HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-02-04 City Council Agenda PacketCity Council
1
MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA
PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE.
DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS.
Monday, February 4, 2019
Special Meeting
Council Chambers
5:00 PM
Council Member DuBois will be Participating From 4-1 Kamikotoen 3-chome
Nishinomiya, Hyogo, 662-1813, Japan
Agenda posted according to PAMC Section 2.04.070. Supporting materials are available in
the Council Chambers on the Thursday 11 days preceding the meeting.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Members of the public may speak to agendized items; up to three minutes per speaker, to be determined by the
presiding officer. If you wish to address the Council on any issue that is on this agenda, please complete a speaker request card located on the table at the entrance to the Council Chambers, and deliver it to the City Clerk prior to discussion of the item. You are not required to give your name on the speaker card in order to speak to the
Council, but it is very helpful. Public comment may be addressed to the full City Council via email at
City.Council@cityofpaloalto.org.
TIME ESTIMATES
Time estimates are provided as part of the Council's effort to manage its time at Council meetings. Listed times
are estimates only and are subject to change at any time, including while the meeting is in progress. The Council reserves the right to use more or less time on any item, to change the order of items and/or to continue items to
another meeting. Particular items may be heard before or after the time estimated on the agenda. This may occur
in order to best manage the time at a meeting or to adapt to the participation of the public. To ensure participation in a particular item, we suggest arriving at the beginning of the meeting and remaining until the item
is called.
HEARINGS REQUIRED BY LAW Applicants and/or appellants may have up to ten minutes at the outset of the public discussion to make their
remarks and up to three minutes for concluding remarks after other members of the public have spoken.
Call to Order
Study Session 5:00-6:30 PM
1.Study Session With the City's State Lobbyist Related to the 2019
Legislative Session
Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions
City Manager Comments 6:30-6:40 PM
Oral Communications 6:40-7:00 PM
Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda. Council reserves the right to limit the duration of
Oral Communications period to 30 minutes.
Minutes Approval 7:00-7:05 PM
2.Approval of Action Minutes for the January 22, 2019 Council Meeting
MEMO
2 February 4, 2019
MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA
PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE.
DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS.
Consent Calendar 7:05-7:10 PM
Items will be voted on in one motion unless removed from the calendar by three Council Members.
3.Approval of Amendment Number 2 to Contract Number S16163051
With Grassroots Ecology to Increase the Contract by $13,440 for a
Total Amount Not-to-Exceed $26,400, to Increase Services and Extend
the Term for San Francisquito Creek Pump Station Riparian Mitigation
Maintenance and Monitoring
4.Review of the Fiscal Year (FY) 2019 Mid-year Budget Status and
Approval of Budget Amendments in Various Funds
5.SECOND READING: 3703-3709 El Camino Real [18PLN-00136]:
Adoption of an Ordinance to Apply the Affordable Housing (AH)
Combining District to the Subject Site. Environmental Assessment:
Exempt From the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) per Guideline Section 15194 (Affordable Housing). Zoning
District: CN (Neighborhood Commercial) (FIRST READING: January 14,
2019 PASSED 6-0 Kniss absent)
Action Items
Include: Reports of Committees/Commissions, Ordinances and Resolutions, Public Hearings, Reports of Officials,
Unfinished Business and Council Matters.
7:10-8:15 PM
6.Provide Direction to Staff on a Letter to the Santa Clara County
Planning Department Regarding Requested Terms for Inclusion in a
Possible Development Agreement Between the County and Stanford
University Related to the General Use Permit Application
8:15-10:00 PM
7.PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL: Consideration of Appeals of the
Planning and Community Environment Director’s Decisions on Seven
Crown Castle Tier 3 Wireless Communication Facilities (WCF) Small
Cell Nodes (Cluster 2, University South, File 17PLN-00433) to
Conditionally Approve Five Nodes and Deny two Nodes; Appealed by
Crown Castle and United Neighbors. The Seven Appealed Tier 3 WCF
Permits are in the Public Right of Way Utilizing six Replacement
Streetlights and one new Pole Adjacent to the Public Facilities Zone:
City Hall Police Station, 275 Forest; Commercial Downtown CD-C (P)
Zone: 345 Forest; Residential Transition (SOFA) RT-35 Zone: 248
Homer, 190 Channing; and the DHS (SOFA) Zone: 385 Homer, 905
Waverley (Formerly 400 Channing), 845 Ramona. Environmental
Assessment: Exempt Under California Environmental Equality Act
(CEQA) Guidelines Section 15303 and Public Resources Code 21080
Q & A
MEMO
3 February 4, 2019
MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA
PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE.
DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS.
10:00-10:15 PM
8. Adoption of a Resolution Scheduling the City Council Summer Break
and Winter Closure for 2019
State/Federal Legislation Update/Action
Council Member Questions, Comments and Announcements
Members of the public may not speak to the item(s)
Adjournment
AMERICANS WITH DISABILITY ACT (ADA)
Persons with disabilities who require auxiliary aids or services in using City facilities, services or programs or who would like information on the City’s compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, may contact
(650) 329-2550 (Voice) 24 hours in advance.
4 February 4, 2019
MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA
PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE.
DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS.
Additional Information
Standing Committee Meetings
Finance Committee Meeting Cancellation February 5, 2019
Schedule of Meetings
Schedule of Meetings
Tentative Agenda
Tentative Agenda
Informational Report
Boards and Commissions Term End Dates for 2019 (Maddy Act)
First Quarter FY 2019 Financial Report
Public Letters to Council
Set 1
0
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
CITY OF
PALO
ALTO
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
ED SHIKADA, CITY MANAGER
FEBRUARY 4, 2019
SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 1 -STUDY SESSION WITH THE CITY'S STATE LOBBYIST
RELATED TO THE 2019 LEGISLATIVE SESSION
Attached, please find a memorandum from the City's state lobbying team regarding recently
introduced housing bills, key state budget proposals, and important 2019 legislative dates.
~ .. fi\\\}.D{
Heather Dauler
Intergovernmental Affairs Officer
Ed Shikada
City Manager
1of1
State Capitol Office • 925 L Street, Suite 1404 • Sacramento, California 95814 • Phone (916) 447-4086 • Fax (916) 444-2063
Federal Office • 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, SE, Suite 207 • Washington, DC • Phone (202) 546-8696 • Fax (202) 546-4555
Northern California Office • 300 Frank Ogawa Plaza, Suite 204 • Oakland, California 94612 • Phone (510) 835-9050 • Fax (510) 835-9030
Southern California Office • 1601 Dove Road• Newport Beach, California 92660 • Phone (949) 399-9050 • Fax (949) 476-8215
M E M O R A N D U M
To: Ed Shikada City Manager
Heather Dauler, Intergovernmental Affairs Officer
From: Christopher Townsend, President, Townsend Public Affairs, Inc.
Niccolo De Luca, Senior Director
Casey Elliott, State Director
Alex Gibbs, Senior Associate
Date: February 4, 2019
Subject: State Legislative Update
Townsend Public Affairs, Inc. prepared this memo for the City of Palo Alto to provide an overview of
what has occurred in the State Capitol thus far in 2019, identify current housing legislation, and
provide a timeline of the legislative process.
The Legislature returned to the Capitol on December 3, 2018 to be sworn into office, officially kicking
off the first year of the 2019-2020 legislative session. On that day, the first day that bills could be
introduced, legislators introduced 176 bills. This continued through December 19, when the total
increased to 210 bills.
Bill introductions began again on January 3 and the total number reached 392 bills as of last week.
The deadline for bill introductions this year is Friday, February 22 and, if history serves as a guide, we
should see about 2,300 total bills introduced for the 2019 Session.
Governor’s 2019-2020 Proposed Budget
On January 10, Governor Newsom released his FY 2019-2020 Budget proposal, the first step in the
Budget process. The Budget includes $144 billion from the State’s General Fund as well as
approximately $65 billion from special accounts and bond appropriations, bringing the total Budget
amount to $209 billion and making it the largest California Budget in history. Continuing Governor
Brown’s theme of saving funds, Governor Newsom proposes banking $4.8 billion in the State’s Rainy-
Day Fund and other reserve accounts. Governor Newsom’s Budget also contributes $4.8 billion to pay
down a portion of the State’s unfunded pension liability and spends an addition $4 billion for debt
service.
The Legislative Analyst’s Office had estimated the Budget surplus for the upcoming budget year
would be $15 billion, however Governor Newsom is estimating that number to be $21.4 billion in his
proposal due to carryover of funds and expectations of slower growth in Medi-Cal. Given the large
2019 State Legislative Update Page 2 of 3
anticipated surplus, the Governor was able to propose substantial funding in several priority areas,
such as early childhood and higher education, affordable housing, alleviating poverty and
homelessness, expanding access to health care, paid family leave, and overhauling California’s
emergency preparedness.
Related to Palo Alto, the Governor’s 2019-2020 Budget includes:
$415 million in funding for emergency preparedness and response
$500 million to build homeless shelters
$500 million for an affordable housing tax credit
$500 million for moderate housing production
Affordable Housing and Homelessness
In order to address the growing affordable housing and homelessness crisis, the Governor has
included considerable one-time spending for:
Regional Housing Needs Assessment– Governor Newsom introduced a new proposal aimed at
incentivizing housing production during the Budget announcement press conference. The
Governor’s Budget calls for the re-vamping the current Regional Housing Needs Assessment
(RHNA) process, which determines the amount and type of housing regions and local
jurisdictions must produce to meet their need.
During his press conference, Governor Newsom claimed that jurisdictions who are not
meeting their RHNA targets will not receive their SB 1 transportation funding. Although this
enforcement and compliance tool will likely not be instituted until after a full RHNA revamp
that could last several years, it shows the willingness of the Administration to address the
State’s housing shortage by any means necessary.
Short-Term Planning and Performance Incentive Grants - $750 million in one-time funding is
proposed to increase housing production and provide technical assistance to local
governments
Housing Tax Credits and Moderate-Income Housing Production - $500 million General Fund
one-time funding for the development of moderate-income housing. Furthermore, the
proposal calls for $500 million (and up to $500 million annually thereafter) for affordable
housing tax credits.
Funds to Local Jurisdictions to Address Emergency Homeless Needs – Like last year’s budget,
this proposal once again allocated $500 million in one-time funding for jurisdictions that site
and build emergency shelters, navigation centers or supportive housing. $200 million will be
distributed to Continuums of Care, $200 million will be made available to jurisdictions that
show progress in permitting new supportive housing units, and $100 million will be allocated
to the 11 most populous cities in the State.
Housing related legislation/CASA
In December, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission released its final housing plan prepared
by its Committee to House the Bay Area. The controversial CASA plan as it’s known, contains
provisions related to everything from new renter eviction policies to rent caps to funding sources.
2019 State Legislative Update Page 3 of 3
Like Palo Alto, other cities in the region submitted letters of concern to the MTC; however, the plan
has moved on to the legislative arena. Below is a visual of the main elements in the CASA plan and
any current bills associated with the element:
CASA Element (10 Elements) Corresponding Legislation
Tenant Protections
#1: Just Cause Eviction Policy
#2: Emergency Rental Assistance and Rent Cap AB 36 (Bloom) Currently a spot bill
#3: Emergency Rent Assistance and Access to
Legal Counsel
SB 18(Skinner) Some specifics in the bill and
more will be added
Housing Inclusion and Capacity
#4: Remove Regulatory Barriers to ADUs AB 69 (Ting)
SB 13 (Wieckowski) Currently a spot bill
#5: Minimum Zoning near Transit SB 50 (Wiener)
SB 4 (McGuire) Currently a spot bill with more
language to come
#6: Good Government Reforms to Housing
Approval Process
Approval Process and Timeline
#7: Expedited Approvals and Financial Incentives
for Select Housing
SB 6 (Beall/McGuire) Some specifics in the bill
and more will be added
#8: Unlock Public Land for Affordable Housing
Funding and Coordination
#9: Funding and Financing the CASA Compact SB 5 (Beall)
AB 11 (Chiu)
#10: Regional Housing Enterprise
Legislative timelines/process
Please find the attached How a Bill Becomes a Law document for a visual of the state legislative
process and 2019 deadlines.
Feb. 22nd
Last day to introduce a
new bill
May 17th
Last day for fiscal
committee to hear and
report bills to the floor
May 3rd
Last day for policy
committee to report to
the floor non-fiscal bills
May 31st
Last day to pass bills
out of house of origin
July 12th
Last day for policy
committees to meet and
report bills to the floor
Aug 30th
Last day for fiscal
committees to meet
and report bills to the
floor
Sep 6th
Last day to amend on the floor
Sep 13th
Last day for any bill to be
passed
Sep 13th
Last day for any bill to be
passed
April 26th
Last day for policy committees to hear
and report fiscal bills to fiscal committees
October 13th
Last day for the Governor to sign or veto bills
passed by the Legislature on or before Sept 13th
and in the Governor’s possession after Sept 13th
2019
CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
February 4, 2019
The Honorable City Council
Attention: Finance Committee
Palo Alto, California
Approval of Action Minutes for the January 22, 2019 Council Meeting
Staff is requesting Council review and approve the attached Action Minutes.
ATTACHMENTS:
• Attachment A: 01-22-19 DRAFT Action Minutes (DOCX)
Department Head: Beth Minor, City Clerk
Page 2
CITY OF PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL
DRAFT ACTION MINUTES
Page 1 of 6
Special Meeting
January 22, 2019
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council
Chambers at 5:01 P.M.
Present: Cormack, DuBois, Filseth, Fine; Kniss arrived at 5:35 P.M., Kou,
Tanaka
Absent:
Closed Session
1. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS.
THIS ITEM WILL NOT BE HEARD THIS EVENING.
2. CONFERENCE WITH CITY ATTORNEY
Subject: Written Liability Claim Against the City of Palo Alto
By Mary Bartholomay (Claim No. C17-0057)
Authority: Government Code Section 54956.9(e)(3).
MOTION: Council Member DuBois moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Fine to
go into Closed Session.
MOTION PASSED: 6-0 Kniss absent
Council went into Closed Session at 5:02 P.M.
Council returned from Closed Session at 5:31 P.M.
Mayor Filseth announced no reportable action.
Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions
None.
Consent Calendar
MOTION: Mayor Filseth moved, seconded by Council Member Kniss to
approve Agenda Item Numbers 3-4.
