT. This Agreement constitutes the complete and exclusive statement of the Agreement to CITY and CONSULTANT. It may be amended or extended from time-to-time by written agreement of the parties hereto.
28. INTEGRATION. This Agreement supersedes any and all agreements, either oral or written, between the parties hereto with respect to the rendering of services by CONSULTANT for CITY, and contains all the covenants and agreements between the parties with respect to the rendering of such services in any manner whatsoever. Each party to this Agreement acknowledges that no representations, inducements, promises or agreements, orally or otherwise, have been made by any party or anyone acting on behalf of any party, which is not embodied herein, and that no other agreement, statement, or promise not contained in this Agreement shall be valid or binding. Any modification of this Agreement shall be effective only if it is in writing, signed by the party to be charged. If there is any conflict in the terms of this Agreement with the exhibits or attachments, then the provisions of this Agreement shall control.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 698929D5-4B24-4FDC-A14A-0199F036FA2C 43 Agenda Item # 7.
Agreement_October 2018 -6- Professional Services_BBK
29. EXECUTION. This Agreement may be executed in several counterparts, each of which shall constitute one and the same instrument and shall become binding upon the parties when at least one copy hereof shall have been signed by both parties hereto. In approving this Agreement it shall not be necessary to produce or account for more than one such counterpart.
30. IN WITNESS. WHEREOF, the CITY and CONSULTANT have executed this Agreement as of the date first above written.
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
Jon Maginot, Deputy City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Jolie Houston
City Attorney
AGREED:
Gabriel Engeland Date
City Manager
CONSULTANT:
Heather Bradley, AICP Date
Principal
DocuSign Envelope ID: 698929D5-4B24-4FDC-A14A-0199F036FA2C 12/13/2021 | 3:26:34 PM PST
12/13/2021 | 3:34:29 PM PST
44 Agenda Item # 7.
m-group.us 51 Campbell Avenue, #1247 100, Campbell, CA 95000 408.340.5642 a new design on urban planning
December 2, 2021
City of Los Altos
Attn: Jon Maginot
Deputy City Manager
1 N. San Antonio Road
Los Altos, CA 94022
RE: Proposal –Temporary Staffing Assignment
Dear Mr. Maginot,
It is a pleasure to provide this letter proposal to the City of Los Altos. M-Group would like to provide Radha Hayagreev, Senior Planner to consult with the City to manage complex current Planning applications.
Radha is available approximately 16 per week, for four months. It is anticipated that this work will occur remotely and the schedule will vary depending on task deadlines as they occur. This contract will end March 30, 2022 unless both the City and M-Group mutually agree to extend the duration.
Our hourly rate for a Senior Planner is $155 per hour. The not-to-exceed amount for this contract is $45,000 which includes a contingency for extra tasks as assigned outside of the 16-hour work week.
Please refer to our attached rate sheet for additional Planner rates. It is possible that M-Group will have an Assistant Planner available to provide some public counter service in the near future if needed.
We look forward to working with you and the City of Los Altos to assist with your staffing needs.
Sincerely,
Heather Bradley, AICP
Principal
Attachments: 1) Scope & Budget
2) 2021-2023 Rate Sheet
Exhibit A
DocuSign Envelope ID: 698929D5-4B24-4FDC-A14A-0199F036FA2C 45 Agenda Item # 7.
m-group.us 51 Campbell Avenue, #1247 100, Campbell, CA 95000 408.340.5642 a new design on urban planning
SCOPE
M-Group will provide the City of Los Altos with a Senior Planner to assist the Planning Division with the following tasks.
• Provide project management services for Planning applications as assigned • Review and analyze development plans for projects as assigned • Plan, prepare for and attend meetings with agency staff, project proponents, and interested parties as needed
• Provide responses to inquiries and project submittals in a timely manner • Prepare project presentations and present projects at community meetings, Planning Commission and City Council meetings, or other boards and commission meetings as assigned
• Other tasks as assigned
BUDGET
M-Group will provide staffing services in accordance with the Scope outlined above with the following terms.
Contract Duration Not to exceed 4 Months
Hours Per Week 16 hours for 16 weeks
Rate Per Hour $155
Subtotal $39,680
Contingency (optional) $5,320
Total Contract Not to Exceed $45,000
DocuSign Envelope ID: 698929D5-4B24-4FDC-A14A-0199F036FA2C 46 Agenda Item # 7.
m-group.us 51 Campbell Avenue, #1247 100, Campbell, CA 95000 408.340.5642 a new design on urban planning
M-GROUP STAFF HOURLY
RATE
Admin Analyst $85 Planning Tech
Assistant Planner
Assistant Urban Designer $100
Social Media Coordinator
Associate Planner $130 Associate Urban Designer
GIS Mapping Services
Environmental Planner
Historic Preservation Specialist $145
Public Art Specialist
Senior Planner
$155 Senior Urban Designer
Senior Environmental Planner
Project Manager
Principal Planner
$175 Principal Environmental Planner
Principal Policy Planner
Director of Urban Design
Principal $220 - $270
* Hourly rates are subject to annual adjustment.
Sub-consultants include a 10% administration fee
DocuSign Envelope ID: 698929D5-4B24-4FDC-A14A-0199F036FA2C 47 Agenda Item # 7.
Agreement_October 2018 -7- Professional Services_BBK
EXHIBIT B
INSURANCE
CONSULTANT shall provide its insurance broker(s)/agent(s) with a copy of these requirements and request that they provide Certificates of Insurance complete with copies of all required endorsements to: Project Manager, City of Los Altos, 1 N. San Antonio Road, Los Altos, CA 94022 Minimum Scope of Insurance
Coverage shall be at least as broad as:
1. Commercial General Liability (CGL): Insurance Services Office Form CG 00 01 covering CGL on an “occurrence” basis, with limits no less than $2,000,000 or $4,000,000 aggregate per occurrence. If a general aggregate limit applies, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this project/location or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit. CGL insurance must include coverage for the following:
a. Bodily Injury and Property Damage
b. Personal Injury/Advertising Injury
c. Premises/Operations Liability
d. Products/Completed Operations Liability
e. Aggregate Limits that Apply per Project
f. Explosion, Collapse and Underground (UCX) exclusion deleted g. Contractual Liability with respect to this Agreement h. Broad Form Property Damage
i. Independent Consultants Coverage
The policy shall contain no endorsements or provisions limiting coverage for (1) contractual liability; (2) cross liability exclusion for claims or suits by one insured against another; (3) products/completed operations liability; or (4) contain any other exclusion contrary to the Agreement.
2. Automobile Liability: Insurance Services Office Form Number CA 00 01 covering, Code 1 (any auto), or if CONSULTANT has no owned autos, Code 8 (hired) and 9 (non-owned), with limit no less than $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury and property damage.
3. Workers’ Compensation/Employer’s Liability: CONSULTANT certifies that it is aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the California Labor Code which requires every employer to be insured against liability for workers’ compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that code, and it will comply with such provisions before commencing work under this Agreement. To the extent CONSULTANT has employees at any time during the term of this Agreement, at all times during the performance of the work under this Agreement CONSULTANT shall maintain insurance as required by the State of California, with Statutory Limits, and Employer’s Liability Insurance with limit of no less than $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury or disease.
4. Professional Liability (Errors and Omissions) Insurance appropriate to the CONSULTANT’s profession, with limit no less than $1,000,000 per occurrence or claim.
This insurance shall be endorsed to include contractual liability applicable to this Agreement DocuSign Envelope ID: 698929D5-4B24-4FDC-A14A-0199F036FA2C 48 Agenda Item # 7.
Agreement_October 2018 -8- Professional Services_BBK
and shall be written on a policy form coverage specifically designed to protect against acts, errors or omissions of the CONSULTANT. “Covered Professional Services” as designed in the policy must specifically include work performed under this Agreement.
5. Umbrella or Excess Liability: Umbrella or Excess Insurance. If umbrella or an excess liability insurance policy is used to satisfy the minimum requirements for CGL or Automobile Liability insurance coverage listed above, the umbrella or excess liability policies shall provide coverage at least as broad as specified for the underlying coverages and covering those insured in the underlying policies. Coverage shall be “pay on behalf,” with defense costs payable in addition to policy limits. CONSULTANT shall provide a “follow form” endorsement or schedule of underlying coverage satisfactory to the CITY indicating that such coverage is subject to the same terms and conditions as the underlying liability policy.
6. The CITY, its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers are to be covered as additional insureds on the umbrella or excess policy with respect to liability arising out of work or operations performed by or on behalf of the CONSULTANT including materials, parts or equipment furnished in connection with such work or operations. If CONSULTANT maintains broader coverage, umbrella or excess coverage and/or higher limits than the minimums shown above, the CITY requires and shall be entitled to the broader coverage, umbrella or excess coverage and/or the higher limits maintained by CONSULTANT. Any available insurance proceeds in excess of the specified minimum limits of insurance and any other coverages shall be available to the CITY.
Other Insurance Provisions. The insurance policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions:
Additional Insured Status. The CITY, its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers are to be covered as additional insureds on the CGL policy and the Automobile Liability policy, with endorsements under CG 20 10 10 01 and 20 37 10 01, or endorsements providing the exact same coverage, with respect to liability arising out of work or operations performed by or on behalf of the CONSULTANT including materials, parts or equipment furnished in connection with such work or operations.
Primary Coverage. For any claims related to this contract, the CONSULTANT’s insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the CITY, its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the CITY, its officers, officials, employees, or volunteers shall be excess of the CONSULTANT’s insurance and shall not contribute with it.
Notice of Cancellation. Each insurance policy required above shall be endorsed to state that coverage shall not be canceled except after thirty (30) days’ prior written notice (10 days for nonpayment) has been given to the CITY.
Waiver of Subrogation. CONSULTANT hereby grants to CITY a waiver of any right to subrogation which any insurer of said CONSULTANT may acquire against the CITY by virtue of the payment of any loss under such insurance. CONSULTANT agrees to obtain any endorsement that may be necessary to affect this waiver of subrogation, but this provision applies regardless of whether or not the CITY has received a waiver of subrogation endorsement from the insurer.
Deductibles and Self-Insured Retentions. Any deductibles or self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the CITY. The CITY may require the CONSULTANT to provide proof DocuSign Envelope ID: 698929D5-4B24-4FDC-A14A-0199F036FA2C 49 Agenda Item # 7.
Agreement_October 2018 -9- Professional Services_BBK
of ability to pay losses and related investigations, claim administration, and defense expenses within the retention.
Acceptability of Insurers. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best’s rating of no less than A:VII, unless otherwise acceptable to the CITY.
Claims Made Policies. If any of the required policies provide claims-made coverage:
7. The Retroactive Date must be shown, and must be before the date of the contract or the beginning of contract work.
8. Insurance must be maintained and evidence of insurance must be provided for at least three (3) years after completion of the contract work.
9. If coverage is canceled or non-renewed, and not replaced with another claims-made policy form with a Retroactive Date prior to the contract effective date, the CONSULTANT must purchase “extended reporting” coverage for a minimum of three (3) years after completion of contract work.
Verification of Coverage. CONSULTANT shall furnish the CITY with original certificates and amendatory endorsements effecting coverage required by this clause. All certificates and endorsements are to be received and approved by the CITY before work commences. However, failure to obtain the required documents prior to the work beginning shall not waive the CONSULTANT’s obligation to provide them. The CITY reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, including endorsements required by these specifications, at any time.