3. Approval of a Revenue Agreement With the County of Santa Clara in
the Amount of $250,000 Over two Years for Support of Intensive Case
DRAFT ACTION MINUTES
Page 2 of 6
City Council Meeting
Draft Action Minutes: 1/22/2019
Management in Connection With Housing Subsidies to be Provided by
the County of Santa Clara for Palo Alto’s Homeless.
4. Review and Acceptance of the Annual Status Report on Developers
Fees for Fiscal Year 2018; and Resolution 9816 Entitled, “Resolution of
the Council of the City of Palo Alto Making Findings Regarding
Unexpended Stanford Research Park/El Camino Traffic Impact Fees in
the Amount of $1,376,491 and San Antonio/West Bayshore Area
Traffic Impact Fees in the Amount of $828,208.”
MOTION PASSED: 7-0
Action Items
5. PUBLIC HEARING: on Objections to Weed Abatement and
Resolution 9815 Entitled, “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo
Alto Ordering Weed Nuisance Abated (CONTINUED FROM JANUARY 14,
2019).”
Public Hearing opened at 6:02 P.M.
Public Hearing closed at 6:05 P.M.
MOTION: Council Member DuBois moved, seconded by Council Member
Kniss to adopt the Resolution ordering the abatement of weed nuisances in
the City of Palo Alto.
MOTION PASSED: 7-0
6. Approval of the Second Amended and Restated Agreement for Solid
Waste, Recyclable Materials, and Compostable Materials Collection and
Processing Services With GreenWaste of Palo Alto, Inc. in the
Estimated Average Annual Amount of $22,183,000; and Approval of
an Addendum to the 2008 Mitigated Negative Declaration for City-wide
Waste Hauling Service as Adequate and Complete Under the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
MOTION: Council Member Tanaka moved, seconded by Council Member XX
to refer this Agenda Item to the Finance Committee.
MOTION FAILED DUE TO THE LACK OF A SECOND
DRAFT ACTION MINUTES
Page 3 of 6
City Council Meeting
Draft Action Minutes: 1/22/2019
MOTION: Vice Mayor Fine moved, seconded by Council Member Kniss to:
A. Approve the second amended and restated Agreement for solid waste,
recyclable materials, and compostable materials collection and
processing services with GreenWaste of Palo Alto, Inc.; and
B. Approve an addendum to the 2008 Mitigated Negative Declaration for
City-wide waste hauling service as adequate and complete under the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
MOTION PASSED: 6-1 Tanaka no
7. Discussion and Project Update on Connecting Palo Alto and
Consideration of the Following Actions: A) Separate From Study all
Alternatives for the Palo Alto Avenue Crossing (Closure and Hybrid)
and Include Palo Alto Avenue in a Separate Comprehensive Planning
Effort; B) Separate From Study the Bicycle and Pedestrian Crossing of
the Caltrain Corridor in the Vicinity of Loma Verde Avenue and Assess
Feasibility in a Future Study; C) Address the Rail Committee’s
Recommendation Regarding a Tunnel by Modifying the Alternative to
be South of Oregon Expressway Only and Further Explore the Scope
and Budget for an Alternative With Freight Trains on the Surface and
Passenger Trains Underground for the Meadow and Charleston
Crossings; and D) Adopt a Modified List of Grade Separation
Alternatives (CONTINUED FROM DECEMBER 17, 2018).
Council Member Kniss advised she will not participate in this Agenda Item
because she has a real property interest within 500 feet of the Peninsula
Corridor Joint Powers Authority (Caltrain) right of way. She left the meeting
at 7:37 P.M.
Mayor Filseth advised he will not participate in this Agenda Item because he
lives within 500 feet of the Caltrain right of way. He left the meeting at
7:37 P.M.
Council took a break from 7:38 P.M. to 7:50 P.M.
Council took a break from 10:28 P.M. to 10:35 P.M.
MOTION: Vice Mayor Fine moved, seconded by Council Member DuBois to:
A. Direct Staff to separate from study all alternatives for the Palo Alto
Avenue crossing (closure and hybrid) and include Palo Alto Avenue in a
separate comprehensive planning effort;
DRAFT ACTION MINUTES
Page 4 of 6
City Council Meeting
Draft Action Minutes: 1/22/2019
B. Direct Staff to separate from study the bicycle and pedestrian crossing
of the Caltrain corridor in the vicinity of Loma Verde Avenue and
incorporate this into the North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan process;
C. Direct Staff to present the tunnel alternative at the Community
Advisory Panel (CAP) and March Community meeting, and outline
assumptions and alternatives for a citywide tunnel and further explore
(the Scope and Budget) for an alternative with freight trains on the
surface and passenger trains underground (for the Meadow and
Charleston crossings);
D. Adopt a modified list of grade separation alternatives:
1. South Palo Alto | Rail Tunnel;
2. Churchill Avenue | Full or Partial Closure and add Improvements
(CAX);
3. Meadow Drive and Charleston Road | Hybrid (MCL);
4. Meadow Drive and Charleston Road | Rail Trench (MCT);
5. Meadow Drive and Charleston Road | Viaduct (MCV);
6. Citywide Tunnel (WBP);
E. Direct Staff to return to Council with a strategy for Valley
Transportation Authority (VTA) and Stanford University, especially
around funding; and
F. Direct Staff to study multi-modal mitigations for existing grade
separations, taking into consideration both current conditions and
future impacts.
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion, “direct Staff to restore
‘maintain or improve local access’ evaluation criteria.” (New Part G).
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion, “direct Staff to return to
Council soon to review evaluation criteria and timeline.” (New Part H).
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion Part A, “with a priority on
transportation.”
DRAFT ACTION MINUTES
Page 5 of 6
City Council Meeting
Draft Action Minutes: 1/22/2019
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion Part H, “with a funding and
polling strategy.”
MOTION AS AMENDED RESTATED: Vice Mayor Fine moved, seconded by
Council Member DuBois to:
A. Direct Staff to separate from study all alternatives for the Palo Alto
Avenue crossing (closure and hybrid) and include Palo Alto Avenue in a
separate comprehensive planning effort with a priority on
transportation;
B. Direct Staff to separate from study the bicycle and pedestrian crossing
of the Caltrain corridor in the vicinity of Loma Verde Avenue and
incorporate this into the North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan process;
C. Direct Staff to present the tunnel alternative at the Community
Advisory Panel (CAP) and March Community meeting, and outline
assumptions and alternatives for a citywide tunnel and further explore
(the Scope and Budget) for an alternative with freight trains on the
surface and passenger trains underground (for the Meadow and
Charleston crossings);
D. Adopt a modified list of grade separation alternatives:
1. South Palo Alto | Rail Tunnel;
2. Churchill Avenue | Full or Partial Closure and add Improvements
(CAX);
3. Meadow Drive and Charleston Road | Hybrid (MCL);
4. Meadow Drive and Charleston Road | Rail Trench (MCT);
5. Meadow Drive and Charleston Road | Viaduct (MCV);
6. Citywide Tunnel (WBP);
E. Direct Staff to return to Council with a strategy for Valley
Transportation Authority (VTA) and Stanford University, especially
around funding;
F. Direct Staff to study multi-modal mitigations for existing grade
separations, taking into consideration both current conditions and
future impacts;
DRAFT ACTION MINUTES
Page 6 of 6
City Council Meeting
Draft Action Minutes: 1/22/2019
G. Direct Staff to restore “maintain or improve local access” evaluation
criteria; and
H. Direct Staff to return to Council soon to review evaluation criteria and
timeline with a funding and polling strategy.
MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 5-0 Filseth, Kniss absent
State/Federal Legislation Update/Action
None.
Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 11:52 P.M.
City of Palo Alto (ID # 9811)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 2/4/2019
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Amendment No. Two to Multi-Year Contract with Grassroots
Ecology
Title: Approval of Amendment No. Two to Contract S16163051 with
Grassroots Ecology to Increase the Contract by $13,440 for a Total Contract
Amount Not-to-Exceed $26,400, to Increase Services and Extend the Term for
San Francisquito Creek Pump Station Riparian Mitigation Maintenance and
Monitoring
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Public Works
Recommended Motion
Staff recommends that Council approve and authorize the City Manager or his designee to
execute Contract Amendment No. 2 to Contract No. S16163051 with Grassroots Ecology
(Attachment A) to increase the compensation by $13,440 for professional services associated
with San Francisquito Creek Storm Water Pump Station Riparian Mitigation Monitoring, in order
to increase services and extend the term through December 31, 2021. The revised total
contract amount is not to exceed $26,400.
Background
The California Regional Water Quality Control Board issued regulatory permit 2006-400320 to
the City of Palo Alto for the San Francisquito Creek Stormwater Pump Station and Outfall
Project on June 12, 2008. The regulatory permit set forth mitigation requirements and a 10-
year, long-term monitoring program of the on-site and off-site habitat mitigation areas. The San
Francisquito Creek Stormwater Pump Station project was completed in 2011. Grassroots
Ecology, formerly known as Acterra: Action for a Healthy Planet, worked with City staff to
locate an area near San Francisquito Creek that could be designated for mitigation. Once the
site was identified, Grassroots Ecology proceeded to plant the native plants in conformance
with the regulatory permit. Since then, Grassroots has worked with H.T. Harvey & Associates
(H.T. Harvey) on monitoring and fostering plant establishment and growth. While H.T. Harvey
prepared the formal monitoring reports for the regulatory agencies, Grassroots planted the
small sprigs, installed protective cages, manually irrigated the plants multiple times a year, and
performed miscellaneous maintenance tasks associated with the mitigation plantings. The term
CITY OF
PALO
ALTO
City of Palo Alto Page 2
of professional services contract S16163051 is through December 31, 2018. Since monitoring
and reporting is required through Year 10, December 31, 2021, staff recommend amending the
contract to increase the contract term and compensation.
Discussion
Amending the contract with Grassroots Ecology will ensure consistency and continuity, while
saving the City the time it would take to conduct an RFP and get a new vendor familiarized with
the sites and previous reports. Therefore, to meet the mitigation and monitoring requirements,
Grassroots Ecology provided a professional services proposal that extends the monitoring and
reporting through the terms required by the regulatory agency. As described in Contract
Amendment No. 2, the consultant will provide irrigation of mitigation plantings as needed
based on weather conditions, up to 10 times a year. The consultant will perform various
maintenance tasks of the off-site mitigation areas up to 4 times a year. Grassroots Ecology will
prepare and submit a semi-annual report of completed tasks to the City. Staff will then submit
these reports directly to the regulatory agencies for their review as required by the regulatory
permit.
Resource Impact
Funding for this contract is available through the Stormwater Management Fund In-House
Maintenance budget.
Policy Implications
This recommendation does not represent any changes to existing City policies.
Environmental Review
The project implements a mitigation measure identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration
(MND) for the San Francisquito Creek Storm Water Pump Station Project adopted by the
Director of Planning and Community Environment on April 5, 2007, in accordance with the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Therefore, the project is within the scope of and
consistent with the MND.
Attachments:
Pages from S16163031 HT HARVEY Amend 2 FINAL-CLEAN 110121
Page 1 of 13
AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO CONTRACT NO. S16163031
BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND
TRIPLE HS, INC., dba H.T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES
This Amendment No. 2 (this “Amendment”) to contract no. S16163031 is entered into as of
December 10, 2018 by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal
corporation (“CITY”), and TRIPLE HS, INC., dba H.T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES, a California
corporation, located at 983 University Avenue, Bldg. D, Los Gatos, CA 95032 (“CONSULTANT”).
CITY and CONSULTANT are also referred to herein collectively as the “Parties.”
R E C I T A L S
A.The Contract (as defined below) was entered into between the Parties on February
11, 2016, for professional services to assist the City with its long-term mitigation monitoring
requirements mandated by regulatory permitting agencies for the San Francisquito Creek Storm
Water Pump Station(“Project”); and
B.The Parties now wish to amend the Contract to (1) correct typographical errors in
Amendment No. 1 (defined below), (2) to increase the compensation from Twenty Two Thousand
Eight Hundred Seventy Nine Dollars ($22,879) to a new not to exceed amount of Fifty Four
Thousand Twenty Eight Dollars and Ninety Four Cents ($54,028.94), (3) to expand the scope of
services to include the tasks detailed in Exhibit “A-1” added here, and (4) to extend the term by an
additional three years through December 31, 2021, as detailed in this Amendment.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants, terms, conditions, and provisions of
this Amendment, the Parties agree as follows:
SECTION 1. Definitions. The following definitions shall apply to this Amendment:
a.Contract. The term “Contract” shall mean contract no. S16163031 between
CONSULTANT and CITY as amended by Amendment No. 1.
b.Other Terms. Terms used and not defined in this Amendment shall have
the meanings assigned to such terms in the Contract.
SECTION 2. Correction of Typographical Errors. The date in Sentence 1 of
Amendment No.1, stated as “January 23, 2016”, is hereby deleted and replaced to instead read
“February 23, 2016”. In addition, Consultant’s description as “a sole proprietor” is hereby deleted
and replaced to instead read “a corporation in the State of California”. The Parties understand and
agree that the date as it originally appeared—which came before the commencement date of the
Contract—was a typographical error, as was the description of the Consultant’s entity type, and
that the occurrence and correction of these typographical errors does not alter, impair or
otherwise impact either party’s rights and/or obligations under the Contract or this Amendment.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 37B8ABB5-DD93-4370-A156-FB316945B637 Attachment A
Page 2 of 13
SECTION 3. Section 1, “SCOPE OF SERVICES”, of the Contract is hereby amended to read as
follows:
“CONSULTANT shall perform the Services described in the attached Exhibit “A” and Exhibit “A-1”,
in accordance with the terms and conditions contained in this Agreement. The performance of all
Services shall be to the reasonable satisfaction of the CITY.”
SECTION 4. Term. Section 2, “TERM”, of the Contract is hereby amended to read as
follows:
“The term of this Agreement shall be from the date of its full execution through December 31,
2021 unless terminated earlier pursuant to Section 19 of this Agreement.”
SECTION 5. Not to Exceed Compensation. Section 4, “NOT TO EXCEED COMPENSATION”,
of the Contract is hereby amended to read as follows:
“The compensation to be paid to CONSULTANT for performance of the Services described in
Exhibit “A” and Exhibit “A-1”, including both payment for professional services and any therein-
specified reimbursable expenses, shall not exceed Forty Nine Thousand One Hundred Fifty Three
Dollars and Ninety Four Cents ($49,153.94), per Exhibit “C”. In the event Additional Services
(defined below) are authorized, the total compensation for Services, Additional Services and
reimbursable expenses shall not exceed Fifty four thousand twenty eight dollars and ninety four
cents ($54,028.94), per Exhibit “C”. Subject to Exhibit “C”, the applicable rates and schedule of
payment are set out at Exhibit “C-1” and Exhibit “C-2”, each of which is attached to and made a
part of this Agreement.
Additional Services, if any, shall be authorized in accordance with and subject to the provisions of
Exhibit “C”. CONSULTANT shall not receive any compensation for Additional Services performed
without the prior written authorization of CITY. “Additional Services” shall mean any work that is
determined by CITY to be necessary for the proper completion of the Project, but which is not
included within the Scope of Services described at Exhibit “A” and Exhibit “A-1”.”
SECTION 6. Exhibits. The following exhibit(s) to the Contract are hereby added or
amended, as indicated below in this Section, to read as set forth in the attachments to this
Amendment, which are hereby incorporated into this Amendment, and into the Contract, in full by
this reference:
a. Exhibit “A-1” entitled “SCOPE OF SERVICES” (ADDED)
b. Exhibit “B” entitled “SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE” (AMENDED – REPLACES
PREVIOUS)
c. Exhibit “C” entitled “COMPENSATION” (AMENDED – REPLACES PREVIOUS)
d. Exhibit “C-2” entitled “HOURLY RATE SCHEDULE” (ADDED)
DocuSign Envelope ID: 37B8ABB5-DD93-4370-A156-FB316945B637
Page 3 of 13
SECTION 7. Legal Effect. Except as herein modified, all other provisions of the Contract,
including any exhibits, shall remain in full force and effect.
SECTION 8. Incorporation of Recitals. The recitals set forth above are terms of this
Amendment and are hereby fully incorporated herein by this reference.
(SIGNATURE BLOCK FOLLOWS ON THE NEXT PAGE.)
DocuSign Envelope ID: 37B8ABB5-DD93-4370-A156-FB316945B637
Page 4 of 13
SIGNATURES OF THE PARTIES
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have by their duly authorized representatives executed
this Amendment, effective as of the date first above written above.
CITY OF PALO ALTO
__________________________
City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
__________________________
City Attorney or designee
(Required on Contracts over $25,000)
TRIPLE HS, INC, dba H.T. HARVEY &
ASSOCIATES
By:
Name:
Title:
Attachments:
Exhibit “A-1” entitled “SCOPE OF SERVICES” (ADDED)
Exhibit “B” entitled “SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE” (AMENDED – REPLACES PREVIOUS)
Exhibit “C” entitled “COMPENSATION” (AMENDED – REPLACES PREVIOUS)
Exhibit “C-2” entitled “HOURLY RATE SCHEDULE” (ADDED)
DocuSign Envelope ID: 37B8ABB5-DD93-4370-A156-FB316945B637
Vice President
Daniel D. Stephens
Page 5 of 13
EXHIBIT “A-1”
SCOPE OF SERVICES, AMENDMENT NO. 2
(ADDED)
The Consultant shall provide continuing ecological consulting services to the City regarding the long-
term monitoring and reporting of the San Francisquito Creek Pump Station project’s habitat
mitigation areas. The project’s permits and associated Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan
(MMP) set forth a 10-year long-term monitoring program (Schaaf & Wheeler 2007). Per Exhibit
“A”, Consultant performed the Year 7 monitoring in fiscal years 2016-2017 and 2017-2018. The
scope of services in this Exhibit “A-1” covers subsequent years’ vegetation monitoring, per the
MPP, for the on-site and off-site mitigation areas as detailed below.
In addition, under this Exhibit “A-1” scope of services, Consultant will prepare a technical
memorandum during fall 2018 to respond to Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB)
concerns at the off-site mitigation area, as detailed below. Consultant’s sub-consultant, Schaaf &
Wheeler, will continue monitoring the hydraulic function and physical stability of the on-site
discharge channel in MPP Year 10 (2019) in accordance with the MMP, as detailed below.
Additionally, as detailed below, Consultant will conduct MMP vegetation maintenance inspections
at the on-site and off-site mitigation areas during the remaining MMP monitoring years—MMP
Year 10.
Task 1. Fiscal Year 2019 (July 1, 2018-June 30, 2019)
Task 1a. Off-Site Conditions Memorandum. The RWQCB raised concerns about ongoing vegetation
maintenance at the off-site mitigation area in response to the MMP Year 7 monitoring report. In
response to these concerns, Consultant will prepare an off-site conditions technical memorandum
to document the species and installation date of all installed mitigation plants at the off-site
mitigation area in order to compare maintenance and replanting efforts with the originally installed
plants. The memorandum will include a figure that shows the location of each mitigation plant. The
memorandum will characterize the current status of the off-site mitigation area and present site
management recommendations to facilitate the City’s negotiations with the RWQCB regarding
whether the duration of the monitoring period should be retained at 10 years or increased.
Consultant will participate in two site visits with the City’s maintenance contractor (Grassroots
Ecology) and the City during preparation of this memorandum. City will take a lead role in
coordination and communications with the RWQCB.
Task 1b. Vegetation Maintenance Recommendations. Consultant’s restoration ecologist will
conduct one site visit at the off-site mitigation area and one visit at the on-site mitigation area
annually during the early part of the growing season (April to June) in 2019 to assess vegetation
maintenance needs. Consultant does not anticipate that replacement planting or irrigation will be
necessary. However, vegetation maintenance may be necessary depending on the trajectory of
both native and nonnative, invasive vegetation establishment and the outcome of coordination
with the RWQCB. The visit to the onsite area will coincide with the visit to the offsite area.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 37B8ABB5-DD93-4370-A156-FB316945B637
Page 6 of 13
Following the inspections, Consultant will prepare and submit a vegetation maintenance
recommendations memorandum to the City for distribution to Grassroots Ecology.
Task 1c. On-site Channel Stability Monitoring. Consultant’s sub-consultant, Schaaf & Wheeler, will
provide a qualified hydrologist to assess the physical stability of the pump station discharge channel.
Channel stability will be assessed once in April 2019 (following the wet season). Consultant’s team
will notify the City at least two weeks prior to a site visit so that the City can coordinate with the
Santa Clara Valley Water District to provide site access. Channel stability assessment includes:
a) General qualitative assessment of overall channel stability, with an emphasis on channel
scour, sedimentation, bed vegetation and armoring, channel migration, and any
perceived threats to the adjacent banks or levees.
b) Measured depths of scour immediately downstream of each longitudinal channel
stabilizer. Depths will be measured to the top of the stabilizer at the channel centerline
as creek conditions allow. (Some local scour/pool creation is anticipated). Site visits will
be timed to coincide with low tide.
c) Written and photo-documentation describing the site visit, channel condition
comparisons to previous visits, potential concerns, and if warranted, recommendations
for corrective action. This documentation will be suitable for inclusion in the monitoring
report that is submitted to the regulatory agencies.
Channel stability monitoring results and documentation will be incorporated into the on-site annual
monitoring report prepared under Task 2a.
Task 1 Deliverables: The Off-site Conditions Memorandum and 2019 Vegetation Maintenance
Recommendations memorandum. (Channel stability monitoring results and documentation will be
incorporated into the on-site annual monitoring report prepared under Task 2a.)
Task 2. Fiscal Year 2020 (July 1, 2019-June 30, 2020)
Task 2a. On-site Annual Vegetation Monitoring Year 10 (2019). Consultant’s restoration
ecologist(s) will monitor the on-site mitigation area in accordance with the requirements outlined in
the project’s MMP. Monitoring will be conducted in Monitoring Year 10 (2019). Field surveys will be
conducted in the late summer/fall to collect quantitative vegetation data (plant height, stem
diameter, canopy diameter, and health and vigor) and take photographs from fixed photo-
documentation points. Consultant’s team will notify the City at least two weeks prior to a site visit
so that the City can coordinate with the Santa Clara Valley Water District to provide site access.
Channel stability monitoring completed under Task 1c will be incorporated into this monitoring
effort.
Consultant’s restoration ecologists will prepare an annual monitoring report for review and
approval by the City. This task includes one round of minor revisions to the report based on
comments provided by the City. The report will be in a format suitable for submittal to the
regulatory agencies by December 31 of the required monitoring year, containing the following
DocuSign Envelope ID: 37B8ABB5-DD93-4370-A156-FB316945B637
Page 7 of 13
sections:
a) Executive Summary
b) Introduction
c) Methods
d) Results and Discussion
e) Management Recommendations
f) Photo-Documentation
The San Francisquito Creek Flood Protection Project removed a portion of the City’s on-site
mitigation area in 2016 and mitigated for this impact elsewhere per the flood protection project’s
permits. During the 2016 vegetation monitoring field work, Consultant mapped the flood protection
project’s impact on the surface area and configuration of the City’s mitigation site. This effort will
be repeated if Consultant’s field observations determine that the flood protection project’s impacts
changed substantially since 2016. Consultant will then incorporate this information into the Year 10
(2019) Annual Monitoring Report in the form of a plan view map and written summary.
Task 2b. Off-site Vegetation Maintenance Recommendations. Consultant’s restoration ecologist
will conduct two site visits at the off-site mitigation area during the early part of the growing
season (March to June) in 2020 to assess vegetation maintenance needs. Consultant does not
anticipate that replacement planting or irrigation will be necessary. However, vegetation
maintenance may be necessary depending on the trajectory of both native and nonnative, invasive
vegetation establishment and the outcome of consultation with the RWQCB. Following the
inspections, Consultant will prepare and submit a vegetation maintenance recommendations
memorandum to the City for distribution to Grassroots Ecology.
Task 2 Deliverables: On-site Final Year 10 (2019) Annual Monitoring Report and 2020 Off-site
Vegetation Maintenance Recommendations.
Task 3. Fiscal Year 2021 (July 1, 2020-June 30, 2021)
Task 3a. Off-site Annual Vegetation Monitoring Year 10 (2020). Consultant’s restoration
ecologist(s) will monitor the off-site mitigation area in accordance with the requirements outlined
in the project’s MMP or with revised success criteria determined in consultation with the RWQCB.
Monitoring will be conducted in Monitoring Year 10 (2020). Field surveys will be conducted in the
late summer/fall to collect quantitative vegetation data (plant height, stem diameter, canopy
diameter, and health and vigor) and take photographs from fixed photo-documentation points.
Consultant’s restoration ecologists will prepare an annual monitoring report for review and
approval by the City. The task includes one round of minor revisions to the report based on comments
provided by the City. The report will be in a format suitable for submittal to the regulatory agencies
by December 31 of the required monitoring year, containing the following sections:
a) Executive Summary
b) Introduction
c) Methods
DocuSign Envelope ID: 37B8ABB5-DD93-4370-A156-FB316945B637
Page 8 of 13
d) Results and Discussion
e) Management Recommendations
f) Photo-Documentation
Assuming final success criteria are met, Consultant will assist the City with regulatory agency
communications to obtain agency sign-off that the City’s mitigation obligations have been met. The
City will take a lead role in coordination and communications with the regulatory agencies. If final
success criteria are not met at either on-site or off-site mitigation area, the remedial measures and
potential additional monitoring are not included in this scope.
Deliverable: Off-site Year 10 (2020) Annual Monitoring Report
DocuSign Envelope ID: 37B8ABB5-DD93-4370-A156-FB316945B637
Page 9 of 13
EXHIBIT “B”
SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE, AMENDMENT NO. 2
(AMENDED – REPLACES PREVIOUS)
CONSULTANT shall perform the Services so as to complete each milestone within the completion
by date specified below. The time to complete each milestone may be increased or decreased by
mutual written agreement of the project managers for CONSULTANT and CITY so long as all work
is completed within the term of the Agreement. CONSULTANT shall provide a detailed schedule of
work consistent with the schedule below within 2 weeks of receipt of the notice to proceed.
Milestones Completion By:
Exhibit “A” Tasks:
1. Maintenance Recommendations Memo (On- & Off-site) September 30, 2016
2. Annual Monitoring Report (On-site) December 31, 2016
Channel Stability Monitoring
3. Maintenance Recommendations Memo (On- & Off-site) September 30, 2017
4. Annual Monitoring Report (Off-site) December 31, 2017
5. Maintenance Recommendations Memo (On- & Off-site) September 30, 2018
Exhibit “A-1” Tasks:
6. Task 1a. Off-Site Conditions Memorandum January 31, 2019
7. Task 1b. Vegetation Maintenance Recommendations June 30, 2019
8. Task 1c. On-site Channel Stability Monitoring June 30, 2019
9. Task 2a. On-site Annual Vegetation Monitoring and Report
(including Channel Stability from Task 1c) for Year 10 (2019) September 30, 2019
10. Task 2b. Off-site Vegetation Maintenance Recommendations June 30, 2020
11. Task 3a. Off-site Annual Vegetation Monitoring and Report for
Year 10 (2020) December 31, 2020*
*Report will be submitted by City to regulatory agencies in December of 2020.
Consultant will remain “on-call” for Additional Services to City through December 31,
2021, in case of regulatory agency further requests/orders following such agencies’
review of the report.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 37B8ABB5-DD93-4370-A156-FB316945B637
Page 10 of 13
EXHIBIT “C”
COMPENSATION, AMENDMENT NO. 2
(AMENDED – REPLACES PREVIOUS)
The CITY agrees to compensate the CONSULTANT for professional services performed in
accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, and as set forth in the budget schedule
below. Compensation shall be calculated based on the hourly rate schedule attached as Exhibit C-1
and/or Exhibit “C-2”, as applicable, up to the not to exceed budget amount for each task set forth
below.
CONSULTANT shall perform the tasks and categories of work as outlined and budgeted below. The
CITY’s Project Manager may approve in writing the transfer of budget amounts between any of the
tasks or categories listed below provided the total compensation for Basic Services, including
reimbursable expenses, and the total compensation for Additional Services do not exceed the
amounts set forth in Section 4 of this Agreement.
BUDGET SCHEDULE NOT TO EXCEED AMOUNT
Exhibit “A” Tasks:
Year 1 $1,112
(Vegetation maintenance visit)
Year 2 $13,203
(On-site annual monitoring, data analysis, and report preparation. Includes hydrologic
monitoring by sub-consultant Schaaf & Wheeler. Vegetation maintenance visit.)