Special Risks or Circumstances. CITY reserves the right to modify these requirements, including limits, based on the nature of the risk, prior experience, insurer, coverage, or other special circumstances.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 698929D5-4B24-4FDC-A14A-0199F036FA2C 50 Agenda Item # 7.
ANY PROPRIETOR/PARTNER/EXECUTIVE OFFICER/MEMBER EXCLUDED?
INSR ADDL SUBR
LTR INSD WVD
PRODUCER CONTACT NAME: PHONE FAX
(A/C, No, Ext): (A/C, No): E-MAIL ADDRESS:
INSURER A :
INSURER B :
INSURER C :
INSURER D :
INSURER E :
INSURER F :
POLICY NUMBER POLICY EFF POLICY EXP TYPE OF INSURANCE (MM/DD/YYYY) (MM/DD/YYYY) LIMITS
AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY
UMBRELLA LIAB
EXCESS LIAB WORKERS COMPENSATION
AND EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY
AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE
EACH OCCURRENCE $ DAMAGE TO RENTED CLAIMS-MADE OCCUR PREMISES (Ea occurrence) $ MED EXP (Any one person) $ PERSONAL & ADV INJURY $ GEN'L AGGREGATE LIMIT APPLIES PER: GENERAL AGGREGATE $ PRO- POLICY JECT LOC PRODUCTS - COMP/OP AGG OTHER: $ COMBINED SINGLE LIMIT
(Ea accident) $ ANY AUTO BODILY INJURY (Per person) $ OWNED SCHEDULED AUTOS ONLY AUTOS BODILY INJURY (Per accident) $ HIRED NON-OWNED PROPERTY DAMAGE AUTOS ONLY AUTOS ONLY (Per accident) $
$ OCCUR EACH OCCURRENCE CLAIMS-MADE AGGREGATE $ DED RETENTION $ PER OTH- STATUTE ER E.L. EACH ACCIDENT E.L. DISEASE - EA EMPLOYEE $
If yes, describe under DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS below E.L. DISEASE - POLICY LIMIT INSURER(S) AFFORDING COVERAGE NAIC #
COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY
Y / N
N / A
(Mandatory in NH)
SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE
THE EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF, NOTICE WILL BE DELIVERED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE POLICY PROVISIONS.
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS
CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN, THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS, EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES. LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS.
THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. THIS
CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AFFIRMATIVELY OR NEGATIVELY AMEND, EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW. THIS CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE ISSUING INSURER(S), AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OR PRODUCER, AND THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER.
IMPORTANT: If the certificate holder is an ADDITIONAL INSURED, the policy(ies) must have ADDITIONAL INSURED provisions or be endorsed.
If SUBROGATION IS WAIVED, subject to the terms and conditions of the policy, certain policies may require an endorsement. A statement on this certificate does not confer rights to the certificate holder in lieu of such endorsement(s).
COVERAGES CERTIFICATE NUMBER: REVISION NUMBER:
CERTIFICATE HOLDER CANCELLATION
ACORD 25 (2016/03) © 1988-2015 ACORD CORPORATION. All rights reserved.
CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE DATE (MM/DD/YYYY)
$
$
$
$
$
The ACORD name and logo are registered marks of ACORD
11/29/2021
License # 0I96531
(650) 567-3944
24082
35378
26522
A 2,000,000
X BKS56609535 4/9/2021 4/9/2022 500,000
15,000
2,000,000
4,000,000
4,000,000
A 1,000,000
BAS56609535 4/9/2021 4/9/2022
B 2,000,000
EZXS3048056 4/9/2021 4/9/2022 2,000,000
A
XWS56609535 4/9/2021 4/9/2022 1,000,000 Y 1,000,000
1,000,000
C Professional E&O PT2000323C 4/9/2021 Per Claim 3,000,000 METRPLA-01 ELIHARO
GS Insurance Solutions, Inc.
5201 Great America Parkway Suite 320
Santa Clara, CA 95054
Elizabeth Haro
[email protected]
Ohio Security Insurance Company
Evanston Insurance Company
Mount Vernon Fire Insurance Company
X
4/9/2022
X
X
X
X X
X X
Campbell, CA 95009
51 E. Campbell Ave #1247
Metropolitan Planning Group DBA M-Group
INSURED
Los Altos, CA 94022
1 North San Antonio Road Road
City of Los Altos
Coverage is Primary and Non-Contributory. 30 days notice of cancellation included, except for nonpayment, where a 10 days notice will be provided.
The City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers are named as additional insureds with respect to General Liability as per the written contract.
RE: City of Los Altos.
DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS / LOCATIONS / VEHICLES (ACORD 101, Additional Remarks Schedule, may be attached if more space is required) DocuSign Envelope ID: 698929D5-4B24-4FDC-A14A-0199F036FA2C Deputy City Manager
51 Agenda Item # 7.
117 238 of 56609535 002808 280
COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY
CG 88 10 04 13
THIS ENDORSEMENT CHANGES THE POLICY. PLEASE READ IT CAREFULLY.
COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY EXTENSION
This endorsement modifies insurance provided under the following:
COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY COVERAGE PART
2013 Liberty Mutual Insurance
CG 88 10 04 13 Includes copyrighted material of Insurance Services Office, Inc., with its permission. Page 1 of 8 INDEX
SUBJECT PAGE
NON-OWNED AIRCRAFT 2
NON-OWNED WATERCRAFT 2
PROPERTY DAMAGE LIABILITY - ELEVATORS 2
EXTENDED DAMAGE TO PROPERTY RENTED TO YOU (Tenant’s Property Damage) 2 MEDICAL PAYMENTS EXTENSION 3
EXTENSION OF SUPPLEMENTARY PAYMENTS - COVERAGES A AND B 3 ADDITIONAL INSUREDS - BY CONTRACT, AGREEMENT OR PERMIT 3 PRIMARY AND NON-CONTRIBUTORY- ADDITIONAL INSURED EXTENSION 5 ADDITIONAL INSUREDS - EXTENDED PROTECTION OF YOUR "LIMITS OF INSURANCE" 6
WHO IS AN INSURED - INCIDENTAL MEDICAL ERRORS/MALPRACTICE AND WHO IS AN INSURED - FELLOW EMPLOYEE EXTENSION - MANAGEMENT EMPLOYEES 6 NEWLY FORMED OR ADDITIONALLY ACQUIRED ENTITIES 7
FAILURE TO DISCLOSE HAZARDS AND PRIOR OCCURRENCES 7
KNOWLEDGE OF OCCURRENCE, OFFENSE, CLAIM OR SUIT 7
LIBERALIZATION CLAUSE 7
BODILY INJURY REDEFINED 7
EXTENDED PROPERTY DAMAGE 8
WAIVER OF TRANSFER OF RIGHTS OF RECOVERY AGAINST OTHERS TO US - 8
WHEN REQUIRED IN A CONTRACT OR AGREEMENT WITH YOU
Policy: BKS56609535 DocuSign Envelope ID: 698929D5-4B24-4FDC-A14A-0199F036FA2C 52 Agenda Item # 7.
118 238 of
2013 Liberty Mutual Insurance
CG 88 10 04 13 Page 2 of 8 Includes copyrighted material of Insurance Services Office, Inc., with its permission.
With respect to coverage afforded by this endorsement, the provisions of the policy apply unless modified by the endorsement.
A. NON-OWNED AIRCRAFT
Under Paragraph 2. Exclusions of Section I - Coverage A - Bodily Injury And Property Damage Liability, exclusion g. Aircraft, Auto Or Watercraft does not apply to an aircraft provided:
1. It is not owned by any insured;
2. It is hired, chartered or loaned with a trained paid crew;
3. The pilot in command holds a currently effective certificate, issued by the duly constituted authority of the United States of America or Canada, designating her or him a commercial or airline pilot; and
4. It is not being used to carry persons or property for a charge.
However, the insurance afforded by this provision does not apply if there is available to the insured other valid and collectible insurance, whether primary, excess (other than insurance written to apply specifically in excess of this policy), contingent or on any other basis, that would also apply to the loss covered under this provision.
B. NON-OWNED WATERCRAFT
Under Paragraph 2. Exclusions of Section I - Coverage A - Bodily Injury And Property Damage Liability, Subparagraph (2) of exclusion g. Aircraft, Auto Or Watercraft is replaced by the following:
This exclusion does not apply to:
(2) A watercraft you do not own that is:
(a) Less than 52 feet long; and
(b) Not being used to carry persons or property for a charge.
C. PROPERTY DAMAGE LIABILITY - ELEVATORS
1. Under Paragraph 2. Exclusions of Section I - Coverage A - Bodily Injury And Property Damage Liability, Subparagraphs (3), (4) and (6) of exclusion j. Damage To Property do not apply if such "property damage" results from the use of elevators. For the purpose of this provision, elevators do not include vehicle lifts. Vehicle lifts are lifts or hoists used in automobile service or repair operations.
2. The following is added to Section IV - Commercial General Liability Conditions, Condition 4. Other Insurance, Paragraph b. Excess Insurance:
The insurance afforded by this provision of this endorsement is excess over any property insurance, whether primary, excess, contingent or on any other basis.
D. EXTENDED DAMAGE TO PROPERTY RENTED TO YOU (Tenant’s Property Damage) If Damage To Premises Rented To You is not otherwise excluded from this Coverage Part:
1. Under Paragraph 2. Exclusions of Section I - Coverage A - Bodily Injury and Property Damage Liability:
a. The fourth from the last paragraph of exclusion j. Damage To Property is replaced by the following:
Paragraphs (1), (3) and (4) of this exclusion do not apply to "property damage" (other than damage by fire, lightning, explosion, smoke, or leakage from an automatic fire protection system) to:
(i) Premises rented to you for a period of 7 or fewer consecutive days; or (ii) Contents that you rent or lease as part of a premises rental or lease agreement for a period of more than 7 days.
Paragraphs (1), (3) and (4) of this exclusion do not apply to "property damage" to contents of premises rented to you for a period of 7 or fewer consecutive days.
A separate limit of insurance applies to this coverage as described in Section III - Limits of Insurance.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 698929D5-4B24-4FDC-A14A-0199F036FA2C 53 Agenda Item # 7.
119 238 of 56609535 002808 280
2013 Liberty Mutual Insurance
CG 88 10 04 13 Page 3 of 8 Includes copyrighted material of Insurance Services Office, Inc., with its permission. b. The last paragraph of subsection 2. Exclusions is replaced by the following:
Exclusions c. through n. do not apply to damage by fire, lightning, explosion, smoke or leakage from automatic fire protection systems to premises while rented to you or temporarily occupied by you with permission of the owner. A separate limit of insurance applies to Damage To Premises Rented To You as described in Section III - Limits Of Insurance.
2. Paragraph 6. under Section III - Limits Of Insurance is replaced by the following:
6. Subject to Paragraph 5. above, the Damage To Premises Rented To You Limit is the most we will pay under Coverage A for damages because of "property damage" to:
a. Any one premise:
(1) While rented to you; or
(2) While rented to you or temporarily occupied by you with permission of the owner for damage by fire, lightning, explosion, smoke or leakage from automatic protection systems; or b. Contents that you rent or lease as part of a premises rental or lease agreement.
3. As regards coverage provided by this provision D. EXTENDED DAMAGE TO PROPERTY RENTED TO YOU (Tenant’s Property Damage) - Paragraph 9.a. of Definitions is replaced with the following:
9.a. A contract for a lease of premises. However, that portion of the contract for a lease of premises that indemnifies any person or organization for damage by fire, lightning, explosion, smoke, or leakage from automatic fire protection systems to premises while rented to you or temporarily occupied by you with the permission of the owner, or for damage to contents of such premises that are included in your premises rental or lease agreement, is not an "insured contract".