Year 3 $6,522
(Off-site annual monitoring, data analysis, and report preparation. Vegetation
maintenance visit)
Exhibit “A-1” Tasks:
Task 1a $6,214.00
(Off-site Conditions Memorandum)
Task 1b $1,629.00
(Vegetation Maintenance Recommendations)
Task 1c $3,476.00
(On- Site Channel Stability Monitoring)
Task 2a $7,772.38
(On-site Annual Vegetation Monitoring Year 10 (2019)
DocuSign Envelope ID: 37B8ABB5-DD93-4370-A156-FB316945B637
Page 11 of 13
Task 2b $1,677.87
(Off-site Vegetation Maintenance Recommendations)
Task 3a $7,320.21
(Off-site Vegetation Monitoring Year 10 (2020)
Exhibits “A” and “A-1”:
Sub-total Basic Services $48,926.46
Reimbursable Expenses $227.48
Total Basic Services and Reimbursable Expenses $49,153.94
Additional Services (Not to Exceed) $4,875.00
Maximum Total Compensation $54,028.94
REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES
The administrative, overhead, secretarial time or secretarial overtime, word processing,
photocopying, in-house printing, insurance and other ordinary business expenses are
included within the scope of payment for services and are not reimbursable expenses. CITY
shall reimburse CONSULTANT for the following reimbursable expenses at cost. Expenses for
which CONSULTANT shall be reimbursed are: $227.48
A. Travel outside the San Francisco Bay area, including transportation and meals, will be
reimbursed at actual cost subject to the City of Palo Alto’s policy for reimbursement of travel
and meal expenses.
B. Long distance telephone service charges, cellular phone service charges, facsimile
transmission and postage charges are reimbursable at actual cost.
All requests for payment of expenses shall be accompanied by appropriate backup
information. Any expense anticipated to be more than $0 shall be approved in advance by
the CITY’s project manager.
ADDITIONAL SERVICES
The CONSULTANT shall provide Additional Services (as defined in Section 4,
“Compensation”) only by advanced, written authorization from the CITY. The CONSULTANT,
at the CITY’s project manager’s request, shall submit a detailed written proposal including a
description of the scope of services, schedule, level of effort, and CONSULTANT’s proposed
DocuSign Envelope ID: 37B8ABB5-DD93-4370-A156-FB316945B637
Page 12 of 13
maximum compensation, including reimbursable expense, for such services based on the
rates set forth in Exhibit “C-1” and/or Exhibit “C-2”, as applicable. The Additional Services
scope, schedule and maximum compensation shall be negotiated and agreed to in writing
by the CITY’s project manager and CONSULTANT prior to commencement of the services.
Payment for any Additional Services is subject to all requirements and restrictions in this
Agreement.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 37B8ABB5-DD93-4370-A156-FB316945B637
Page 13 of 13
EXHIBIT “C-2”
HOURLY RATE SCHEDULE, AMENDMENT NO. 2
(ADDED)
Hourly Rates for H.T. Harvey & Associates (Effective January 1, 2019)
1. Principal, Restoration Ecology $235
2. Senior Restoration Ecology $161
3. Restoration Biologist $107
4. GIS Analyst $112
5. Technical Support $85
DocuSign Envelope ID: 37B8ABB5-DD93-4370-A156-FB316945B637
1 of 1
TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: BRAD EGGLESTON, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS
DATE: 2/4/2019
SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 3- APPROVAL OF AMENDMENT NUMBER 2 TO
CONTRACT NUMBER S16163051 WITH GRASSROOTS ECOLOGY TO INCREASE THE
CONTRACT BY $13,440 FOR A TOTAL AMOUNT NOT-TO-EXCEED $26,400, TO
INCREASE SERVICES AND EXTEND THE TERM FOR SAN FRANCISQUITO CREEK
PUMP STATION RIPARIAN MITIGATION MAINTENANCE AND MONITORING
The incorrect existing Agreement was included in this Staff Report. Find the correct Agreement
with Grassroots Ecology attached.
_______________________ _________________________
Brad Eggleston Ed Shikada
Director of Public Works City Manager
3
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5672D0B3-85DF-46A9-8979-2FDB07DBD733
Page 1 of 8
AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO CONTRACT NO. S16163051
BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO
AND GRASSROOTS ECOLOGY
This Amendment No. 2 (this “Amendment”) to contract no. S16163051 (“Contract” as defined
below) is entered into as of December 30, 2018 by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a
California chartered municipal corporation (“CITY”), and GRASSROOTS ECOLOGY, a non-profit
organization, located at 3921 East Bayshore Road, Palo Alto, CA 94303 (“CONTRACTOR”). CITY and
CONTRACTOR are also referred to herein collectively as the “Parties.”
R E C I T A L S
A.The Contract (as defined below) was entered into between the Parties on April 5,
2016, for services to assist the City in maintaining the mitigation plantings along the San
Francisquito Creek downstream of Chaucer Street, as detailed therein.
B.The Parties now wish to amend the Contract to increase the compensation by
Thirteen Thousand Four Hundred forty dollars ($13,440), from Twelve Thousand Nine Hundred
Sixty Dollars ($12,960) to a new not to exceed amount of Twenty Six Thousand Four hundred
Dollars ($26,400), for purposes of expanding the scope of services to include the tasks detailed in
Exhibit “A-1” added here, and extending the term by an additional three years through December
31, 2021, as detailed in this Amendment.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants, terms, conditions, and
provisions of this Amendment, the Parties agree:
SECTION 1. Definitions. The following definitions shall apply to this Amendment:
a.Contract. The term “Contract” shall mean contract no. S16163051 between
CONTRACTOR and CITY as amended by:
Amendment No. 1, dated August 1, 2018
b.Other Terms. Terms used and not defined in this Amendment shall have
the meanings assigned to such terms in the Contract.
SECTION 2. Section 1, “SERVICES”, of the Contract is hereby amended to read as follows:
“CONTRACTOR shall perform the services (the “Services”) described in the Scope of Services,
attached at Exhibit A and at Exhibit A-1.”
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4A61CFAA-966A-4EFB-8832-B2C597951DEB Attachment ADocuSign Envelope ID: 5672D0B3-85DF-46A9-8979-2FDB07DBD733
Page 2 of 8
SECTION 3. Section 3, “TERM”, of the Contract is hereby amended to read as follows:
“The term of this Agreement is from the date of its full execution through December 31, 2021
inclusive, subject to the provisions of Sections Q and V of the General Terms and Conditions.”
SECTION 4. Section 4, “SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE”, of the Contract is hereby amended
to read as follows:
“CONTRACTOR shall complete the Services within the term of this Agreement in a reasonably
prompt and timely manner based upon the circumstances and direction communicated to
CONTRACTOR, and if applicable, in accordance with the schedule set forth in the Schedule of
Performance, attached at Exhibit B and Exhibit B-1. Time is of the essence in this Agreement.”
SECTION 5. Section 5, “COMPENSATION FOR ORIGINAL TERM”, of the Contract is hereby
amended to read as follows:
“City shall pay and CONTRACTOR agrees to accept as not-to-exceed compensation for the full
performance of the Services and reimbursable expenses, if any:
A sum calculated in accordance with the fee schedule set forth at Exhibit C, not to exceed a total
maximum compensation amount of Twenty Six Thousand Four Hundred dollars ($26,400).
CONTRACTOR agrees that it can perform the Services for an amount not to exceed the total
maximum compensation set forth above. Any hours worked or services performed by
CONTRACTOR for which payment would result in a total exceeding the maximum amount of
compensation set forth above for performance of the Services shall be at no cost to CITY.”
SECTION 6. The following exhibit(s) to the Contract are hereby amended or added, as
indicated below, to read as set forth in the attachment(s) to this Amendment, which are
incorporated in full into this Amendment and into the Contract by this reference:
a. Exhibit “A-1” entitled “SCOPE OF SERVICES, AMENDMENT NO.2” – ADDED.
b. Exhibit “B-1” entitled “SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE, AMENDMENT NO.2” –
ADDED.
c. Exhibit “C” entitled “COMPENSATION, AMENDMENT NO.2” – AMENDED,
REPLACES PREVIOUS. Exhibit “C” entitled “SCHEDULE OF FEES” is amended
and replaced in its entirety by Exhibit “C” entitled “COMPENSATION,
AMENDMENT NO.2”. All references to Exhibit “C” in the Contract shall be
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4A61CFAA-966A-4EFB-8832-B2C597951DEBDocuSign Envelope ID: 5672D0B3-85DF-46A9-8979-2FDB07DBD733
Page 3 of 8
replaced with and refer to Exhibit “C”, COMPENSATION, AMENDMENT NO.
2
SECTION 7. Legal Effect. Except as herein modified, all other provisions of the Contract,
including any exhibits, shall remain in full force and effect.
SECTION 8. Incorporation of Recitals. The recitals set forth above are terms of this
Amendment and are hereby fully incorporated herein by this reference.
SIGNATURES OF THE PARTIES
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have by their duly authorized representatives executed
this Amendment effective as of the date first above written.
CITY OF PALO ALTO
City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney or designee
(Contract over $25k)
GRASSROOTS ECOLOGY
By:
Name:
Title:
Attachments:
EXHIBIT "A-1": SCOPE OF SERVICES, AMENDMENT NO.2 – ADDED
EXHIBIT "B-1": SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE, AMENDMENT NO.2 – ADDED
EXHIBIT "C": COMPENSATION, AMENDMENT NO.2 – AMENDED, REPLACES PREVIOUS
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4A61CFAA-966A-4EFB-8832-B2C597951DEB
Executive Director
Alexandra Von Feldt
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5672D0B3-85DF-46A9-8979-2FDB07DBD733
Page 4 of 8
EXHIBIT “A-1”
SCOPE OF SERVICES, AMENDMENT NO.2
(ADDED)
CONTRACTOR (Grassroots Ecology) shall perform the tasks 1 through 3 along the off-site mitigation
area, located adjacent to San Francisquito Creek and between Chaucer Street and Marlowe Street,
during fiscal years: partial FY19 (07/01/18 – 06/30/19), FY20 (07/01/19-06/30/20), FY21 (07/01/20
– 06/30/21), and partial FY22 (07/01/21 – 12/31/21).
Tasks below will be completed yearly, according to the schedule provided in Exhibit B-1.
Task 1: Irrigation
Grassroots Ecology will manually water the mitigation plantings up to 10 times per year, as
needed based on weather conditions. It is anticipated that watering frequency will be
decreased by fiscal year 21 (07/01/20 – 06/30/21) as plantings become more established. The
City of Palo Alto will ensure that an irrigation source is available at the site.
Task 2: Maintenance
Perform miscellaneous maintenance tasks up to 4 times over the year (or approximately 40
hours total per year). Tasks may include maintaining tree caging/protection, weeding, adding
mulch or soil amendments, and other tasks that may be required per the recommendations of
the biological consultant monitoring the site. Work may be conducted in partnership with
volunteers as part of Grassroots Ecology community stewardship programs.
Task 3: Reporting
Provide semi-annual written report of tasks completed to City of Palo Alto (2 reports per year).
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4A61CFAA-966A-4EFB-8832-B2C597951DEBDocuSign Envelope ID: 5672D0B3-85DF-46A9-8979-2FDB07DBD733
Page 5 of 8
EXHIBIT “B-1”
SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE, AMENDMENT NO. 2
(ADDED)
CONTRACTOR shall perform the Services detailed in Exhibit A-1 according to the following
schedule:
1. Irrigation: Irrigation of mitigation plantings shall be conducted up to ten (10) times over
the course of each calendar year, as needed based on weather conditions. Irrigation
frequency is expected to be decreased by fiscal year 21, as plantings become more
established.
2. Mitigation Planting Maintenance: Mitigation planting shall be conducted four (4) times
over the course of each calendar year (approximately 40 hours per calendar year).
3. Reporting: Reports describing mitigation planting maintenance performed by
Grassroots Ecology shall be submitted to the City on a semi-annual basis (twice yearly).
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4A61CFAA-966A-4EFB-8832-B2C597951DEBDocuSign Envelope ID: 5672D0B3-85DF-46A9-8979-2FDB07DBD733
Page 6 of 8
EXHIBIT “C”
COMPENSATION, AMENDMENT NO. 2
(AMENDED- REPLACES PREVIOUS)
CONTRACTOR shall perform the tasks as described and budgeted below. CITY’s Project Manager
may approve in writing the transfer of budget amounts between any of the tasks or categories
listed below provided the total compensation for the Services including reimbursable expenses,
does not exceed the amounts set forth in Sections 5 and 6 of the Agreement. Any services
provided or hours worked for which payment would result in a total exceeding the maximum
amount of compensation set forth herein shall be at no cost to CITY.
DESCRIPTION OF TASK NOT TO EXCEED COMPENSATION
PER TASK INCLUDING REIMBURSABLES
Exhibit “A” Tasks (FY2016 (partial), FY2017, FY 2018, FY 2019 (partial)):
Task 1: Irrigation $5,400
Task 2: Maintenance $6,900
Task 3: Reporting $540
Breakdown of Exhibit “A” Costs by Type:
Labor (hrs.) Labor Cost Direct Costs
Task 1: Irrigation (20x/year) 120 $5,400
Task 2: Maintenance (4x/year) 120 $5,400 $1,500
Task 3: Reporting 12 $540
Subtotal Labor & Direct Costs: $12,840
Mileage* $120
Subtotal Labor, Direct Costs & Mileage*: $12,960
*Reimbursable Expenses
Exhibit “A” Breakdown of Costs by Fiscal Year:
FY2016 (1/1/16 – 6/30/16) = $2,160 (partial fiscal year)
FY2017 (7/1/16 – 6/30/17) = $4,320
FY2018 (7/1/17 – 6/30/18) = $4,320
FY2019 (7/1/18 – 12/31/18) = $2,160 (partial fiscal year)
Subtotal = $12,960
(Exhibit “C” is continued on the next page.)
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4A61CFAA-966A-4EFB-8832-B2C597951DEBDocuSign Envelope ID: 5672D0B3-85DF-46A9-8979-2FDB07DBD733
Page 7 of 8
DESCRIPTION OF TASK NOT TO EXCEED COMPENSATION PER TASK INCLUDING REIMBURSABLES
Exhibit “A-1” Tasks (Amendment No.2):
Breakdown of Exhibit “A-1” Costs by Task and Fiscal Year:
Task 1a: Irrigation $6,000
FY2019 (1/1/19 - 6/30/19) = $1,000
FY2020 (7/1/19 - 6/30/20) = $2,000
FY2021 (7/1/20- 6/30/21) = $2,000
FY2022 (7/1/21-12/31/21) = $1,000
Task 2a: Maintenance $6,000
FY2019 (1/1/19 - 6/30/19) = $1,000
FY2020 (7/1/19 - 6/30/20) = $2,000
FY2021 (7/1/20- 6/30/21) = $2,000
FY2022 (7/1/21-12/31/21) = $1,000
Task 3a: Reporting $660
FY2019 (1/1/19 - 6/30/19) = $110
FY2020 (7/1/19 - 6/30/20) = $220
FY2021 (7/1/20- 6/30/21) = $220
FY2022 (7/1/21-12/31/21) = $110
Subtotal Exhibit “A-1” Costs by Task: $12,660
Supplies and Mileage*: 780
Subtotal Exhibit “A-1” Tasks plus Supplies & Mileage*: $13,440
Breakdown of Exhibit “A-1” Costs by Type:
*Reimbursable Expenses
(Exhibit “C” is continued on the next page.)
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4A61CFAA-966A-4EFB-8832-B2C597951DEBDocuSign Envelope ID: 5672D0B3-85DF-46A9-8979-2FDB07DBD733
Page 8 of 8
Exhibits “A” and “A-1”:
Exhibit “A” Basic Services: $12,840
Exhibit “A-1” Basic Services: $12,660
Sub-total Basic Services $25,500
Reimbursable Expenses:
(Exhibit “A”) $120
(Exhibit “A-1”) $780
Subtotal Reimbursable Expenses $900
Maximum Total Compensation $26,400
(End of Exhibit “C”.)
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4A61CFAA-966A-4EFB-8832-B2C597951DEBDocuSign Envelope ID: 5672D0B3-85DF-46A9-8979-2FDB07DBD733
Certificate Of Completion
Envelope Id: 4A61CFAA966A4EFB8832B2C597951DEB Status: Completed
Subject: Please DocuSign: S16163051- Amdt 2-GrassRoots Final.pdf
Source Envelope:
Document Pages: 8 Signatures: 1 Envelope Originator:
Certificate Pages: 2 Initials: 0 Cecilia Magana
AutoNav: Enabled
EnvelopeId Stamping: Enabled
Time Zone: (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada)
250 Hamilton Ave
Palo Alto , CA 94301
cecilia.magana@cityofpaloalto.org
IP Address: 12.220.157.20
Record Tracking
Status: Original
1/8/2019 6:08:41 PM
Holder: Cecilia Magana
cecilia.magana@cityofpaloalto.org
Location: DocuSign
Security Appliance Status: Connected Pool: City of Palo Alto
Storage Appliance Status: Connected Pool: City of Palo Alto Location: DocuSign
Signer Events Signature Timestamp
Alexandra Von Feldt
alex@grassrootsecology.org
Executive Director
Security Level: Email, Account Authentication
(None)Signature Adoption: Pre-selected Style
Using IP Address: 173.164.135.53
Sent: 1/8/2019 6:12:43 PM
Viewed: 1/8/2019 6:32:57 PM
Signed: 1/9/2019 3:41:37 PM
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure:
Not Offered via DocuSign
In Person Signer Events Signature Timestamp
Editor Delivery Events Status Timestamp
Agent Delivery Events Status Timestamp
Intermediary Delivery Events Status Timestamp
Certified Delivery Events Status Timestamp
Carbon Copy Events Status Timestamp
michel Jeremias
Michel.Jeremias@CityofPaloAlto.org
Senior Engineer
City of Palo Alto
Security Level: Email, Account Authentication
(None)
Sent: 1/9/2019 3:41:38 PM
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure:
Not Offered via DocuSign
Notary Events Signature Timestamp
Envelope Summary Events Status Timestamps
Envelope Sent Hashed/Encrypted 1/9/2019 3:41:38 PM
Certified Delivered Security Checked 1/9/2019 3:41:38 PM
Signing Complete Security Checked 1/9/2019 3:41:38 PM
Completed Security Checked 1/9/2019 3:41:38 PM
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5672D0B3-85DF-46A9-8979-2FDB07DBD733
Payment Events Status Timestamps
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5672D0B3-85DF-46A9-8979-2FDB07DBD733
Certificate Of Completion
Envelope Id: 5672D0B385DF46A989792FDB07DBD733 Status: Completed
Subject: Please DocuSign: At Place Memo #9811.doc, S16163051 - Grassroots Ecology.pdf
Source Envelope:
Document Pages: 11 Signatures: 2 Envelope Originator:
Certificate Pages: 2 Initials: 0 Vanessa Silva
AutoNav: Enabled
EnvelopeId Stamping: Enabled
Time Zone: (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada)
250 Hamilton Ave
Palo Alto , CA 94301
Vanessa.Silva@CityofPaloAlto.org
IP Address: 12.220.157.20
Record Tracking
Status: Original
2/1/2019 2:55:15 PM
Holder: Vanessa Silva
Vanessa.Silva@CityofPaloAlto.org
Location: DocuSign
Security Appliance Status: Connected Pool: City of Palo Alto
Storage Appliance Status: Connected Pool: City of Palo Alto Location: DocuSign
Signer Events Signature Timestamp
Brad Eggleston
Brad.Eggleston@CityofPaloAlto.org
Assistant Director Public Works
City of Palo Alto
Security Level: Email, Account Authentication
(None)
Signature Adoption: Pre-selected Style
Using IP Address: 12.220.157.20
Sent: 2/1/2019 2:59:49 PM
Viewed: 2/1/2019 3:03:48 PM
Signed: 2/1/2019 3:04:07 PM
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure:
Not Offered via DocuSign
Ed Shikada
Ed.Shikada@CityofPaloAlto.org
City Manager
City of Palo Alto
Security Level: Email, Account Authentication
(None)
Signature Adoption: Pre-selected Style
Using IP Address: 24.23.214.110
Sent: 2/1/2019 3:04:10 PM
Viewed: 2/1/2019 9:18:36 PM
Signed: 2/1/2019 9:21:25 PM
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure:
Not Offered via DocuSign
In Person Signer Events Signature Timestamp
Editor Delivery Events Status Timestamp
Agent Delivery Events Status Timestamp
Intermediary Delivery Events Status Timestamp
Certified Delivery Events Status Timestamp
Carbon Copy Events Status Timestamp
Michel Jeremias
Michel.Jeremias@CityofPaloAlto.org
Senior Engineer
City of Palo Alto
Security Level: Email, Account Authentication
(None)
Sent: 2/1/2019 9:21:26 PM
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure:
Not Offered via DocuSign
Notary Events Signature Timestamp
Envelope Summary Events Status Timestamps
Envelope Sent Hashed/Encrypted 2/1/2019 9:21:26 PM
Certified Delivered Security Checked 2/1/2019 9:21:26 PM
Signing Complete Security Checked 2/1/2019 9:21:26 PM
Completed Security Checked 2/1/2019 9:21:26 PM
Payment Events Status Timestamps
City of Palo Alto (ID # 9946)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 2/4/2019
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: FY 2019 Mid-Year Budget Report & Budget Amendments
Title: Review of the Fiscal Year 2019 Mid-year Budget Status and Approval of
Budget Amendments in Various Funds
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Administrative Services
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council:
1) Amend the Fiscal Year 2019 Budget Appropriation for various funds and various capital
projects, as identified in Attachment A, Exhibits 1 and 2, respectively.
Executive Summary
Annually, staff brings forward recommendations to adjust the annual adopted budget.
Adjustments to the City’s budget become necessary as revenues and expenditures vary from
the original budget plan. The attached documents summarize and outline changes to the City’s
Fiscal Year (FY) 2019 Adopted Budget. The majority of budget actions recommended in this
report are to address isolated instances where actuals vary from the original budgeted
estimates.
Recommended budget adjustments are generally grouped into four types of transactions:
- Technical Clean-ups: These requests augment the current budget levels to align with
anticipated year end revenue or expenditure levels, or to fix inadvertent errors in the
adopted budget. Typically, most mid-year adjustments fall in this category.
- Reimbursements and Grants: These requests adjust grants, reimbursements, and fee
revenue and expenditure estimates to align with current year end projected levels as
appropriate. This type of request normally has a net-zero impact.
- Previous Council Direction: These requests execute previous direction authorized by
the City Council that cannot wait to be executed as part of the FY 2020 budget process.
City of Palo Alto Page 2
- New requests: These are requests for additional funding to address critical programs
or service delivery needs. These adjustments are being brought forward ahead of the
annual budget process because the need either cannot or should not wait until FY 2020.
Overall, with the adjustments recommended in this report, the General Fund and all other
funds are on track to end the fiscal year within budgeted levels.
Background
This report focuses on recommended changes to the FY 2019 Adopted Budget.
Where possible, budget change recommendations are brought forward for City Council
consideration as part of the approval of the FY 2019 Midyear Budget Report to consolidate
requests and streamline changes to budget appropriations. These adjustments are necessary as
revenues and expenditures vary from the original budget plan due to many things including but
not limited to changes in economic factors, project estimates and scope, and City Council policy
and direction. Based on the Finance Committee’s recommendation at the December 6, 2016
meeting where budget development guidelines were discussed, staff streamlined and slimmed
down the FY 2017 and FY 2018 Midyear Budget Reports. Applying similar guidelines, this FY
2019 Midyear Budget Report primarily reflects technical adjustments to the current year
budget, minor corrections or revenue backed activities and as such is being brought directly to
the City Council. This report is organized by fund with a primary focus on major changes in the
General Fund. Mid-year changes for the Enterprise and Special Revenue Funds are also included
in this report. All adjustments to the City’s FY 2019 Operating and Capital budgets are detailed
in Attachment A.
Discussion
The following pages provide an overview of the status for the General Fund, Enterprise Funds,
and other funds including recommended budget adjustments as they pertain to the City’s FY
2019 Operating and Capital Budgets.
Operating Budget
Under this section of the report, proposed citywide changes to the FY 2019 Adopted Operating
Budget are described for the General Fund, Enterprise Funds, and Special Revenue Funds.
General Fund
Overall, the General Fund is tracking within budgeted levels after six months in the current
fiscal year and is anticipated to end the year near budgeted projections. Although the City
currently has a slightly higher than usual vacancy rate in the General Fund, these one-time
City of Palo Alto Page 3
savings were already recognized and a budgetary action to reduce expense appropriations
across departments was taken as part of CMR 9925, Approve $4 Million in General Fund Budget
Amendments & Amend the Table of Organization, approved by the City Council on December
17, 2018.
General Fund Revenue
Based on revenues received through December 31, 2018, overall, FY 2019 General Fund
revenues are anticipated to reach budgeted levels by the end of FY 2019. Most revenue
categories are consistent with historical trends of seasonality. Certain tax revenue categories
are tracking slightly above historical levels, including sales tax, property tax, and documentary
transfer tax. As part of CMR 9925, an additional $2.0 million of revenue in these categories was
recognized and appropriated. Transient Occupancy Tax has also seen a trend suggesting
growth. Revenues will continue to be monitored throughout FY 2019 and adjustment actions
will be brought forward through the year-end process to reconcile the budgeted revenue to
actual collections as appropriate. It should be noted that with the recent voter approval of a
change in the Transient Occupancy Tax rate as part of Measure E, receipts are not anticipated
to materialize in revenue estimates until the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2019.
General Fund Expense
General Fund expenditures are generally tracking to remain within budgeted levels through the
end of the fiscal year. As discussed above, the savings associated with the General Fund’s
higher than anticipated vacancy rate have already been recognized, and a budgetary reduction
was approved by the City Council, accounting for salary savings of $1.4 million (CMR 9925) in
the General Fund. Staff will continue to monitor financial activity through the remainder of FY
2019 and actions to adjust expenses will be brought forward through the year-end process to
recognize changes as appropriate.
As is customary, an overtime analysis for the Fire and Police departments is attached
(Attachment B). The Public Safety Overtime Analysis Fiscal Year 2017 – Fiscal Year 2019
compares the net overtime cost for the Fire and Police Departments for FY 2017, FY 2018, and
the first six months of FY 2019. Net overtime costs represent the Public Safety departments’
modified overtime budgets offset with revenue received to fund overtime along with vacancy
savings that are being covered by overtime expenditures. Overtime expenditures for each
department are discussed in further detail below.
As of December 31, 2018, the Fire Department expended $1.7 million or 91 percent of the FY
2019 Adopted overtime budget, which is less than the $2.2 million expended for the same
period in FY 2018. This reduction is largely attributable to deployment changes approved by the
City Council that resulted in the elimination of 11.0 FTE (CMR 8530) in the second half of FY
2018, beginning January 1, 2018. Additionally, the Fire Department hired nine (9.0) fire fighter
positions in FY 2019 to fill vacancies that have persisted over the prior year (approximately 7
City of Palo Alto Page 4
vacancies). During the first half of Fiscal Year 2019 the Fire Department had 14 personnel on
workers’ compensation paid leave which is nearly double the number of positions on workers’
compensation paid leave (8) for the entire Fiscal Year 2018.
City-provided fire protection services to Stanford are also a factor. Beginning in FY 2019, a flat
rate agreement has been approved that is based on allocated costs to each fire station and the
resources it uses, including estimates for overtime (CMR 9393). Because the rates are inclusive
of all services including special event services, the assumptions for overtime reimbursement are
not included in the net overtime calculations and will be removed from future reporting. After
adjusting for vacancies being backfilled with overtime, the net overtime cost is approximately
$1.3 million.
As of December 31, 2018, the Police Department expended $1.4 million or 82 percent of its
annual overtime budget, which is higher than the $1.2 million expended during the same period
in FY 2018. The higher level of overtime expenditures is attributable to higher wages and having
longer term vacancies in FY 2019 (approximately 14 vacancies of at least six months) compared
to FY 2018 (approximately eight vacancies of at least six months through the same time period).
Also, during the first half of Fiscal Year 2019 the Police Department had 5 personnel on
workers’ compensation paid leave which is the same number of positions on workers’
compensation paid leave (5) for the entire Fiscal Year 2018.