E. MEDICAL PAYMENTS EXTENSION
If Coverage C Medical Payments is not otherwise excluded, the Medical Payments provided by this policy are amended as follows:
Under Paragraph 1. Insuring Agreement of Section I - Coverage C - Medical Payments, Subparagraph (b) of Paragraph a. is replaced by the following:
(b) The expenses are incurred and reported within three years of the date of the accident; and F. EXTENSION OF SUPPLEMENTARY PAYMENTS - COVERAGES A AND B
1. Under Supplementary Payments - Coverages A and B, Paragraph 1.b. is replaced by the following:
b. Up to $3,000 for cost of bail bonds required because of accidents or traffic law violations arising out of the use of any vehicle to which the Bodily Injury Liability Coverage applies. We do not have to furnish these bonds.
2. Paragraph 1.d. is replaced by the following:
d. All reasonable expenses incurred by the insured at our request to assist us in the investigation or defense of the claim or "suit", including actual loss of earnings up to $500 a day because of time off from work.
G. ADDITIONAL INSUREDS - BY CONTRACT, AGREEMENT OR PERMIT
1. Paragraph 2. under Section II - Who Is An Insured is amended to include as an insured any person or organization whom you have agreed to add as an additional insured in a written contract, written agreement or permit. Such person or organization is an additional insured but only with respect to liability for "bodily injury", "property damage" or "personal and advertising injury" caused in whole or in part by:
a. Your acts or omissions, or the acts or omissions of those acting on your behalf, in the performance of your on going operations for the additional insured that are the subject of the written contract or written agreement provided that the "bodily injury" or "property damage" occurs, or the "personal and advertising injury" is committed, subsequent to the signing of such written contract or written agreement; or
DocuSign Envelope ID: 698929D5-4B24-4FDC-A14A-0199F036FA2C 54 Agenda Item # 7.
120 238 of
2013 Liberty Mutual Insurance
CG 88 10 04 13 Page 4 of 8 Includes copyrighted material of Insurance Services Office, Inc., with its permission. b. Premises or facilities rented by you or used by you; or c. The maintenance, operation or use by you of equipment rented or leased to you by such person or organization; or
d. Operations performed by you or on your behalf for which the state or political subdivision has issued a permit subject to the following additional provisions:
(1) This insurance does not apply to "bodily injury", "property damage", or "personal and advertising injury" arising out of the operations performed for the state or political subdivision; (2) This insurance does not apply to "bodily injury" or "property damage" included within the "completed operations hazard".
(3) Insurance applies to premises you own, rent, or control but only with respect to the following hazards:
(a) The existence, maintenance, repair, construction, erection, or removal of advertising signs, awnings, canopies, cellar entrances, coal holes, driveways, manholes, marquees, hoist away openings, sidewalk vaults, street banners, or decorations and similar exposures; or (b) The construction, erection, or removal of elevators; or (c) The ownership, maintenance, or use of any elevators covered by this insurance.
However:
1. The insurance afforded to such additional insured only applies to the extent permitted by law; and
2. If coverage provided to the additional insured is required by a contract or agreement, the insurance afforded to such additional insured will not be broader than that which you are required by the contract or agreement to provide for such additional insured.
With respect to Paragraph 1.a. above, a person’s or organization’s status as an additional insured under this endorsement ends when:
(1) All work, including materials, parts or equipment furnished in connection with such work, on the project (other than service, maintenance or repairs) to be performed by or on behalf of the additional insured(s) at the location of the covered operations has been completed; or (2) That portion of "your work" out of which the injury or damage arises has been put to its intended use by any person or organization other than another contractor or subcontractor engaged in performing operations for a principal as a part of the same project.
With respect to Paragraph 1.b. above, a person’s or organization’s status as an additional insured under this endorsement ends when their written contract or written agreement with you for such premises or facilities ends.
With respects to Paragraph 1.c. above, this insurance does not apply to any "occurrence" which takes place after the equipment rental or lease agreement has expired or you have returned such equipment to the lessor.
The insurance provided by this endorsement applies only if the written contract or written agreement is signed prior to the "bodily injury" or "property damage".
We have no duty to defend an additional insured under this endorsement until we receive written notice of a "suit" by the additional insured as required in Paragraph b. of Condition 2. Duties In the Event Of Occurrence, Offense, Claim Or Suit under Section IV - Commercial General Liability Conditions.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 698929D5-4B24-4FDC-A14A-0199F036FA2C 55 Agenda Item # 7.
121 238 of 56609535 002808 280
2013 Liberty Mutual Insurance
CG 88 10 04 13 Page 5 of 8 Includes copyrighted material of Insurance Services Office, Inc., with its permission.
2. With respect to the insurance provided by this endorsement, the following are added to Paragraph 2.
Exclusions under Section I - Coverage A - Bodily Injury And Property Damage Liability:
This insurance does not apply to:
a. "Bodily injury" or "property damage" arising from the sole negligence of the additional insured. b. "Bodily injury" or "property damage" that occurs prior to you commencing operations at the location where such "bodily injury" or "property damage" occurs. c. "Bodily injury", "property damage" or "personal and advertising injury" arising out of the rendering of, or the failure to render, any professional architectural, engineering or surveying services, including:
(1) The preparing, approving, or failing to prepare or approve, maps, shop drawings, opinions, reports, surveys, field orders, change orders or drawings and specifications; or (2) Supervisory, inspection, architectural or engineering activities.
This exclusion applies even if the claims against any insured allege negligence or other wrongdoing in the supervision, hiring, employment, training or monitoring of others by that insured, if the "occurrence" which caused the "bodily injury" or "property damage", or the offense which caused the "personal and advertising injury", involved the rendering of, or the failure to render, any professional architectural, engineering or surveying services.
d. "Bodily injury" or "property damage" occurring after:
(1) All work, including materials, parts or equipment furnished in connection with such work, on the project (other than service, maintenance or repairs) to be performed by or on behalf of the additional insured(s) at the location of the covered operations has been completed; or (2) That portion of "your work" out of which the injury or damage arises has been put to its intended use by any person or organization other than another contractor or subcontractor engaged in performing operations for a principal as a part of the same project. e. Any person or organization specifically designated as an additional insured for ongoing operations by a separate ADDITIONAL INSURED -OWNERS, LESSEES OR CONTRACTORS endorsement issued by us and made a part of this policy.
3. With respect to the insurance afforded to these additional insureds, the following is added to Section III - Limits Of Insurance:
If coverage provided to the additional insured is required by a contract or agreement, the most we will pay on behalf of the additional insured is the amount of insurance:
a. Required by the contract or agreement; or
b. Available under the applicable Limits of Insurance shown in the Declarations; whichever is less.
This endorsement shall not increase the applicable Limits of Insurance shown in the Declaratio ns.
H. PRIMARY AND NON-CONTRIBUTORY ADDITIONAL INSURED EXTENSION This provision applies to any person or organization who qualifies as an additional insured under any form or endorsement under this policy.
Condition 4. Other Insurance of SECTION IV - COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY CONDITIONS is amended as follows:
a. The following is added to Paragraph a. Primary Insurance:
If an additional insured’s policy has an Other Insurance provision making its policy excess, and you have agreed in a written contract or written agreement to provide the additional insured coverage on a primary and noncontributory basis, this policy shall be primary and we will not seek contribution from the additional insured’s policy for damages we cover.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 698929D5-4B24-4FDC-A14A-0199F036FA2C 56 Agenda Item # 7.
122 238 of
2013 Liberty Mutual Insurance
CG 88 10 04 13 Page 6 of 8 Includes copyrighted material of Insurance Services Office, Inc., with its permission. b. The following is added to Paragraph b. Excess Insurance:
When a written contract or written agreement, other than a premises lease, facilities rental contract or agreement, an equipment rental or lease contract or agreement, or permit issued by a state or political subdivision between you and an additional insured does not require this insurance to be primary or primary and non-contributory, this insurance is excess over any other insurance for which the additional insured is designated as a Named Insured.
Regardless of the written agreement between you and an additional insured, this insurance is excess over any other insurance whether primary, excess, contingent or on any other basis for which the additional insured has been added as an additional insured on other policies.
I. ADDITIONAL INSUREDS - EXTENDED PROTECTION OF YOUR "LIMITS OF INSURANCE" This provision applies to any person or organization who qualifies as an additional insured under any form or endorsement under this policy.
1. The following is added to Condition 2. Duties In The Event Of Occurrence, Offense, Claim or Suit:
An additional insured under this endorsement will as soon as practicable:
a. Give written notice of an "occurrence" or an offense that may result in a claim or "suit" under this insurance to us;
b. Tender the defense and indemnity of any claim or "suit" to all insurers whom also have insurance available to the additional insured; and
c. Agree to make available any other insurance which the additional insured has for a loss we cover under this Coverage Part.
d. We have no duty to defend or indemnify an additional insured under this endorsement until we receive written notice of a "suit" by the additional insured.
2. The limits of insurance applicable to the additional insured are those specified in a written contract or written agreement or the limits of insurance as stated in the Declarations of this policy and defined in Section III - Limits of Insurance of this policy, whichever are less. These limits are inclusive of and not in addition to the limits of insurance available under this policy.
J. WHO IS AN INSURED - INCIDENTAL MEDICAL ERRORS / MALPRACTICE
WHO IS AN INSURED - FELLOW EMPLOYEE EXTENSION - MANAGEMENT EMPLOYEES Paragraph 2.a.(1) of Section II - Who Is An Insured is replaced with the following:
(1) "Bodily injury" or "personal and advertising injury":
(a) To you, to your partners or members (if you are a partnership or joint venture), to your members (if you are a limited liability company), to a co-"employee" while in the course of his or her employment or performing duties related to the conduct of your business, or to your other "volunteer workers" while performing duties related to the conduct of your business; (b) To the spouse, child, parent, brother or sister of that co-"employee" or "volunteer worker" as a consequence of Paragraph (1) (a) above;
(c) For which there is any obligation to share damages with or repay someone else who must pay damages because of the injury described in Paragraphs (1) (a) or (b) above; or (d) Arising out of his or her providing or failing to provide professional health care services. However, if you are not in the business of providing professional health care services or providing professional health care personnel to others, or if coverage for providing professional health care services is not otherwise excluded by separate endorsement, this provision (Paragraph (d)) does not apply.
Paragraphs (a) and (b) above do not apply to "bodily injury" or "personal and advertising injury" caused by an "employee" who is acting in a supervisory capacity for you. Supervisory capacity as used herein means the "employee’s" job responsibilities assigned by you, includes the direct supervision of other "employees" of yours. However, none of these "employees" are insureds for "bodily injury" or "personal and DocuSign Envelope ID: 698929D5-4B24-4FDC-A14A-0199F036FA2C 57 Agenda Item # 7.
123 238 of 56609535 002808 280
2013 Liberty Mutual Insurance
CG 88 10 04 13 Page 7 of 8 Includes copyrighted material of Insurance Services Office, Inc., with its permission. advertising injury" arising out of their willful conduct, which is defined as the purposeful or willful intent to cause "bodily injury" or "personal and advertising injury", or caused in whole or in part by their intoxication by liquor or controlled substances.
The coverage provided by provision J. is excess over any other valid and collectable insurance available to your "employee".