Budget Stabilization Reserve
The General Fund Budget Stabilization Reserve is anticipated to be at $41.8 million. This figure
reflects the actual FY 2018 year-end financial reporting as outlined in CMR 9846 Discussion and
Recommendation to Approve the FY 2018 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) and
Approve Budget Amendments in Various Funds (which anticipated a $5.5 million Stanford
settlement), City Council approved BAO’s approved subsequent to the budget adoption through
December 31, 2018, and the recommended actions included in this report. This level is 19.8
percent of the FY 2019 Adopted Budget for General Fund expenses, which is above the City
Council’s target level of 18.5 percent.
The majority of the budget actions recommended in this report are to align appropriations with
current year performance or to technically correct appropriations that were inadvertently
misstated or omitted in the FY 2019 Adopted Budget. In limited instances, adjustments are
recommended for urgent and unanticipated needs.
Recommended budget adjustments are generally grouped into four types of transactions: new
requests, previous City Council direction, reimbursements and grants, and technical clean-ups.
These adjustments are outlined below and detailed more in Attachment A:
− New requests: These are requests for additional funding to address critical program or
service delivery needs. These adjustments are being brought forward ahead of the annual
City of Palo Alto Page 5
budget process because the need either cannot or should not wait until the FY 2020 annual
budget process. Recommended adjustments include:
Public Safety New Hire Costs: $100,500 for the onboarding of new fire fighter personnel.
Funding will be used for uniforms, including full personal protective equipment, and
Joint Fire Academy fees.
City Training Programs: $40,000 for the initiation or continuation of training initiatives;
consulting services to establish an organizational development plan for citywide training
($30,000); and consultant services for conflict resolution and coaching ($10,000). The
cost of these initiatives is recommended to be offset by the reallocation of previously
unspent management training benefits that have reappropriated from prior years
through the annual reappropriation process.
Thermal Imaging Cameras: $22,000 for the replacement of two Thermal Imaging
Cameras (TIC) that are broken and past their useful life. TICs are used on fire response
vehicles to help assess the source of fires, smoke, and heat and determine a plan of
action in the containment of fire threats.
− Previous City Council Direction: These requests execute previous direction authorized by
the City Council that need to be implemented prior to the FY 2020 budget process.
Stanford Fire Services Settlement: $5.5 million for the settlement of a claim by Stanford
for the overpayment of fire protection services (approved as part of CMR 9393).
− Reimbursements and Grants: These requests adjust grants, reimbursements, and fee
revenue and corresponding expenditure estimates to align the budget for activities
performed by the City that are funded or reimbursed by agencies or individuals outside the
City. This type of request normally has a net-zero impact. Recommended adjustments
include:
Public Safety Strike Team Reimbursements: As is customary, adjustments to revenue
and expense appropriations are recommended for reimbursements that have been
confirmed during the period: Fire Department ($182,000); and Police Department
($28,020). Corresponding increases are recommended in the departments’ overtime
budgets.
Public Service Donation Fund: The following donations have been received in FY 2019:
the Lenore C. Terry 2014 Living Trust for animal services ($1,000,000); a private donor
for the Police Department canine program ($29,544); and Mothers Against Murder for
participation in a gun buyback program ($2,500).
Library Grants: Multiple grants have been received in FY 2019 from the Pacific Library
City of Palo Alto Page 6
Partnership (PLP) to provide cyber security training for youth ($39,000) and enhance
literacy services and learning opportunities ($28,066).
− Technical Clean-ups: These requests augment the current budget levels to align with
anticipated year-end revenue or expenditure levels, or to fix inadvertent errors in the
adopted budget. Typically, many mid-year adjustments fall in this category. Recommended
adjustments include:
Utility Charges: The City of Palo Alto operates a public utility and is a customer of the
same service. For the various assets and properties the City owns and operates, it pays
service fees to the utility provider. Payments of this nature are budgeted as allocated
charges in various departments and funds. Recommended actions to align with actual
usage activity and costs are discussed in the subsequent section for Enterprise Funds
and are detailed in Attachment A.
Other Adjustments: An additional increase is recommended in the General Fund to
increase expenditures for printing services. Recommended actions are discussed in
more in the subsequent sections for Internal Service and are detailed in Attachment A.
Enterprise Funds
Under this section of the report, proposed citywide changes to the FY 2019 Adopted Operating
Budget are described for the Electric Fund and Gas Fund. In total, the recommended actions
result in a reduction to fund balance of $750,725 and $38,000, respectively. Recommended
adjustments include:
Electric Fund
Communication Line Maintenance: A revenue decrease of $157,606 is recommended to
remove funds received for communication line maintenance services on coaxial lines.
The City has transitioned to fiber lines; therefore, allocated charges for services on
coaxial lines are no longer necessary. The corresponding expense charges are also being
removed from the appropriate funds.
Streetlight and Traffic Signal Maintenance: A $329,119 reduction to revenues received
from the General Fund is recommended to account for street light and traffic signal
maintenance costs based on the FY 2018 Electric Fund Cost of Services Analysis (COSA).
Gas Fund
Adjustments for Increasing Gas Commodity Costs: A $400,000 increase to cost estimates
to purchase additional gas commodities is recommended in alignment with market price
trends.
City of Palo Alto Page 7
Equity Transfer from the Electric and Gas Funds: As is customary, an adjustment to the
Equity Transfer from the Electric and Gas Funds is recommended to align with the FY
2018 capital assets in these funds reported in the FY 2018 Comprehensive Annual
Financial Report (CAFR) as of June 30, 2018. The transfer from the Electric Fund will
increase by $264,000, and the transfer from the Gas Fund will increase by $38,000, for a
total increase of $302,000.
Internal Service Funds
General Benefits Fund: FY 2017, CalPERS changed the methodology used to charge
jurisdictions for pension costs. Prior to FY 2017, jurisdictions could prepay the Unfunded
Accrued Liability (UAL) and the anticipated normal cost as a percentage of payroll that
CalPERS actuaries calculated. Beginning in FY 2017, jurisdictions were only eligible to
prepay the Unfunded Accrued Liability (UAL) portion, and the normal cost was paid on a
pay-period basis. As a result of this change in methodology, the normal costs for the City
of Palo Alto were lower than anticipated, due to vacancies throughout the organization.
Almost $2.0 million, of which $1.26 million is from the General Fund, was collected in
the General Benefits Fund for pension payments to CalPERS that was beyond the
calculated UAL and actual normal cost for both the Miscellaneous and Safety Plans. It is
recommended that this $2.0 million be transmitted to Public Agency Retirement
Services (PARS) to bolster the Section 115 trust for pension. This would bring the total
contribution to approximately $13.6 million ($9.9 million of which is from the General
Fund) since the PARS Trust was established in FY 2017.
Print and Mail Fund: $18,500 for the addition of six new printers in various departments.
A corresponding increase to the respective departments’ allocated charges for printing
services is recommended to offset this expense.
Special Revenue Fund
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Fund: At the time of the development of
the FY 2019 Budget, the CDBG federal appropriations for FY 2018-2019 had not yet been
confirmed. For budgeting purposes, staff included estimates for the Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) Entitlement Grant for FY 2019. This action will align the budget with
the final CDBG allocation ($670,434) as approved by the City Council on May 7, 2018
(CMR 9128).
Capital Improvement Program Budget
Overall, the majority of Capital Improvement projects are anticipated to remain within
budgeted levels in FY 2019. Adjustments to the City’s 2019 Capital Improvement Plan for a
limited number of projects are noted in Attachment A, Exhibit 2, with specific project
adjustments described as well. CIP changes fall into two basic categories: 1) projects that have
City of Palo Alto Page 8
been completed and can have their appropriations reduced, and 2) projects that need
additional funding due to unanticipated costs that were not assumed as part of the FY 2019
Adopted Capital Budget. The program costs recommended in this report are described below
and detailed to a greater extent in Attachment A, exhibit 2.
Capital Improvement Fund
Baylands Flood Protection Levee Improvements project (PE-17006): $133,000 to pay the
third and final invoice to the Santa Clara Valley Water District for the City’s portion of
the San Francisquito Creek flood Reduction, Ecosystem Restoration, and Recreation
Project from the San Francisco Bay to Highway 101.
Charleston/Arastradero Corridor Project (PE-13011): Technical correction to remove
$1,450,000 of revenue estimates for this project that were inadvertently carried forward
from FY 2018 to FY 2019 through the annual reappropriation process (CMR 9630).
Enterprise Funds
Electric Fund
Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) Systems Upgrades Project (EL-02010):
$200,000 for the purchase and installation of a demilitarized zone (DMZ) to address
cyber security risks.
Rebuild Underground District 19 Project (EL-11008): A downward adjustment of
$115,000 to remove funding and close the project. Due to close proximity, the District
19 project has been consolidated with the Rebuild Underground District 24 project (EL-
10006).
Fiber Optics Fund
Fiber Optics Network System Improvements project (FO-10001): $120,000 for paving
costs that were excluded from the original scope of services for the Upgrade Downtown
project. This cost is recommended to be offset by a commensurate reduction to the
Fiber Optics System Rebuild project (FO-16000).
Resource Impact
Adoption of the attached ordinance is required to amend the FY 2019 budget. With the
approval of this budget appropriation ordinance, the projected ending balance of the General
Fund Budget Stabilization Reserve remains above the City Council recommended level of 18.5
percent.
The projected changes to the fund balance for all other funds including Enterprise Funds,
City of Palo Alto Page 9
Internal Services Funds, Special Revenue Funds, and Capital Funds are outlined in Attachment
A.
Policy Implications
These recommendations are consistent with existing City policies.
Environmental Assessment
This is not a project under Section 21065 for purposes of the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA).
Attachments:
• Attachment A - FY 2019 Mid-Year Adjustments for CMR
• Attachment B - Public Safety Overtime Analysis Q2 2019
ATTACHMENT A, EXHIBIT 1
Department Adjustment Adjustment
GENERAL FUND
Administrative
Services
Printing Services Adjustments
This action adjusts the allocated charges for printing activities due to
the addition of a printer in this department. A corresponding action in
the Printing and Mailing Fund is recommended to offset this action.
‐$ 1,500$
Auditor Printing Services Adjustments
This action adjusts the allocated charges for printing activities due to
the addition of a printer in this department. A corresponding action in
the Printing and Mailing Fund is recommended to offset this action.
‐$ 2,000$
Community
Services
Water Irrigation Costs for Stanford University Medical Center (SUMC)
Landscaping
This action increases water charges to the City for the irrigation costs
on road/median landscaping around Stanford University Medical
Center (SUMC). This arrangement will ensure that the landscape along
Welch Road is maintained in partnership with Stanford University.
‐$ 19,000$
Development
Services
Printing Services Adjustments
This action adjusts the allocated charges for printing activities due to
the addition of a printer in this department. A corresponding action in
the Printing and Mailing Fund is recommended to offset this action.
‐$ 5,000$
Fire Strike Team Reimbursement/ Revenue from Other Agencies
This action increases the estimate for revenue from other agencies for
reimbursement for emergency services provided on overtime as part of
mutual aid for Strike Teams that responded to wildfires and hurricanes
during the year. The incidents responded to include Hurricane Irma,
Hurricane Harvey, the Cranston Fire, and the Mendocino Complex Fire.
A commensurate increase to the expense appropriation for these
services is also recommended. Due to additional incidents such as the
Camp Fire that have not yet been reimbursed, staff anticipates an
additional adjustment will be included as part of the Fiscal Year End
process.
182,000$ 182,000$
CITY OF PALO ALTO
RECOMMENDED AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY MANAGER'S FY 2019 BUDGET
Revenues Expenses
ATTACHMENT A, EXHIBIT 1
Department Adjustment Adjustment
GENERAL FUND
CITY OF PALO ALTO
RECOMMENDED AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY MANAGER'S FY 2019 BUDGET
Revenues Expenses
Fire Fire Academy New Hire Costs
This action increases the expense estimate for the onboarding of new
firefighter personnel. As part of the development of the FY 2019
Adopted Budget, funding was provided to offset the new hire costs of
anticipated vacancies in the department, including both attending the
Joint Fire Academy (JFA) and the provisioning of new hires with
personal protective equipment (PPE). This action provides additional
funding necessary due to the greater than anticipated hiring needs of
the Fire department. This additional funding includes the full cost of
the JFA and PPE. The funding included in the Adopted Budget and this
marginal adjustment will enable the Fire Department to provision nine
new firefighters with PPE and send them through necessary training at
the JFA.
‐$ 100,500$
Fire Contractual Increases
This action provides funding to accommodate contractual increases
and updated standards and requirements for some of the City’s
emergency medical equipment. The costs to maintain the City’s
Automated External Defibrillators (AEDs) has increased significantly and
the State of California now requires additional medical supplies be
carried onboard ambulances. The changes in medical supplies also
require a change in the organization of those supplies and the sorting
systems for them. A small increase is also necessary to align with the
most recent Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the International
Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF), primarily to ensure that foreign
language proficiency testing can be conducted.
‐$ 42,200$
Fire Replacement of Thermal Imaging Cameras
This action provides funding for the replacement of two Thermal
Imaging Cameras (TICs). TICs are installed on all fire response vehicles
to ensure that the source of fires, smoke, and heat can quickly be
determined and a plan of action to mitigate these threats can be
developed. Each of the eleven cameras the City maintains are nearing
the end of their useful life and two are inoperable. This funding will
provide for the replacement of the two inoperable cameras; options for
the replacement of the remaining nine cameras are anticipated to be
brought forward as part of the FY 2020 budget process.
‐$ 22,000$
ATTACHMENT A, EXHIBIT 1
Department Adjustment Adjustment
GENERAL FUND
CITY OF PALO ALTO
RECOMMENDED AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY MANAGER'S FY 2019 BUDGET
Revenues Expenses
Human
Resources
Organizational Development Training Plan (offset with Management
Training funds in Non‐Departmental)
This action increases the expense estimate to develop a comprehensive
City‐wide training plan. The Human Resources Department is in the
solicitation process to develop a City‐wide Training Plan for the
workforce. The selected vendor will develop training plans for each job
classification or grouped job classifications to develop employees and
identify necessary training due to continued staff turnover.
‐$ 30,000$
Human
Resources
Conflict Resolution Training (offset with Management Training Funds
in Non‐Departmental)
This action increases the expense estimate for consulting services to
provide coaching, training, and facilitation in conflict resolution. This
funding is necessary to continue these services in FY 2019.