K. NEWLY FORMED OR ADDITIONALLY ACQUIRED ENTITIES
Paragraph 3. of Section II - Who Is An Insured is replaced by the following:
3. Any organization you newly acquire or form and over which you maintain ownership or majority interest, will qualify as a Named Insured if there is no other similar insurance available to that organization. However:
a. Coverage under this provision is afforded only until the expiration of the policy period in which the entity was acquired or formed by you;
b. Coverage A does not apply to "bodily injury" or "property damage" that occurred before you acquired or formed the organization; and
c. Coverage B does not apply to "personal and advertising injury" arising out of an offense committed before you acquired or formed the organization. d. Records and descriptions of operations must be maintained by the first Named Insured.
No person or organization is an insured with respect to the conduct of any current or past partnership, joint venture or limited liability company that is not shown as a Named Insured in the Declarations or qualifies as an insured under this provision.
L. FAILURE TO DISCLOSE HAZARDS AND PRIOR OCCURRENCES
Under Section IV - Commercial General Liability Conditions, the following is added to Condition 6. Representations:
Your failure to disclose all hazards or prior "occurrences" existing as of the inception date of the policy shall not prejudice the coverage afforded by this policy provided such failure to disclose all hazards or prior "occurrences" is not intentional.
M. KNOWLEDGE OF OCCURRENCE, OFFENSE, CLAIM OR SUIT
Under Section IV - Commercial General Liability Conditions, the following is added to Condition 2. Duties In The Event of Occurrence, Offense, Claim Or Suit:
Knowledge of an "occurrence", offense, claim or "suit" by an agent, servant or "employee" of any insured shall not in itself constitute knowledge of the insured unless an insured listed under Paragraph
1. of Section II - Who Is An Insured or a person who has been designated by them to receive reports of "occurrences", offenses, claims or "suits" shall have received such notice from the agent, servant or "employee".
N. LIBERALIZATION CLAUSE
If we revise this Commercial General Liability Extension Endorsement to provide more coverage without additional premium charge, your policy will automatically provide the coverage as of the day the revision is effective in your state.
O. BODILY INJURY REDEFINED
Under Section V - Definitions, Definition 3. is replaced by the following:
3. "Bodily Injury" means physical injury, sickness or disease sustained by a person. This includes mental anguish, mental injury, shock, fright or death that results from such physical injury, sickness or disease.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 698929D5-4B24-4FDC-A14A-0199F036FA2C 58 Agenda Item # 7.
124 238 of
2013 Liberty Mutual Insurance
CG 88 10 04 13 Page 8 of 8 Includes copyrighted material of Insurance Services Office, Inc., with its permission.
P. EXTENDED PROPERTY DAMAGE
Exclusion a. of COVERAGE A. BODILY INJURY AND PROPERTY DAMAGE LIABILITY is replaced by the following:
a. Expected Or Intended Injury
"Bodily injury" or "property damage" expected or intended from the standpoint of the insured.
This exclusion does not apply to "bodily injury" or "property damage" resulting from the use of reasonable force to protect persons or property.
Q. WAIVER OF TRANSFER OF RIGHTS OF RECOVERY AGAINST OTHERS TO US - WHEN REQUIRED IN A
CONTRACT OR AGREEMENT WITH YOU
Under Section IV - Commercial General Liability Conditions, the following is added to Condition 8. Transfer Of Rights Of Recovery Against Others To Us:
We waive any right of recovery we may have against a person or organization because of payments we make for injury or damage arising out of your ongoing operations or "your work" done under a contract with that person or organization and included in the "products-completed operations hazard" provided:
1. You and that person or organization have agreed in writing in a contract or agreement that you waive such rights against that person or organization; and
2. The injury or damage occurs subsequent to the execution of the written contract or written agreement.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 698929D5-4B24-4FDC-A14A-0199F036FA2C 59 Agenda Item # 7.
Amendment No. 2 to Agreement between City of Los Altos and M-GROUP Page 1
Submitted for review by:
Department: Community Development By: Yvonne Dupont Date: 3/3/2022 Project Name On-Call Planner Services
Project Number Contract Number 21-06
Consultant M-Group
Contract/
Amendment Date
Contract/
Amendment ($) Exhibits Content
Original
Contract 12/13/21 $45,000 A Scope of Services & Fee Schedule Amendment
No. 1 3/3/22 $50,000 B
Revised Scope of Services, Compensation
& Fee Schedule
Amendment
No. 2 3/14/22 C Revised Term
Contract/
Amendment
Amount to Date 3/3/22
Running Total
in $ 95,000
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5FC0A4F8-4C56-409E-9FF7-B8C32DFF8FDF 60 Agenda Item # 7.
Amendment No. 2 to Agreement between City of Los Altos and M-GROUP Page 2 AMENDMENT No. 2
TO THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE CITY OF LOS ALTOS, CALIFORNIA
AND
M-GROUP
FOR CONTRACT ON-CALL PLANNING SERVICES
THIS AMENDMENT No. 2, made and entered into as of the ______ day of __________ 2022, TO THE ORIGINAL AGREEMENT made and entered into on date of original agreement, by and between CITY OF LOS ALTOS, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as "CITY," and M-GROUP, hereinafter referred to as "CONSULTANT."
RECITALS
WHEREAS, on December 13, 2021 CITY and CONSULTANT entered into an agreement for consulting services (“Agreement”) for Contract Senior Planning Services and WHEREAS, CONSULTANT is an independent consultant providing similar professional services to numerous other cities; and
In consideration of the covenants, conditions and promises hereinafter contained, to be kept and performed by the parties hereto, CITY and CONSULTANT hereby agree that the following sections of the aforesaid Agreement dated December 13, 2021 are amended to read as follows:
1. Section 3, TERM, is amended to modify the last sentence of the paragraph to read as follows:
The term of this Agreement shall continue in full force and effect from FY 21-FY 22.
Changes in Scope of Services and Payment Schedule, Exhibit A, can be amended, as needed, thirty (30) days prior to the expiration of each fiscal year. If the Agreement is terminated, it is intended that the termination of the Agreement be contemporaneous with final acceptance of all services by CITY.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5FC0A4F8-4C56-409E-9FF7-B8C32DFF8FDF 24th March
61 Agenda Item # 7.
Amendment No. 2 to Agreement between City of Los Altos and M-GROUP Page 3 CITY OF LOS ALTOS:
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT
By: ____________________________________
Laura Simpson, Interim Community Development Director
APPROVED AS TO FORM
By: ____________________________________
Jolie Houston, City Attorney
AGREED
By: ____________________________________ Date:
Gabriel Engeland, City Manager
CONSULTANT:
By: ____________________________________ Date:
Heather Bradley, Principal
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5FC0A4F8-4C56-409E-9FF7-B8C32DFF8FDF 3/24/2022 | 4:12:16 PM PDT
3/24/2022 | 4:14:44 PM PDT
3/24/2022 | 4:45:19 PM PDT
3/24/2022 | 8:09:55 PM PDT
62 Agenda Item # 7.
Reviewed By:
City Manager City Attorney
GE
Finance Director
JH JF
AGENDA REPORT SUMMARY
Meeting Date: May 10, 2022
Subject Resolution No. 2022-__: 2022 City Council Election: Adopt Resolution No. 2022-__ calling for a General Municipal Election to be held on November 8, 2022 for two City Council seats and requesting the services of the County of Registrar of Voters to conduct the election and consolidate it with the General Election.
Prepared by: Angel Rodriguez, Interim City Clerk
Reviewed by: Jon Maginot, Assistant City Manager
Approved by: Gabriel Engeland, City Manager
Attachment(s):
1. Resolution No. 2022-___
Initiated by:
Staff
Previous Council Consideration:
None
Fiscal Impact:
The estimated cost of conducting the election through Santa Clara County is approximately $79,500. This represents a far less amount than if the City were to conduct the election on its own.
Breakdown of funds to be used:
o $79,500 General Fund
The cost of the election has been included as part of the Proposed FY 22-23 Budget. Any staff time used for the election will fall under expected activities for the City Clerk’s office.
Amount already included in approved budget: Yes
Environmental Review:
Not applicable
63 Agenda Item # 8.
Subject: Resolution No. 2022-__: 2022 City Council Election May 10, 2022 Page 2
Policy Question(s) for Council Consideration:
None. Consolidation of the Municipal Election with the General Election and requesting election services from the Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters is in line with past practices of the City and results in substantial cost savings to the City.
Staff Recommendation:
Adopt Resolution No. 2022-__ calling for a General Municipal Election to be held on November 8, 2022 for two City Council seats and requesting the services of the County of Registrar of Voters to conduct the election and consolidate it with the General Election. 64 Agenda Item # 8.
Subject: Resolution No. 2022-__: 2022 City Council Election May 10, 2022 Page 3
Purpose
To call the City Council Election for 2022
Background
Los Altos Municipal Code Section 2.04.040 specifies that “a regular election to select members of the Council shall be held on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November of each evennumbered year.” In addition, Municipal Code Section 2.04.030 specifies that “no person shall serve more than two consecutive terms on the Los Altos City Council, plus the completion of any unexpired term to which such person was elected or appointed.” Pursuant to Elections Code 10220, candidates for elective City office may be nominated during a nomination period specified by State law. Elections Code 10403 requires that the City Council adopt a resolution calling for an election to fill elective seats. In addition, State law requires that the Council adopt a resolution requesting the services of the County of Registrar of Voters to conduct the election and consolidate it with the General Election.
Discussion/Analysis
The attached Resolution No. 2022-__ calls for an election to fill two elective offices on the Los Altos City Council. It also requests the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors consolidate the City’s election with the General Election on November 8, 2022. The nomination period for the 2022 General Municipal Election will open on July 18, 2022 and close on August 12, 2022. If a qualified incumbent fails to file the necessary documents by the end of the nomination period, a five, calendar-day extension will be granted during which any candidate, other than the incumbent, may file or withdraw.
If consolidation is approved, the City’s responsibilities would include: receiving and processing candidate nomination papers, forwarding candidate statements to the County, forwarding absentee voter applications and write-in declarations to the Registrar of Voters, publication of notices, and distribution and receipt of Fair Political Practices Commission documents. The County would provide all other services.
Recommendation
The staff recommends adoption of Resolution No. 2022-__ calling for a General Municipal Election to be held on November 8, 2022 for two City Council seats and requesting the services of the County of Registrar of Voters to conduct the election and consolidate it with the General Election.
65 Agenda Item # 8.
ATTACHMENT 1
Resolution No. 2022-__ Page 1
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-__
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LOS ALTOS
CALLING AND GIVING NOTICE OF A GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 2022 FOR THE ELECTION OF
CERTAIN OFFICERS AS REQUIRED BY THE PROVISIONS OF THE LAWS
OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA RELATING TO GENERAL LAW CITIES,
AND REQUESTING THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF
SANTA CLARA TO CONSOLIDATE SAID ELECTION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 10403 OF THE ELECTIONS CODE
WHEREAS, under the provisions of the laws relating to general law cities in the State of California, a General Municipal Election shall be held on November 8, 2022, for the election of Municipal Officers; and
WHEREAS, it is desirable that the General Municipal Election be consolidated with the General Election to be held on the same date and that within the City the precincts, voting centers and election officers of the two elections be the same, and that the Registrar of Voters of the County of Santa Clara canvass the returns of the General Municipal Election and that the election be held in all respects as if there were only one election.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Los Altos as follows:
SECTION 1. That pursuant to the requirements of the Elections Code of the State of California relating to General Law Cities, there is called and ordered to be held in the City of Los Altos, California on Tuesday, November 8, 2022, a General Municipal Election for the purpose of electing at large two Members of the City Council for the full term of four years (ending November 2026); and
SECTION 2. That pursuant to the requirements of Section 10403 of the Elections Code, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Santa Clara is hereby requested to consent and agree to the consolidation of said election with the General Election on Tuesday, November 8, 2022 and
SECTION 3. That the Registrar of Voters is authorized to canvass the returns of the General Municipal Election. The election shall be held in all respects as if there were only one election and only one form of ballot shall be used; and SECTION 4. That the City of Los Altos recognizes that additional costs will be incurred by the County by reason of this consolidation and agrees to reimburse the County for any costs; and
SECTION 5. That the City Clerk is authorized, instructed and directed to coordinate with the County of Santa Clara Registrar of Voters to procure and furnish any and all official 66 Agenda Item # 8.
ATTACHMENT 1
Resolution No. 2022-__ Page 2
ballots, notices, printed matter, and all supplies, equipment and paraphernalia that may be necessary in order to properly and lawfully conduct the election; and SECTION 6. That the ballots to be used at the election shall be in form and content as required by law. Voters shall vote for a maximum of two candidates; and SECTION 7. That candidates shall be permitted to submit a single Candidate Statement, with a maximum of 200 words, for inclusion in the Sample Ballot; and pursuant to Section 13307 of the Elections Code, the City Council hereby determines to levy against each candidate availing himself or herself of the service of including a candidate’s statement not to exceed two hundred (200) words in length in the voter’s pamphlet, the actual prorated costs of printing, handling and translating the candidate’s statement, if any, incurred by the City of Los Altos. Such estimated costs to be determined by the Registrar of Voters. The City Clerk shall provide written notice to such effect with each set of nomination papers issued.
SECTION 8. All active registered voters will automatically be mailed a Vote-by-Mail ballot package beginning on October 10, 2022; the Vote Centers for said election will be open starting on October 11, 2022, through November 7, 2022, for varying hours of operations. A list of Vote Centers hours of operation will be posted on the Santa Clara County Registrar Of Voters website at https://sccvote.sccgov.org/home. The Vote Centers will be open on Election Day, November 8, 2022.
SECTION 9. That the consolidated election shall be held and conducted in the manner prescribed in Section 10418 of the Elections Code of the State of California; and SECTION 10. That pursuant to Section 10551 and 15651 of the Elections Code of the State of California, the method of determining the winner or winners in the event of a tie vote shall be by coin flip.
SECTION 11. That the following is listed below:
1) Names of all current Los Altos City Council Members
2) Term: Full or Short
3) Seats: Elected by Division or At-Large
Council Member Names Term: Full or Short Seats Elected by Division or AtLarge
Anita Enander 2018-2022 Elected at Large
Sally Meadows 2020-2024 Elected at Large
Neysa Fligor 2018-2022 Elected at Large
Lynette Lee Eng 2020-2024 Elected at Large
Jonathan Weinberg 2020-2024 Elected at Large
67 Agenda Item # 8.
ATTACHMENT 1
Resolution No. 2022-__ Page 3
SECTION 12. That the City Clerk is hereby directed to file a certified copy of this resolution with the Board of Supervisors and the Registrar of Voters of the County of Santa Clara.
SECTION 13. That in all particulars not recited in this resolution, the election shall be held and conducted as provided by law for holding municipal elections.
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 _th day of ____ 2022 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
___________________________
Anita Enander, MAYOR
Attest:
_____________________________
Angel Rodriguez, INTERIM CITY CLERK
68 Agenda Item # 8.
Reviewed By:
City Manager City Attorney
GE
Interim Community
Development Director
JH JF
AGENDA REPORT SUMMARY
Meeting Date: May 10, 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 subsequent to the April 12, 2022 Public Hearing 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 during the public review period; however, comments asserting that radio frequency emissions are an environmental effect to be addressed in CEQA documents were received subsequent to the public review period and Planning Commission public hearing.
Proposed Resolution No. 2022-___, approving a Negative Declaration, has been revised to specify the findings that support the Initial Study’s conclusion that the proposed Ordinance and Design Guidelines would not 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.
The attached CEQA resolution, locational standards, and design guidelines have been revised based on City Council members’ consideration and discussion at the April 12, 2022 public hearing.
69 Agenda Item # 9.
Subject: Wireless Telecommunications Facilities Ordinance and Design Guidelines May 10, 2022 Page 2
The proposed Ordinance and Design Guidelines regulate wireless facilities on the basis of aesthetics, traffic safety, noise, and other criteria. However, due to federal preemption, the proposed Ordinance and Design Guidelines do not regulate the placement of wireless facilities based on the environmental effects of radio frequency (“RF”) emissions that comply with FCC regulations. Neither do the proposed Ordinance and Design Guidelines require or prohibit any specific type of technology, also consistent with the limitations imposed on the City based on federal preemption.
Policy Question(s) for Council Consideration:
Does the City Council wish to modify the City’s current locational, design, and development standards for wireless telecommunications facilities to:
o Set new locational criteria for where small wireless telecommunications facilities may be permitted?
o Set additional regulations as to 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? Does the City Council wish to identify non-residential Zoning Districts as preferred locations for wireless telecommunications facilities and residential Zoning Districts as less preferred locations subject to specific additional preferences and design and development standards?
Staff Recommendation:
1. Approve Resolution 2022-__, Wireless Telecommunications Facilities Adopting a Negative Declaration in compliance with CEQA.
2. Approve 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 balance the need to provide for a reasonable range of potential sites for the location of wireless telecommunications throughout the City while preserving its essential wooded, small community character and its inherent aesthetic quality. The proposed Ordinance and Design Guidelines 70 Agenda Item # 9.
Subject: Wireless Telecommunications Facilities Ordinance and Design Guidelines May 10, 2022 Page 3
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 address advancements in wireless telecommunications technology that is trending 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 locational preferences, practical and safety concerns, aesthetic concerns, policy views and the essential local values that make Los Altos a unique 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; 71 Agenda Item # 9.
Subject: Wireless Telecommunications Facilities Ordinance and Design Guidelines May 10, 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.
These same issues of safety, noise, and aesthetics were reiterated by public comments during the Planning Commission’s public hearings and during the City Council’s April 12, 2022 public hearing.
Discussion/Analysis
Following the City Council’s April 12, 2022 public hearing, staff and its wireless facilities consultant team prepared recommended revisions to the proposed Ordinance and Design Guidelines. These revisions, which are identified in underline / strikeout text in Attachments 2 and 3, are based on the various comments received at the public hearing along with the Council’s discussion and extensive comments regarding the proposed location regulations and design guidelines. Notes found in the balloon comments in the margins to the Ordinance and Design Guidelines address the basis for revisions and also provide information regarding requested revisions for which staff recommends not making additional revisions.
Recommended revisions to proposed Ordinance No. 2022-___ include:
Combining Tiers 2 and 3, previously identified as the less preferred and least preferred residentially zoned locations into a single less preferred category, providing equity between all residentially zoned lands throughout the City. Establishing preferences within the less preferred category for locating small cell facilities in locations:
o Where there is no adjacent residential dwelling unit; o That are 25 feet or more from residential dwelling units and requiring that no wireless facility be located within 10 feet of a residential dwelling unit. Modify the standard restricting wireless facilities “directly in front of a business” to better address the location of a commercial building in relation to the roadway right-of installation.
72 Agenda Item # 9.
Subject: Wireless Telecommunications Facilities Ordinance and Design Guidelines May 10, 2022 Page 5
Revisions to the Findings section of the Ordinance to address the need for wireless telecommunications facilities within the community and to improve the overall clarity of the findings.
5100953.1
73 Agenda Item # 9.
1 May 10, 2022
Attachment 1.
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 environmental impacts would result from adoption of the proposed wireless telecommunications ordinance and design guidelines (“Project”); 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 received during the 30-day public review period presented substantial evidence that the proposed wireless telecommunications ordinance and design guidelines would have a significant effect upon the 74 Agenda Item # 9.
2 May 10, 2022
environment; and
WHEREAS, on March 3 and March 17, 2022, the Planning Commission conducted public hearings on the proposed wireless telecommunications ordinance, design guidelines, 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 WHEREAS, on March 17, 2022 following the conclusion of its public hearings, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council approve the Negative Declaration provided as Attachment A to this Resolution; and
WHEREAS, on April 12 and May 10, 2022, the City Council conducted public hearings on the proposed wireless telecommunications ordinance, design guidelines, and Negative Declaration, at which time interested persons and organizations had an opportunity to testify and provide comments; and
WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed and considered the proposed Negative Declaration as required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15074(a); and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Los Altos 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, based upon the information contained in the Initial Study and provide at Planning Commission and City Council hearings, the City Council of the City of Los Altos hereby adopts the following findings for the Project in compliance with CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines, and the City’s procedures for implementing CEQA. The City finds, on the basis of the whole record, that there is no substantial evidence that the Project will have a significant effect on the environment:
Aesthetics.
Wireless telecommunications facilities permitted by the proposed locational standards would be mounted on existing buildings or on poles (either existing, replacement, or new) subject to detailed design guidelines that minimize the visual intrusiveness of these facilities. Building-mounted wireless telecommunications facilities would not be permitted to add to the height of bulk of buildings. Pole-mounted wireless telecommunications facilities could, when mounted on an existing or replacement pole, increase the overall height of the pole and, although underground installation of equipment is the preferred design solution, proposed design guidelines permit equipment to be placed in an above-ground enclosure or pole mounted when 75 Agenda Item # 9.
3 May 10, 2022
underground installation is not feasible. However, pole-mounted facilities would not have the bulk to significantly impact long-distance views and while they may be visible, would be required to have the least visually intrusive design feasible. Thus, potential adverse aesthetic effects within the City would be less than significant.
Agriculture and Forestry Resources.
There are no lands within the City shown as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance on maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency. Lands within the City are identified as “Urban and Built-up Land” on the California Department of Conservation’s Santa Clara County Important Farmlands Map 2016. There are no Williamson Act parcels or forest or commercial agricultural land within the City. Thus, there would be no impact to Agricultural and Forestry Resources.
Air Quality.
Wireless telecommunications facilities permitted by proposed development standards and design guidelines would be consistent with the Bay Area’s 2017 Clean Air Plan. The proposed development standards and design guidelines do not involve the construction of any homes, businesses, or other uses that would result in population growth or long-term increase in mobile or stationary source air pollutant emissions.
Installation of wireless telecommunications facilities would occur intermittently, at various different locations, and would typically involve installation of a new pole, replacement of an existing utility pole, addition of wireless telecommunications equipment to an existing pole, or mounting of equipment on a building or rooftop. Such installation activities would be small in scale and not involve major grading or construction activities. No net increase in long-term air pollutant emissions would result and there would be no cumulatively considerable contribution to any cumulative air quality impact during construction or ongoing operations. Thus, potential adverse air quality effects within the City would be less than significant.
Biological Resources.
Wireless telecommunications facilities associated with the proposed development standards and design guidelines would occur within roadway rights-ofway or within existing development sites (roof- and building mounted facilities). No riparian habitat areas or other sensitive natural communities would be disturbed and no modification of habitat supporting any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service would result. Thus, there would be no impact to Biological Resources. 76 Agenda Item # 9.
4 May 10, 2022
Cultural Resources.
Wireless telecommunications facilities associated with the proposed development standards and design guidelines would occur within roadway rights-ofway or within existing development sites (roof- and building mounted facilities).