‐$ 10,000$
Non‐
Departmental
Funding Shift from Non‐Departmental to Human Resources ‐
Management Training Funds
This action shifts Management training funds from Non‐Departmental
to the Human Resources Department to offset the costs of training
programs recommended as part of this report. The management
benefit program provides $1,000 per eligible employee per year with
the purpose of providing employees with resources to improve and
supplement their job and professional skills. In total, $345,000 of this
funding was reappropriated from FY 2018 into FY 2019 (CMR 9630) and
has been set aside to fund approved training programs.
‐$ $ (40,000)
Library Pacific Library Partnership Grants (Various)/ Revenue from Other
Agencies
This action increases grant revenues by $28,066 for multiple grants
received from the Pacific Library Partnership (PLP) in FY 2018 with
corresponding expense offsets specified in each grant for enhancing
literacy services and learning opportunities, which included the
following: hosting an event focused on staff development and use of
technology in the library ($5,000); expanding the Library’s bilingual
book collections for children ($6,757); covering costs for online
subscription services provided for by California Library Services Act
(CLSA) funds ($5,953); providing the community with equipment access
and support to digitally archive personal media ($9,506); purchasing
Amazon ECHO devices for an experimental remote eLibrary service to
patrons via a virtual assistant ($850). Grant funded projects are limited
in scope to the current fiscal year ending June 2019. Patrons will be
informed of the temporary nature of any subscription based services.
28,066$ 28,066$
ATTACHMENT A, EXHIBIT 1
Department Adjustment Adjustment
GENERAL FUND
CITY OF PALO ALTO
RECOMMENDED AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY MANAGER'S FY 2019 BUDGET
Revenues Expenses
Library Pacific Library Partnership Cybersecurity Training for Youth Grant/
Revenue from Other Agencies
This action increases grant revenues by $39,000 received from the
Pacific Library Partnership (PLP) as part of the FY 2019 Pitch‐An‐Idea
Local Grant with the California State Library's Library Services and
Technology Act (LSTA) for the proposed project "Cybersecurity Training
for Youth using Minecraft". Using gamification, this project will teach
cybersecurity to youth through the creation of an interactive, vendor
neutral cybersecurity learning platform in the videogame Minecraft.
Funds from this grant will support the project by covering the costs for
staff hours used to create the program. Grant funded projects are
limited in scope to the current fiscal year ending June 2019.
39,000$ 39,000$
Police Strike Team Reimbursement (Sonoma Fires)/ Revenue from Other
Agencies
This action increases the estimate for revenue from other agencies for
reimbursement from FEMA through the State of California Office of
Emergency Services for emergency services provided by Field Services,
Animal Services, and Dispatch teams on overtime as part of mutual aid
for Strike Teams that responded to Sonoma County wildfires during the
year. A commensurate increase to the overtime expense appropriation
for these services is also recommended.
28,020$ 28,020$
Police Strike Team Reimbursement (Kerlin Fire)/ Revenue from Other
Agencies
This action increases the estimate for revenue from other agencies for
reimbursement from the California Office of Emergency Services and
Federal Forestry for emergency services provided on overtime as part
of mutual aid for Strike Teams that responded to the Kerlin Fire. A
commensurate increase to the overtime expense appropriation for
these services is also recommended.
8,411$ 8,411$
Police Printing Services Adjustments
This action adjusts the allocated charges for printing activities due to
the addition of a printer in this department. A corresponding action in
the Printing and Mailing Fund is recommended to offset this action.
‐$ 6,000$
ATTACHMENT A, EXHIBIT 1
Department Adjustment Adjustment
GENERAL FUND
CITY OF PALO ALTO
RECOMMENDED AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY MANAGER'S FY 2019 BUDGET
Revenues Expenses
TECHNICAL ADJUSTMENTS
Non‐
Departmental
Stanford Fire Services Settlement
This action increases the expense appropriation in the General Fund to
settle a claim by Stanford for prior overpayment of fire protection
services. On August 20, 2018, the City Council approved a new
agreement to provide fire protection services to Stanford and agreed to
a settlement of $5.5 million for prior overpayment (CMR 9393). As part
of the FY 2018 year end process, funding within the Budget
Stabilization Reserve (BSR) was identified to offset the settlement costs
but was not appropriated for that purpose. This action ensures that
funding is appropriated and available to resolve the settlement.
‐$ 5,500,000$
Non‐
Departmental
Equity Transfer from the Electric and Gas Funds
This action increases the Equity Transfer from the Electric Fund to the
General Fund by $264,000 and from the Gas Fund to the General Fund
by $38,000 for a total increase of $302,000. This action brings the
equity transfer into alignment with the FY 2018 capital assets in these
funds reported in the FY 2018 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report
(CAFR) as of June 30, 2018.
302,000$ ‐$
Public Works Coaxial Communication Line Maintenance
This action reduces expenses charged to the Public Works Department
by the Electric Fund for communication line maintenance on coaxial
lines. This is a result of the City’s transition to fiber lines for this service;
therefore, the charges for coaxial line maintenance should be removed
from department budgets. A corresponding decrease in revenue in the
Electric Fund is recommended to offset this action.
‐$ (141,600)$
Non‐
Departmental
Transfer to Electric Fund for Streetlight and Traffic Signals
This action adjusts the General Fund's expenses to reimburse the
Electric Fund for street light and traffic signal costs based on the FY
2018 Electric Fund Cost of Services Analysis (COSA). The transfer
amounts were based on estimated expenses; however, due to lower
than anticipated expenses including unspent contract dollars and
vacancy savings the transfer is recommended to be adjusted
downward.
‐$ (329,119)$
Non‐
Departmental
Adjustment to Fund Balance (Budget Stabilization Reserve)
This action adjusts the General Fund Budget Stabilization Reserve to
offset the actions recommended in this report.
‐$ (4,925,481)$
GENERAL FUND (102 & 103) SUBTOTAL 587,497$ 587,497$
ATTACHMENT A, EXHIBIT 1
Department Adjustment Adjustment
GENERAL FUND
CITY OF PALO ALTO
RECOMMENDED AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY MANAGER'S FY 2019 BUDGET
Revenues Expenses
PUBLIC SERVICES DONATION FUND (191)
Police Animal Services/ Donation Revenue
This action recognizes a donation received from the Lenore C. Terry
Living Trust to assist the City of Palo Alto's Animal Services program,
which was named as a beneficiary of the trust. As the City begins its
partnership with Pets In Need, it is anticipated that the recommended
use of this funding will be brought forward as part of the development
of the FY 2020 Operating Budget.
1,000,000$ ‐$
Police Police Canine Program/ Donation Revenue
This action recognizes a donation received from a private donor to fund
the Police Department canine program and a corresponding increase to
the expense appropriation.
29,544$ 29,544$
Police North County Gun Buyback Program/ Donation Revenue
This action recognizes a donation received from 'Mothers Against
Murder' to fund the Police Department's participation in Santa Clara
County's North County Gun Buyback program and a corresponding
increase to the expense appropriation.
2,500$ 2,500$
Non‐
Departmental
Adjustment to Fund Balance
This action adjusts the fund balance to offset adjustments
recommended in this report.
‐$ 1,000,000$
PUBLIC SERVICES DONATION FUND (191) SUBTOTAL 1,032,044$ 1,032,044$
ATTACHMENT A, EXHIBIT 1
Department Adjustment Adjustment
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND (471)
Capital Capital Improvement Project Adjustments
This action reflects the combined impact from adjustments to projects
as outlined in Attachment A, Exhibit 2.
(1,450,000)$ 133,333$
Capital Adjustment to Fund Balance (Infrastructure Reserve)
This action adjusts the fund balance to offset adjustments
recommended in this report.
‐$ (1,583,333)$
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND (471) SUBTOTAL (1,450,000)$ (1,450,000)$
CITY OF PALO ALTO
RECOMMENDED AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY MANAGER'S FY 2019 BUDGET
Revenues Expenses
ATTACHMENT A, EXHIBIT 1
Department Adjustment Adjustment
ENTERPRISE FUNDS
ELECTRIC FUND (513 & 523)
Capital Capital Improvement Project Adjustments
This action reflects the combined impact from adjustments to projects
as outlined in Attachment A, Exhibit 2.
‐$ 85,000$
Utilities Equity Transfer from the Electric Funds
This action increases the Equity Transfer from the Electric Fund to the
General Fund by $264,000. This action brings the equity transfer into
alignment with the FY 2018 capital assets in these funds reported in the
FY 2018 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) as of June 30,
2018.
‐$ 264,000$
Utilities Transfer to Electric Fund for Streetlight and Traffic Signals
This action adjusts the revenues received from the General Fund to
reimburse the Electric Fund for street light and traffic signal costs based
on the FY 2018 Electric Fund Cost of Services Analysis (COSA). The
transfer amounts were based on estimated expenses; however, due to
lower than anticipated expenses including unspent contract dollars and
vacancy savings the transfer is recommended to be adjusted downward.
(329,119)$ ‐$
Utilities Coaxial Communication Line Maintenance
This action reduces revenue received from the Information Technology
Fund ($16,006) and General Fund ($141,600) for communication line
maintenance on coaxial lines. This is a result of the City’s transition to
fiber lines for this service; therefore, the charges for coaxial line
maintenance and associated revenue should be removed from
department budgets.
(157,606)$
Utilities Adjustment to Fund Balance
This action adjusts the fund balance to offset adjustments
recommended in this report.
‐$ (835,725)$
ELECTRIC FUND (513 & 523) SUBTOTAL (486,725)$ (486,725)$
FIBER OPTICS FUND (533)
Capital Capital Improvement Project Adjustments
This action reflects the combined impact from adjustments to projects
as outlined in Attachment A, Exhibit 2.
‐$ ‐$
FIBER OPTICS FUND (533) SUBTOTAL ‐$ ‐$
CITY OF PALO ALTO
RECOMMENDED AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY MANAGER'S FY 2019 BUDGET
Revenues Expenses
ATTACHMENT A, EXHIBIT 1
Department Adjustment Adjustment
ENTERPRISE FUNDS
CITY OF PALO ALTO
RECOMMENDED AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY MANAGER'S FY 2019 BUDGET
Revenues Expenses
GAS FUND (514 & 524)
Utilities Equity Transfer from the Gas Funds
This action increases the Equity Transfer from the Gas Fund to the
General Fund by $38,000. This action brings the equity transfer into
alignment with the FY 2018 capital assets in these funds reported in the
FY 2018 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) as of June 30,
2018.
‐$ 38,000$
Utilities Gas Commodity Costs/ Customer Sales
This action provides additional funding of $400,000 necessitated by the
increased cost of gas commodities in alignment with market trends. The
market price for gas per therm increased by 25% from $0.3831 to
$0.6255 for December 2018, requiring this additional funding.
400,000$ 400,000$
Utilities Adjustment to Fund Balance
This action adjusts the fund balance to offset adjustments
recommended in this report.
‐$ (38,000)$
GAS FUND (514 & 524) SUBTOTAL 400,000$ 400,000$
REFUSE FUND (525)
Public Works Printing Services Adjustments
This action adjusts the allocated charges for printing activities due to the
addition of a printer in this department. A corresponding action in the
Printing and Mailing Fund is recommended to offset this action.
‐$ 3,000$
Public Works Adjustment to Fund Balance
This action decreases the fund balance to offset adjustments
recommended in this report.
‐$ (3,000)$
REFUSE FUND (525) SUBTOTAL ‐$ ‐$
WASTEWATER TREATMENT FUND (526)
Public Works Printing Services Adjustments
This action adjusts the allocated charges for printing activities due to the
addition of a printer in this department. A corresponding action in the
Printing and Mailing Fund is recommended to offset this action.
‐$ 1,000$
Public Works Adjustment to Fund Balance
This action decreases the fund balance to offset adjustments
recommended in this report.
‐$ (1,000)$
WASTEWATER TREATMENT FUND (526) SUBTOTAL ‐$ ‐$
ATTACHMENT A, EXHIBIT 1
Department Adjustment Adjustment
INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS
GENERAL BENFITS FUND (687)
Non‐
Departmental
Excess FY 2018 Pension Funding to Public Agency Retirement Services
(PARS)
This action appropriates approximately $2.0 million in funding to be sent
to the City's irrevocable IRS Section 115 Trust Fund administered by
PARS. Funds collected in the General Benefits Fund for annual pension
payments in FY 2018 exceeded CalPERS required contribution levels.
Excess funding was the result of a change in methodology from
repayment of the entire annual amount to prepayment of only the
Unfunded Accrued Liability (UAL). Approximately $1.26 million is from
General Fund contributions for the miscellaneous and safety plans, while
the remaining $724,000 is from other funds for the miscellaneous plan.
Including this action, total contributions of approximately $13.6 million
will have been made since the fund was established in FY 2017.
‐$ 1,980,000$
Non‐
Departmental
Adjustment to Fund Balance
This action adjusts the fund balance to offset adjustments
recommended in this report.
‐$ (1,980,000)$
GENERAL BENFITS FUND (687) SUBTOTAL ‐$ ‐$
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY FUND (682)
Information
Technology
Coaxial Communication Line Maintenance
This action reduces expenses charged to the Information Technology
Department by the Electric Fund for communication line maintenance
on coaxial lines. This is a result of the City’s transition to fiber lines for
this service; therefore, the charges for coaxial line maintenance should
be removed from department budgets. A corresponding decrease in
revenue in the Electric Fund is recommended to offset this action.
‐$ (16,006)$
Information
Technology
Adjustment to Fund Balance
This action adjusts the fund balance to offset adjustments
recommended in this report.
‐$ 16,006$
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY FUND (682) SUBTOTAL ‐$ ‐$
CITY OF PALO ALTO
RECOMMENDED AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY MANAGER'S FY 2019 BUDGET
Revenues Expenses
ATTACHMENT A, EXHIBIT 1
Department Adjustment Adjustment
INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS
CITY OF PALO ALTO
RECOMMENDED AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY MANAGER'S FY 2019 BUDGET
Revenues Expenses
PRINTING & MAILING FUND (683)
Administrative
Services
Printing Services Adjustments/ Charges to Other Funds
This action increases the expense estimate for the addition of six new
printers throughout the City. The cost of these services are budgeted as
allocated charges in various departments and funds; therefore, a
corresponding increases in various departments' allocated charges for
the payment of the new printers are also recommended to offset this
expense.