Proposed design guidelines require that any roof- or building mounted facility retain the architectural character of the structure. Thus, a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15064.5 would not occur. While it is unlikely that installation of a wireless telecommunications facility would necessitate disturbance of soils below those that were previously disturbed by construction of existing roadways, utilities, and buildings, in the event of an unanticipated discovery during installation of a wireless telecommunications facility, the proposed Ordinance requires ground-disturbing activities to be halted until a Cityapproved qualified consulting archaeologist assesses the significance of the find according to CEQA Guidelines §15064.5. If any find is determined to be a unique archaeological resource, the City and the consulting archaeologist would determine the appropriate measures to be taken. All archaeological resources recovered would be subject to scientific analysis, professional museum curation, and documentation according to current professional standards. Thus, potential adverse cultural resource effects within the City would be less than significant.
Energy Resources.
Installation of wireless telecommunications facilities would use construction equipment and techniques that are typical for utility facilities installations (polemounted) and building construction (building- and roof-mounted) throughout the state.
Nighttime construction activities requiring lighting would be avoided unless needed to address safety or traffic movement concerns on a temporary basis. Operation of wireless telecommunications facilities would consume energy at rates typical of such facilities throughout the state. No wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources would therefore result. Thus, potential adverse energy resource effects within the City would be less than significant.
Geology and Soils.
No active faults traverse the city and there is therefore no potential for the primary hazard of ground rupture. Installations of wireless telecommunications facilities would be required to meet the most current California Building Code standards required at the time of construction to reduce the potential for substantial adverse effects related to geologic, groundshaking, and soils conditions. In addition, erosion control measures required under Provision C.3 of the applicable Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit would be required to be implemented to reduce potential construction-related erosion impacts. It is unlikely that installation of a wireless 77 Agenda Item # 9.
5 May 10, 2022
telecommunications facility would necessitate ground disturbance of soils below that were which was previously disturbed by construction of existing roadways and buildings. However, 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.
Thus, potential adverse geology and soil effects within the City would be less than significant.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions.
Installation of wireless telecommunications facilities would result in emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) from the operation of construction equipment, as well as transport of materials and construction workers to and from sites. The installation period for a wireless telecommunication facility ranges in time from a few hours for minor upgrades (e.g., replacement of antennas) to a few weeks for erection of new or replacement poles for pole-mounted facilities. Installation activities would be subject to applicable BAAQMD best management practices. Operation of wireless telecommunications facilities would not add to the existing inventory of residential, business, or other uses that would generate ongoing greenhouse gas emissions within Los Altos. Once completed, a facility would require very few trips per month for maintenance and monitoring of facility operations. Thus, potential adverse greenhouse gas emissions effects within the City would be less than significant.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials.
Installation of wireless telecommunications facilities would include routine use of hazardous materials in the form of paints, solvents, and other common materials containing potentially toxic substances. With the exception of a few facilities that might have backup generators, wireless telecommunications facilities are not associated with the use, transport, storage, or disposal of hazardous materials during ongoing operations. All potentially hazardous materials would be contained, stored, and used in accordance with manufacturers’ instructions and transported and handled in compliance with applicable standards and regulations.
Radiofrequency (RF) radiation emanates from antenna on wireless telecommunications facilities and is generated by the movement of electrical charges in the antenna. The energy levels it generates are not great enough to ionize, or break down, atoms and molecules, and is thus known as “non-ionizing” radiation.
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is the government agency responsible for the authorization and licensing of facilities such as wireless telecommunications facilities that generate RF radiation. For guidance in health and 78 Agenda Item # 9.
6 May 10, 2022
safety issues related to RF radiation, the FCC relies on other agencies and organizations for guidance, including the EPA, FDA, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) and OSHA, which have all been involved in monitoring and investigating issues related to RF exposure.
The FCC has developed and adopted guidelines for human exposure to RF radiation using the recommendations of the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) and the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), with the support of the EPA, FDA, OSHA and NIOSH. According to the FCC, both the NCRP exposure criteria and the IEEE standard were developed by expert scientists and engineers after extensive reviews of the scientific literature related to RF biological effects. The exposure guidelines are based on thresholds for known adverse effects, and they incorporate appropriate safety margins.
Section 704 of the Telecommunication Act of 1996 preempts local governments from regulating wireless facilities on the basis of RF safety or health effects when such facilities comply with FCC RF emissions standards, and specifically states that “[n]o State or local government or instrumentality thereof may regulate the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the Commission’s regulations concerning such emissions.” Accordingly, compliance with FCC RF emissions standards constitutes substantial evidence of a less than significant environmental impact. (See 47 U.S.C. § 332(c) (7)(B)(iv).) Because all facilities that might be approved pursuant to the proposed wireless telecommunications facilities development standards and design guidelines would operate under federally mandated limits on RF radiation and are exclusively regulated by the FCC in this respect, the City of Los Altos is preempted from regulating the placement or construction of facilities based on RF emissions.
While it is possible that an application could be submitted to the City requesting installation of a wireless telecommunications facility on a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites, the large majority of such sites within Los Altos have been remediated and installation of a wireless telecommunication facility would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. As a standard condition of approval for sites included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code §65962.5 that have yet to be investigated or remediated, the City would require that such investigation be completed along with any required remediation before approving a permit for installation of a wireless telecommunication facility.
The City of Los Altos is not located within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone as delineated on California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) 79 Agenda Item # 9.
7 May 10, 2022
State Responsibility Area and Local Responsibility Area maps. The city is largely developed and only portions of the area west of the Foothill Expressway are located near wildland areas that would be susceptible to fire. Such areas are not identified in proposed development standards and design guidelines as a permitted location for wireless telecommunications facilities. All wireless facilities installations would be required to comply with applicable code requirements to ensure fire safety.
Accordingly, potential adverse hazards and hazardous waste effects within the City would be less than significant.
Hydrology and Water Quality.
Wireless telecommunications facilities do not require the use of water during ongoing operations. Installation activities could require minimal watering for ground disturbance required for a new or replacement pole. Such activities would have a very small footprint and limited duration and would thus not adversely affect groundwater supplies or recharge. BMPs would be implemented during installation to minimize erosion. Due to their small footprint and dispersion from each other, the minor increase in impervious surface area (generally less than 6.25 square feet) that might result from installation of a new or replacement pole for a wireless telecommunication facility would not be great enough to alter existing drainage patterns or cause off-site flooding.
Land Use and Planning.
Proposed development standards and design guidelines specifically prohibit wireless telecommunications facilities from interfering with vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian movement. As a result, there is no potential for these development standards and design guidelines to result in dividing an established community. No significant impacts were determined to result from the proposed development standards and design guidelines for wireless telecommunications facilities, including impacts associated with inconsistencies with adopted planning policies.
Mineral Resources.
Wireless telecommunications facilities would be located within existing public rights-of-way and utility easements or on existing buildings within developed sites.
There would, therefore, be no direct or indirect effects on the availability of any mineral resources by restricting access to a resource recovery site or substantially depleting the reserves of any known resources in the region.
Noise.
Noise from wireless telecommunications facilities would be limited to installation of facilities (ranging in time from a few hours for minor upgrades (e.g., 80 Agenda Item # 9.
8 May 10, 2022
replacement of antennas) to a few weeks for erection of new or replacement poles for pole-mounted facilities) and occasional use of cooling equipment or an emergency generator at discreet locations. Installation of wireless telecommunications facilities will be required to comply with City noise standards, which specify:
Permitted construction hours;
Interior and exterior noise standards by zoning district for daytime and nighttime hours; and
Prohibited acts relative to noise, including maximum noise levels at affected properties and hours during which construction is permitted. The noise ordinance allows for increases in noise related to construction activities during permitted construction hours.
While installation of wireless telecommunications facilities may generate temporary groundborne vibration and groundborne noise from the operation of construction equipment, the type of equipment typically used during installations only generates localized groundborne vibration and groundborne noise that could be perceptible only in the immediate vicinity of the project site and would not be sufficient to cause damage to adjacent structures.
Population and Housing.
Proposed development standards and design guidelines for wireless telecommunications facilities would not involve the construction of any homes, businesses, or other uses that would directly result in population growth, nor would such standards and guidelines remove a barrier to growth or induce additional unplanned development.
Public Services.
Proposed development standards and design guidelines for wireless telecommunications facilities would not increase the level of needed public services and would not result in the need for new or physically altered facilities because wireless communication facilities do not normally require public services.
Recreation.
Proposed development standards and design guidelines for wireless telecommunications facilities would not generate an increase in demand for parks or require construction or expansion of new park facilities since no residential uses are proposed and no increase in population would result.
81 Agenda Item # 9.
9 May 10, 2022
Transportation.
Proposed wireless communication facilities would temporarily generate vehicle traffic at installation sites, which would last no more than a few weeks for a new or replacement pole or as little as a few hours for antenna replacement. Following installation, traffic would return to pre- installation levels with the exception of one to two site maintenance visits per month for each facility. Because no new population would be generated, proposed development standards and design guidelines would not generate any increase in transit, bicycle, or pedestrian travel.
Tribal Cultural Resources.
Pursuant to the requirements of AB 52, the City of Los Altos informed the Tamien Nation regarding the wireless telecommunications ordinance and design guidelines on January 20, 2022 and provided the Nation with the opportunity for consultation regarding potential impacts on Tribal Cultural resources. No request for such consultation was made by the Tamien Nation.
Utilities and Service Systems.
Proposed development standards and design guidelines for wireless telecommunications facilities would not generate an increase in population due to increased residential or business uses and would consume water or generate wastewater or solid waste on an ongoing basis. Only minor amounts of water would be used on a temporary basis during installation of individual wireless telecommunications facilities.
While wireless telecommunications facilities require electrical power, they do not draw sufficient power so as to require new or improved energy facilities. Where wireless telecommunications facilities are proposed on existing electrical poles, addition of wireless equipment or replacement of a pole may be required.
Wildfire.
Los Altos has an adopted Emergency Preparedness Plan identifying potential risks, facilities and resources relied upon in the event of a catastrophe, and persons responsible for implementation. Wireless telecommunications facilities would be located within existing public rights-of-way and utility easements, as well as on existing buildings within previously developed sites, and would not, therefore, impair implementation of or physically interfere with the City’s Emergency Preparedness Plan.
In the event future construction activities require work to be performed in a roadway, appropriate traffic control plans would be prepared in conjunction with an encroachment permit.
The City of Los Altos is not located within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone as delineated on California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) 82 Agenda Item # 9.
10 May 10, 2022
State Responsibility Area and Local Responsibility Area maps. The city is largely developed and only portions of the area west of the Foothill Expressway are located near wildland areas that would be susceptible to fire. Such areas are not identified in proposed development standards and design guidelines as a permitted location for wireless telecommunications facilities. All wireless facilities installations would be required to comply with applicable code requirements to ensure fire safety.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Los Altos adopts the Negative Declaration contained below based on the findings. 83 Agenda Item # 9.
11 May 10, 2022
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 14.82 of the Los Altos Municipal Code. Associated revisions are proposed to the application review procedures contained in Chapter 11.12 of the 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.
5054855.5
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
84 Agenda Item # 9.
12 May 10, 2022
85 Agenda Item # 9.
1 May 10, 2022
ORDINANCE NO. ____
AN ORDINANCE OF THE LOS ALTOS CITY COUNCIL AMENDING LOS ALTOS MUNICIPAL CODE 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 associated with the City’s rural character and natural beauty. Los Altos has a population of 30,000 and is a suburban community within Silicon Valley. The City has a small town, semirural atmosphere, wooded and quiet with 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 nonresidential development through zoning regulations and design review.” The City’s concerns for preserving the residential character of the community extend to public safety, visual quality, and aesthetics, and relate to imposing various development standards for the 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. Wireless telecommunication facilities provide vital communications services to Los Altos residents, businesses, and visitors. While they are a key element of ensuring essential communication, public safety, and economic vitality, wireless telecommunication facilities can also cause adverse visual and environmental effects within the community. The City is therefore mindful of the need to minimize the potential adverse impacts of wireless facilities on the community, including impacts on the City’s aesthetic well-being, while balancing these concerns against the need for sufficient cell coverage for emergency needs and compliance 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 and adjacent to non-residential uses and providing for separation of such facilities from residential dwelling 86 Agenda Item # 9.
2 May 10, 2022
units. These sound land use locational provisions, in combination with design guidelines developed and being considered by the City concurrent with this Ordinance, will serve to ensure the preservation of the local residential areas while also being mindful of avoiding the over saturation of wireless telecommunication facilities in any single portion of the City or along any 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 colocation 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 Los Altos 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, including cabinets, 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 87 Agenda Item # 9.
3 May 10, 2022
F.C.C. Rcd. 9088 (2018), aff’d in part, rev’d in part, City of Portland v United States, 969 F.3d 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. These changes in federal law have occurred concurrently with an ever-increasing demand for the placement of wireless telecommunication facilities within the public rights-ofway, in order to offer increased coverage in the way of numerous expanding technologies such as: cell phones, video streaming, and online 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 the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (“D.C. Circuit Court”) noted that the FCC had failed to provide a reasoned explanation for its determination that its existing radio frequency (“RF”) exposure regulations were adequate to ensure public safety in light of evidence presented to the FCC regarding the health impacts posed by various technological developments that have occurred since 1996, including the ubiquity of wireless devices and Wi-Fi, and the emergence of 5G technology. The D.C. Circuit Court therefore directed the FCC to provide a reasoned explanation to support its conclusion that RF standards need not be revised to protect public health from RF. The FCC’s RF regulations, promulgated in 1996, however, remain in effect. Despite the D.C. Circuit Court’s decision in Environmental Health Trust, localities remain preempted, under existing law, from regulating wireless facilities on the basis of any purported health effects of RF emissions provided such RF emissions comply with existing FCC standards.
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) and 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 88 Agenda Item # 9.
4 May 10, 2022
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 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 intent 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 are 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 its distaste for visual blight; The need to consider and eliminate visual blight, to mitigate noise, heat, and exposure to EMF, and to protect our enjoyment of our property and its market value;
Cell towers should be placed in commercial areas, in the medians of major streets, and similar locations. They should not be placed in residential neighborhoods; Wireless facilities should be installed in public/commercial areas instead of along residential streets close to people's homes. Los Altos neighborhood aesthetic guidelines and property value are among 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 existing electric and telephone lines. Small cells should not be placed in a small residential neighborhood cul de sac street; it would be better to locate them 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; 89 Agenda Item # 9.
5 May 10, 2022
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.
The visual and aesthetic impacts of proposed wireless telecommunications facilities are much greater in a residential area versus in a non-residential area such as downtown Los Altos, or Loyola Corners.
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, protecting 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 colocations 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 megahertz (MHz), 800 MHz, 1900 MHz, and 2100 90 Agenda Item # 9.
6 May 10, 2022
MHz), and that these additional available band options need to be reviewed and considered in the determination of the least intrusive alternatives. A number of alternative means are also available to provide coverage within Los Altos, including but not limited to the upgrading of existing telecommunications facilities, the placement of macro towers, the co-location of wireless telecommunications facilities, and the provision of micro towers.
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 Additional Locational Preferences.
14.82.060 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. 91 Agenda Item # 9.
7 May 10, 2022
2. The preferred location for a wireless telecommunications facility within a public right-of-way or public utility easement is fronting or within one of the 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);
N. Commercial Neighborhood District (CN);
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).
3. Less preferred locations for wireless telecommunications facilities within public rights-of-way and public utility easements are those fronting or within one of the Zoning Districts identified in the following subsections of Municipal Code Section 14.04.010:
A. Single-Family District (R1-10);
B. Single-Family District (R1-H);
C. Single-Family District (R1-20);
D. Single-Family District (R1-40);
E. Single-Story Single-Family Overlay District (R1-S);
F. Multiple-Family District (R3-4.5);
G. Multiple-Family District (R3-5);
H. Multiple-Family District (R3-3);
I. Multiple-Family District (R3.1.8);
J. Multiple-Family District (R3-1);
M. Commercial Downtown/Multiple-Family District (CD/R3); S. Public and Community Facilities District (PCF);
T. Public and Community Facilities/Single Family District (PCF/R1- 10);
92 Agenda Item # 9.
8 May 10, 2022
U. Planned Community (PC); and
W. Planned Unit Development (PUD).
4. Permitted wireless telecommunications facilities within Residential Zoning Districts Municipal Code Sections 14.04.010 A-J, M, U, W are preferred to be located:
a. Within a median where one is present;
b. Where no residential dwelling unit is present;
c. A minimum of 25 feet from the nearest residential dwelling unit. In no case, however, shall any portion of a wireless communications facility be permitted within 10 feet of a residential dwelling unit. d. 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.
(3) For corner lots, this standard shall apply to both roadway frontages.
93 Agenda Item # 9.
9 May 10, 2022
5. No wireless telecommunications carrier shall be permitted to locate a small wireless telecommunications facility within 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.
6. Placement Criteria
a. No portion of any wireless communications facility within a public right-of-way or utility easement 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, or 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;
94 Agenda Item # 9.
10 May 10, 2022
(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. Wireless telecommunication facilities within roadway rights-ofway adjacent to non-Residential Zoning Districts (Municipal Code Sections 14.04.010 K-L, N-T, 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 commercial and office buildings that have a setback of less than 20 feet from the roadway right-of-way.
d. Pole-mounted wireless telecommunication facilities placed on properties outside of roadway rights-of-way and public utility easements should be located as close as feasible to shared property lines between two adjacent lots and should not be located within 20 feet of an entrance to a building or an individual business. e. 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 rightof-way, or create safety hazards to pedestrians and motorists. f. 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.
g. 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.
h. Wireless telecommunication facilities shall be located on poles that are outside of driveways and shall not impair intersection sight lines.
i. Wireless telecommunications facilities should be sited at midblock locations rather than at more visible corners and intersections unless:
(1) The wireless telecommunications facility is mounted on a traffic signal control pole or streetlight;
95 Agenda Item # 9.
11 May 10, 2022
(2) The wireless telecommunications facility is designed as a preferred configuration with no visible exterior wires or equipment per the City’s Design Guidelines.
j. A new pole, if permitted, should be located:
(1) In alignment with existing trees, utility poles, and streetlights.
(2) 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.
(3) On a through street rather than along a cul-de-sac, where feasible.
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);
L. Office-Administrative District (OA-1 and OA-4.5);
N. Commercial Neighborhood District (CN);
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:
a. Properties within one of the following Zoning Districts identified in the following subsections of Municipal Code Section 14.04.010. 96 Agenda Item # 9.
12 May 10, 2022
S. Public and Community Facilities District (PCF); and
T. Public and Community Facilities/Single-Family District (PCF/R1-10).
b. Properties with an existing non-residential use within one of the following Zoning Districts identified in the following subsections of Municipal Code Section 14.04.010.
A. Single-Family District (R1-10);
B. Single-Family District (R1-H);
C. Single-Family District (R1-20);
D. Single-Family District (R1-40);
E. Single-Story Single-Family Overlay District (R1-S);
F. Multiple-Family District (R3-4.5);
G. Multiple-Family District (R3-5);
H. Multiple-Family District (R3-3);
I. Multiple-Family District (R3.1.8);
J. Multiple-Family District (R3-1);
M. Commercial Downtown/Multiple-Family District (CD/R3); S. Public and Community Facilities District (PCF);
T. Public and Community Facilities/Single Family District (PCF/R1-10);
U. Planned Community (PC); and
W. Planned Unit Development (PUD).
c. Under no circumstance may a wireless telecommunications facility be permitted on a property with an existing residential use.
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 with a preferred configuration per the City’s Design Guidelines.
97 Agenda Item # 9.
13 May 10, 2022
b. Wireless telecommunications facilities and any associated equipment or improvements shall not physically interfere with or impede access to any:
(1) Worker access to above ground or underground
infrastructure owned or operated by any public or private utility agency;
(2) Fire hydrant or water valve;
(3) Doors, gates, sidewalk doors, passage doors, stoops or other ingress and egress points to any building; or
(4) 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 required 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 14.82.030 B is infeasible, and that approval of the proposed location rather than a preferred location is therefore needed.
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.
98 Agenda Item # 9.
14 May 10, 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.
14.82.050Eligible Facilities Requested per Municipal Code Section
12.12.100 and
Applications Pursuant to Government Code Section 65850.6 A. Eligible facilities requested per Municipal Code Section 12.12.100 and applications pursuant to California Government Code Section 65850.6 (see Municipal Code Section 11.12.110), 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.
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 99 Agenda Item # 9.
15 May 10, 2022
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 any photo simulations (collectively known as 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. The wireless telecommunications facility shall meet all applicable City standards including but not limited to building, fire, electrical, mechanical, structural standards, and requirements to ensure safe installation and operation of the facility.
4. The permittee shall keep the site, which includes without limitation any and all improvements, equipment, structures, access routes, fences, and landscape features in a neat, clean, and safe condition in accordance with the approved permit. The permittee shall keep the site area free from all litter and debris at all times. The permittee, at no cost to the City, shall remove and remediate any graffiti or other vandalism at the site within 48 hours after the permittee receives notice or otherwise becomes aware that such graffiti or other vandalism has occurred.
5. 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 been mounted to a telecommunications tower or mounted on the ground; and
100
Agenda Item # 9.
16 May 10, 2022
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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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 determined to be a potential Tribal cultural resource or a unique archaeological resource, the City, consulting archaeologist, and the 101
Agenda Item # 9.
17 May 10, 2022
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 shall 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.
102
Agenda Item # 9.
18 May 10, 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.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. Annual Certification. Each year on July 1, the permittee shall submit an affidavit that shall list all facilities it owns within the city by location, and shall certify that (a) each such installation remains in use, (b) such in-use facility remains covered by insurance in the amount required by Municipal Code Section 11.12.070 A 11; and (3) each installation which is no longer in use. Any facility that is no longer in use shall be removed by permittee within sixty (60) days of delivery of the affidavit.
13. The 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 obligations under these conditions of approval and the Los Altos Municipal Code. The bond coverage shall include, but not be limited to, 103
Agenda Item # 9.
19 May 10, 2022
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.
14. The 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 the 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 the permittee's expense.
15. All conditions of approval shall be binding as to the applicant and all successors in interest to permittee.
16. 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:
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 Wireless Telecommunications Facilities Design Guidelines adopted by the City.
3. The proposed facility complies with all applicable building, electrical and fire safety codes.
104
Agenda Item # 9.
20 May 10, 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 in effect.
10. Sections 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. In addition, 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 adopts new Design Guidelines in a separate resolution that repeals Resolution No. 2019-35 in its entirety to regulate the design standards for wireless 105
Agenda Item # 9.
21 May 10, 2022
telecommunication facilities. The effective date of the new Design Guidelines and repeal of Resolution No. 2019-35 shall coincide with the effective date of this ordinance.
SECTION 5. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (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: ___________________________ 5096534.3
106
Agenda Item # 9.
Attachment 3
1 May 10, 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 of Los Altos 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 address, 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 within Silicon Valley. The City has a small town, semi-rural atmosphere, wooded and quiet with 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 preserving the residential character of the community extend to public safety, visual quality, and aesthetics, and relate to imposing these New Design Guidelines that relate to orientation, 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, which serves to reduce the intrusiveness of any new wireless telecommunications facilities.
E. Wireless telecommunication facilities provide vital communications services to Los Altos residents, businesses, and visitors. While they are a key element of ensuring essential communication, public safety, and economic vitality, wireless telecommunication facilities can 107
Agenda Item # 9.
Attachment 3
2 May 10, 2022
also cause adverse visual and environmental effects within the community. The City is therefore mindful of the need to minimize the potential adverse impacts on the community, impacts on the City’s aesthetic well-being, while balancing these concerns against the need for sufficient cell coverage for emergency needs and compliance 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. Each of these possible threats have 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 Los Altos 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 Los Altos, 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, including cabinets, 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 Federal Communications Commission (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 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. 108
Agenda Item # 9.
Attachment 3
3 May 10, 2022
J. The City acknowledges that there has been an ever-increasing demand for the placement of wireless telecommunication facilities within public rights-of-way, in order to offer increased coverage for 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 everincreasing 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 affect 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 by encouraging the installation of such facilities where and in a manner such that potential adverse impacts on Los Altos are minimized.
L. The City adopted its Current Design Guidelines 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. In the summer of 2019, the City’s residents noted numerous concerns with the aesthetics of wireless telecommunications facilities, including numerous objections focused on visual blight such as the following:
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 its distaste for visual blight; The need to consider and eliminate 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 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 regarding visual blight, aesthetic impairment and noise remain at play today.
109
Agenda Item # 9.
Attachment 3
4 May 10, 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
110
Agenda Item # 9.
Attachment 3
5 May 10, 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 facility:
a. 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 3 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: includes those areas where there are no electrical facilities or facilities of the incumbent local exchange carrier 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.
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 111
Agenda Item # 9.
Attachment 3
6 May 10, 2022
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. These principles are intended to provide guidance in the application of the general and detailed design guidelines and 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 (e.g., through colocation).
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 would be infeasible or 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.
Figure 1: This well-concealed wireless telecommunications facility has its antennas architecturally integrated into the building. 112
Agenda Item # 9.
Attachment 3
7 May 10, 2022
d. Covering or painting antennas and equipment does not necessarily mean they are well-concealed. The appropriateness of covering or painting must be evaluated based on the extent to which proposed painting and concealment methods (e.g., antenna skirts, fiberglass paneling, fiber-reinforced plastic [FRP] boxes, etc.) would actually conceal the facility.
e. Radio frequency (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 that would reduce the level of concealment that was provided with the initial installation shall not be permitted unless:
(1) No feasible alternative exists; or
(2) The proposed modification involves colocation that would result in an overall reduction of the visual intrusiveness of wireless telecommunications facilities within the City than would occur if the facilities were not colocated.
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.
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 the new pole’s 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). 113
Agenda Item # 9.
Attachment 3
8 May 10, 2022
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, located, and positioned 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 feasible 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.
4. Landscaping.
a. Where feasible, 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 the wireless facility. 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 with the largest commercially available tree size (e.g., 24-, 36, or 48-inch box). 114
Agenda Item # 9.
Attachment 3
9 May 10, 2022
d. Landscaping proposed to screen the wireless facility 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 so as to create hazards for motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians.
e. Any proposed underground vaults, cabling, or other work 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 that trees’ root systems have 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 the landscaping is 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; however, concealment provided by such landscaping can be considered on a caseby-case 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. Lightning arresters and beacon lights are not permitted unless required by the Federal Aviation Administration or other government agency. Legally required lightning arresters and beacon lights shall be included when calculating the height of facilities such as telecommunications towers, lattice towers, and monopoles.
7. Noise.
a. Each wireless telecommunications facility and wireless telecommunications colocation 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.
115
Agenda Item # 9.
Attachment 3
10 May 10, 2022
8. Security. Each wireless telecommunications facility and wireless telecommunications colocation 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 Public Rights-of-Way and Public Utility Easements
A. Basic Requirements. Facilities located outside public rights-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 II 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
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.
Figure 3: 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 2: Antennas are concealed behind the circular element. 116
Agenda Item # 9.
Attachment 3
11 May 10, 2022
(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 (remote radio units [RRUs], remote radio heads [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-by-case basis. This guideline shall apply to any existing or proposed mechanical equipment that serves the wireless 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 façade-concealed 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:
(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. 117
Agenda Item # 9.
Attachment 3
12 May 10, 2022
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 on which
the facility is mounted, 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 the 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 Figure 4: A cupola (above) and a clock tower (below) conceal antennas.
118
Agenda Item # 9.
Attachment 3
13 May 10, 2022
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 viewing locations accessible to the public. Rooftop screening elements shall generally 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.
119
Agenda Item # 9.
Attachment 3
14 May 10, 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. Façademounted 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.
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.
Figure 5: Although façade-mounted boxes are not preferred, this example from San Diego achieves integration with the structure. 120
Agenda Item # 9.
Attachment 3
15 May 10, 2022
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.
(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.
Figure 6: In this example, antennas are concealed
by the faux "mono-pine."
121
Agenda Item # 9.
Attachment 3
16 May 10, 2022
(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. c. Antennas and any pole-mounted equipment shall be enclosed within the flagpole.
Flagpoles shall not have an antenna shroud.
d. Flagpoles shall comply with the U.S. Flag Code at all times. e. 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. 122
Agenda Item # 9.
Attachment 3
17 May 10, 2022
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 that is 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 that matches the predominant visual background or existing architectural elements so as to 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.
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 that 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.
123
Agenda Item # 9.
Attachment 3
18 May 10, 2022
F. Signage.
1. All wireless facilities shall include signage that accurately identifies the equipment owner/operator, the site name or identification number, and a toll-free number for 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 Public Rights-ofWay and 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).
b. The 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
124
Agenda Item # 9.
Attachment 3
19 May 10, 2022
(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 inches, 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 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 inches 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.
Figure 7: Landscaping conceals wireless
telecommunications equipment mounted on the
exterior of this pole located on Distel Drive.
125
Agenda Item # 9.
Attachment 3
20 May 10, 2022
2. Stand-Alone Poles along Rights-ofWay 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.
d. To prevent accumulation of trash, facilities shall be designed to avoid flat surfaces in the transition from the base to the upper pole.
e. Stand-alone poles match the height and color of any nearby streetlight or utility pole.
3. Light Poles Wherein Equipment, Cabling, and Antennas are Not Completely within the Pole Itself and/or Not Entirely Underground. a. Use of light poles for wireless telecommunications facilities may be permitted only in areas where light poles are appropriate.
b. The 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.
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.
126
Agenda Item # 9.
Attachment 3
21 May 10, 2022
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. c. 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.
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.
127
Agenda Item # 9.
Attachment 3
22 May 10, 2022
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 man-made features including topography, vegetation, buildings, or other structures to provide the greatest amount of visual screening.
b. All antenna components and accessory wireless equipment shall be treated with exterior coatings of a color and texture that matches the predominant visual background or existing architectural elements so as to 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. Minimizing Visibility. 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. Screening of Equipment for Facilities in Public Rights-of-Way. 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.
128
Agenda Item # 9.
Attachment 3
23 May 10, 2022
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.
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.
7. Equipment Installed on Poles. 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 non-compliant with the ADA.
I. Other Requirements.
1. Facilities on Decorative Streetlights Prohibited. Small wireless facilities shall not be located on decorative streetlights.
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. 129
Agenda Item # 9.
Attachment 3
24 May 10, 2022
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 showing the load impacts of the wireless facility on City streetlight and traffic signal control poles, including seismic loads, 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 equal to the existing pavement, or four-inches thick minimum, whichever is greater. 5100209.1
130
Agenda Item # 9.
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]
131
Agenda Item # 9.
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
132
Agenda Item # 9.
133
Agenda Item # 9.
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
134
Agenda Item # 9.
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 135
Agenda Item # 9.
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 136
Agenda Item # 9.
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.
137
Agenda Item # 9.
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
138
Agenda Item # 9.
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
139
Agenda Item # 9.
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
140
Agenda Item # 9.
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. 141
Agenda Item # 9.
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.
142
Agenda Item # 9.
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. 143
Agenda Item # 9.
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; 144
Agenda Item # 9.
(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 145
Agenda Item # 9.
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 146
Agenda Item # 9.
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 147
Agenda Item # 9.
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 148
Agenda Item # 9.
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.
149
Agenda Item # 9.
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, 150
Agenda Item # 9.
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.
151
Agenda Item # 9.
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 152
Agenda Item # 9.
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 153
Agenda Item # 9.
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.
154
Agenda Item # 9.
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. 155
Agenda Item # 9.
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/ 156
Agenda Item # 9.
• 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 157
Agenda Item # 9.
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
158
Agenda Item # 9.
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. 159
Agenda Item # 9.
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.
160
Agenda Item # 9.
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. 161
Agenda Item # 9.
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; 162
Agenda Item # 9.
(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 163
Agenda Item # 9.
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 164
Agenda Item # 9.
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 165
Agenda Item # 9.
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 166
Agenda Item # 9.
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.
167
Agenda Item # 9.
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, 168
Agenda Item # 9.
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.
169
Agenda Item # 9.
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 170
Agenda Item # 9.
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 171
Agenda Item # 9.
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.
172
Agenda Item # 9.
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. 173
Agenda Item # 9.
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/ 174
Agenda Item # 9.
• 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 175
Agenda Item # 9.
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
176
Agenda Item # 9.
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. 177
Agenda Item # 9.
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.
178
Agenda Item # 9.
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. 179
Agenda Item # 9.
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; 180
Agenda Item # 9.
(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 181
Agenda Item # 9.
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 182
Agenda Item # 9.
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 183
Agenda Item # 9.
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 184
Agenda Item # 9.
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.
185
Agenda Item # 9.
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, 186
Agenda Item # 9.
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.
187
Agenda Item # 9.
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 188
Agenda Item # 9.
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 189
Agenda Item # 9.
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.
190
Agenda Item # 9.
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. 191
Agenda Item # 9.
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/ 192
Agenda Item # 9.
• 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 193
Agenda Item # 9.
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
194
Agenda Item # 9.
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. 195
Agenda Item # 9.
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.
196
Agenda Item # 9.
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. 197
Agenda Item # 9.
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; 198
Agenda Item # 9.
(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 199
Agenda Item # 9.
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 200
Agenda Item # 9.
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 201
Agenda Item # 9.
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 202
Agenda Item # 9.
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.
203
Agenda Item # 9.
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, 204
Agenda Item # 9.
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.
205
Agenda Item # 9.
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 206
Agenda Item # 9.
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 207
Agenda Item # 9.
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.
208
Agenda Item # 9.
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. 209
Agenda Item # 9.
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/ 210
Agenda Item # 9.
• 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 211
Agenda Item # 9.
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
212
Agenda Item # 9.
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. 213
Agenda Item # 9.
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.
214
Agenda Item # 9.
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. 215
Agenda Item # 9.
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; 216
Agenda Item # 9.
(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 217
Agenda Item # 9.
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 218
Agenda Item # 9.
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 219
Agenda Item # 9.
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 220
Agenda Item # 9.
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.
221
Agenda Item # 9.
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, 222
Agenda Item # 9.
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.
223
Agenda Item # 9.
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 224
Agenda Item # 9.
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 225
Agenda Item # 9.
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.
226
Agenda Item # 9.
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. 227
Agenda Item # 9.
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/ 228
Agenda Item # 9.
• 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 229
Agenda Item # 9.
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.
230
Agenda Item # 9.
Resolution No. 21-17