18,500$ 18,500$
PRINTING & MAILING FUND (683) SUBTOTAL 18,500$ 18,500$
ATTACHMENT A, EXHIBIT 1
Department Adjustment Adjustment
SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) FUND (232)
Planning &
Community
Environment
FY 2019 CDBG Allocation
This action increases revenue and expense estimates to align with final
2018‐2019 CDBG allocations. The City of Palo Alto receives funds
annually from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD) as an entitlement city under the CDBG program. This is the
principal Federal program that provides funds to the CDBG Program to
expand and maintain affordable housing supply, promote housing
opportunities, improve and maintain community facilities, and increase
economic opportunities for persons of low and moderate income. At
the timing of the development of the FY 2019 Budget, the CDBG federal
appropriations for Fiscal Year 2018‐2019 had not yet been confirmed.
For budgeting purposes, staff included estimates for the HUD
Entitlement Grant for FY 2019. This action will add $92,138 to revenue
and expense appropriations to align the budget with the final CDBG
allocation ($670,434) as approved by the City Council on May 7, 2018
(CMR 9128).
92,138$ 92,138$
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) FUND (232) SUBTOTAL 92,138$ 92,138$
CITY OF PALO ALTO
RECOMMENDED AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY MANAGER'S FY 2019 BUDGET
Revenues Expenses
ATTACHMENT A, EXHIBIT 2
Project
Title Number Revenues Expenses Comments
Baylands Flood
Protection Levee
Improvements
PE‐17006 $ ‐ $ 133,333 This action provides additional funding for the
third and final invoice to the Santa Clara Valley
Water District for the construction of the San
Francisquito Creek Flood Reduction, Ecosystem
Restoration, and Recreation Project, from San
Francisco Bay to Highway 101. These payments
were approved to be funded through the
Infrastructure Reserve by the City Council on June
6, 2016 (CMR 7014).
Charleston/Arastradero
Corridor Project
PE‐13011 $ (1,450,000) $ ‐ This action is a technical correction to lower
revenue estimates. Revenue for this project was
inadvertently reappropriated from FY 2018 to FY
2019 in CMR 9630; that revenue was
reappropriated as part of the FY 2019 Adopted
Capital Budget.
$ (1,450,000) $ 133,333
ELECTRIC FUND
SCADA System Upgrades EL‐02010 $ ‐ $ 200,000 This action provides additional funding to address
unanticipated costs that were not assumed as part
of the FY 2019 Adopted Capital Budget. The
additional funding will be used to purchase and
install a demilitarized zone (DMZ) to address cyber
security risks and thwart hacking into control
systems, such as the City's Supervisory Control and
Data Acquisition (SCADA) system, by positioning an
isolated network between the Internet and the
private network. This will allow staff extra time to
detect and address breaches before they can
further penetrate into the internal networks.
Rebuild Underground
District 19
EL‐11008 $ ‐ $ (115,000) This action removes funding since this project is no
longer necessary. District 19 is in close proximity to
the Rebuild Underground District 24 project (EL‐
10006). As a result of that proximity, the
construction contract and engineering activities
have been consolidated into EL‐10006. Therefore,
remaining funding in EL‐11008 can be removed and
the project can be closed.
ELECTRIC FUND PROJECT ADJUSTMENTS $ ‐ $ 85,000
CITY OF PALO ALTO
RECOMMENDED AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY MANAGER'S FY 2019 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND
TOTAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND
PROJECT ADJUSTMENTS
ATTACHMENT A, EXHIBIT 2
Project
Title Number Revenues Expenses Comments
CITY OF PALO ALTO
RECOMMENDED AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY MANAGER'S FY 2019 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Fiber Optics Network
System Improvements
FO‐10001 $ ‐ $ 120,000 This action provides additional funding to address
unanticipated costs for additional paving that were
not included in the initial scope of the Upgrade
Downtown project. This cost is recommended to be
offset by a reduction to the Fiber Optics System
Rebuild project (FO‐16000).
Fiber Optics System
Rebuild
FO‐16000 $ ‐ $ (120,000) This action recommends a reduction in funding to
offset additional funding needs of the Fiber Optics
Network System Improvements project (FO‐
10001).
$ ‐ $ ‐
FIBER OPTICS FUND
TOTAL FIBER OPTICS FUND PROJECT
ADJUSTMENTS
Attachment B
Q2
2017 2018 2019
POLICE DEPARTMENT
Overtime Expense
Adopted Budget $1,500,000 $1,700,000 $1,776,500
Modified Budget (B)1,500,000 1,700,000 1,812,931
Net Overtime Cost - see below 424,873 347,677 149,969
Variance to Budget 1,075,127 1,352,323 1,662,962
Overtime Net Cost
Actual Expense $2,010,204 $2,286,527 $1,448,138
Less Reimbursements
California OES/FEMA (Strike Teams)- - 36,431
Stanford Communications 66,741 75,275 47,493
Utilities Communications Reimbursement 34,416 38,227 23,834
Local Agencies (A)12,079 11,431 6,913
Police Service Fees 69,396 73,600 93,230
Total Reimbursements 182,632 198,533 207,901
Less Department Vacancies 1,402,699 1,740,318 1,090,268
Net Overtime Cost $424,873 $347,677 $149,969
Department Vacancies (number of days)5,211 5,777 3,839
Workers' Compensation Cases 8 5 5
Department Disabilities (number of days)219 120 67
FIRE DEPARTMENT
Overtime Expense
Adopted Budget $1,413,714 $1,396,436 $1,911,761
Modified Budget (B)1,632,714 1,571,436 2,093,761
Net Overtime Cost - see below 2,300,994 2,675,517 1,267,841
Variance to Budget ($668,280)(1,104,081) $825,920
Overtime Net Cost
Actual Expense $3,571,729 $3,839,426 $1,747,347
Less Reimbursements
California OES/FEMA (Strike Teams)55,549 489,062 182,000
Total Reimbursements 55,549 489,062 182,000
Less Department Vacancies 1,215,185 674,847 297,506
Net Overtime Cost $2,300,994 $2,675,517 $1,267,841
Department Vacancies (number of days)4,983 5,293 182
Workers' Compensation Cases 4 8 14
Department Disabilities (number of days)732 223 224
NOTES:
(A)Includes Animal Services contract with Los Altos and Los Altos Hills.
(B)FY 2019 includes overtime adjustments recommended as part of the FY 2019 Mid-year review for confirmed Strike Team
Reimbursements in the Fire Deparment ($182,000) and Police Department ($36,431).
Public Safety Departments
Overtime Analysis for Fiscal Years 2017 through 2019
City of Palo Alto (ID # 10015)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 2/4/2019
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: 3705 El Camino Real: Apply AH Zoning Overlay (2nd Reading)
Title: SECOND READING: 3703-3709 El Camino Real [18PLN-00136]: Adoption
of An Ordinance to Apply the Affordable Housing (AH) Combining District to
the Subject Site. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the Provisions of
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Guideline Section 15194
(Affordable Housing). Zoning District: CN (Neighborhood Commercial). (FIRST
READING: January 14, 2019 PASSED 6-0, Kniss absent)
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment
Recommendation
Staff recommends that Council conduct a second reading and adopt the attached ordinance
(Attachment A) amending the Zoning Map to add the Affordable Housing (AH) Combining
District to the subject site.
Background
On January 14, 2019, the City Council reviewed and adopted on first reading a draft ordinance
amending the Zoning Map to add the Affordable Housing (AH) Combining District to the site.
The adoption of the ordinance was accompanied by the approval of a Record of Land Use
Action for architectural review, design enhancement exception, and retail preservation waiver
associated with a 4-story, 59-unit, 100% affordable housing project on the site that would
utilize the standards enabled by the AH Combining District. The staff report, video, and draft
minutes of the January 14, 2018 hearing are linked below:
Staff Report: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/68435
Video: https://midpenmedia.org/city-council-152-1142019/
Draft Minutes: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/68533
Discussion
City of Palo Alto Page 2
The process for approving an Ordinance is set forth in PAMC Section 2.04.270 and Section
18.80. The Council may, after consideration of the recommendation of the Planning and
Transportation Commission, and the completion of a public hearing, approve, modify, or
disapprove the proposed change of-district boundaries or change of any other provisions of the
Zoning Code. Should the Council determine that a change is appropriate, such change shall be
accomplished by ordinance. As stated in Section 2.04.270, with the sole exception of
ordinances which take effect upon adoption, no ordinance shall be passed by the council on the
day of its introduction nor within ten days thereafter, nor at any other time than at a regular or
special meeting. Ordinances presented to the council for second reading shall be agendized as
consent items and may be removed for debate and discussion only upon a majority vote of the
council members present and voting. This shall not prevent council members from making short
comments on consent items.
The proposed ordinance applies the Affordable Housing Overlay to the subject property and
will become effective 31 days following approval of this second reading.
Attachments:
Attachment A: Draft Ordinance (DOCX)
Not Yet Adopted
Ordinance No. ____
Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the
Zoning Map of the City of Palo Alto for 3703-3705 and 3707-3709
El Camino Real to add the Affordable Housing (AH) Combining
District to the Existing Neighborhood Commercial (CN) District
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows:
SECTION 1. The City Council finds as follows:
(A) The Planning and Transportation Commission ("Commission"), after a duly noticed
public hearing on September 26, 2018, recommended that the City Council of the
City of Palo Alto ("Council") rezone the subject site (3703-3705 and 3707-3709 El
Camino Real) from CN Neighborhood Commercial to CN (AH) Neighborhood
Commercial with Affordable Housing Combining District.
(B) After reviewing the facts presented at a public hearing, including public testimony
and reports and recommendations from the Director of Planning and Community
Environment, the Commission recommended that the subject site meets the
commercial zoning and transit proximity requirements of the Affordable Housing
Combining District and that rezoning to the CN (AH) designation would be consistent
with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan.
(C) The Council held a duly noticed public hearing on the matter on January 14, 2019,
found the project exempt from environmental review, and after reviewing all
relevant information, including staff reports, and all testimony, written and oral,
presented on the matter, found that the public interest, health, and welfare require
an amendment to the Zoning Map of the City of Palo Alto.
SECTION 2. Amendment of Zoning Map
Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, the “Zoning Map,” is hereby
amended by applying the Affordable Housing (AH) combining district to all that real property
situated in the City of Palo Alto, County of Santa Clara, State of California, described in Exhibit 1
(Legal Description and Map) attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, and
commonly known as 3703-3705 and 3707-3709 El Camino Real.
SECTION 3. The Council hereby finds that this rezoning is subject to environmental
review under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The rezoning is
exempt from CEQA per Section 15194 of the CEQA Guidelines, which exempts affordable
housing projects meeting certain criteria.
SECTION 4. This ordinance shall be effective upon the thirty-first (31st) day after its
passage and adoption. In the event that the planning entitlements granted in Record of Land
Not Yet Adopted
Use Action No. 2019-XX expire, this ordinance shall be automatically repealed and the zoning
map for the real property described in Exhibit 1 shall be amended to remove the Affordable
Housing (AH) combining district without the need for further action by the City Council.
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
_________________________ ____________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
___________________________ ____________________________
Deputy City Attorney Interim Director of Planning and
Community Environment
Not Yet Adopted
3705 El Camino Real – Legal Description
Not Yet Adopted
3707 El Camino Real – Legal Description
Not Yet Adopted
City of Palo Alto (ID # 9901)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 2/4/2019
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Stanford GUP DA Comment Letter
Title: Provide Direction to Staff on a Letter to the Santa Clara County
Planning Department Regarding Requested Terms for Inclusion in a Possible
Development Agreement Between the County and Stanford University
Related to the General Use Permit Application
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the City Council:
1. Provide direction to staff on key issues the Council would like addressed in a
development agreement between Stanford University and Santa Clara County.
2. Direct staff to prepare a letter, signed by the Mayor, to the County Board of Supervisors
that reflects Council’s direction.
BACKGROUND
On January 3, 2017 Stanford Leland Jr. University (University) applied for a General Use Permit
(GUP). The GUP is a Santa Clara County application that once approved, will prescribe how
much future development can occur on the University’s campus over the next 17 years. The
County Board of Supervisors (Supervisors) is the decision-making body on this application, not
the City of Palo Alto.
Accompanying the GUP application is a development agreement (DA) application that the
University filed last summer. A DA is an agreement between two or more parties that typically
vests certain development rights in exchange for a negotiated and mutually agreed upon set of
public benefits. Stanford University proposed certain terms, but County staff has reported a
number of concerns to the Supervisors. In response, the Supervisors formed an Ad Hoc
committee to receive input from impacted jurisdictions as a means to solicit feedback on public
benefits that may be incorporated into the agreement. The purpose of this staff report is to
City of Palo Alto Page 2
highlight and receive City Council direction on the key issues that should be communicated to
the Supervisors for consideration in their negotiation with the University.
The subject GUP application proposes approximately 2.275 million square feet of additional
academic space, 40,000 square feet of child care and support facilities and 3,150 new dwelling
units/beds for faculty and students on campus. The project is subject to environmental analysis
and in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the County prepared
an environmental impact report (EIR). A draft EIR was released on October 6, 2017 for public
comment. A recirculated draft EIR was released in June 2018 to include an analysis of
anticipated housing demand from the project; this analysis was presented as two new
alternatives and also received public comment. The City of Palo Alto and other jurisdictions,
including the Palo Alto Unified School District, noted a variety of concerns with both
documents. A final EIR was released on December 11, 2018. City staff along with its consultants
are reviewing this report and continue to have concerns regarding the adequacy of the
document under CEQA. Staff anticipates preparing a letter to the County regarding these
deficiencies to preserve the City’s options should the DA negotiations fail to produce results
that fully mitigate impacts of the proposed development.
DISCUSSION
Development agreement negotiations are anticipated to begin in February between Santa Clara
County and the University; the County will also likely begin drafting conditions of approval that
apply to the GUP. Public hearings are scheduled to occur before the County Planning
Commission in March / April and in May / June before the Supervisors.
Staff has heard a number of concerns from Palo Alto residents and the school district with
respect to the proposed expansion. Some City departments are also concerned about how the
project may impact certain services. When preparing the recommended list below, staff
focused on those impacts that were most relevant to the City’s interests, directly related to the
proposed expansion, or mutually benefitted the City and the University. Beyond the
recommended list, other topics are provided that the Council may want to consider forwarding
to the Supervisors. However, the more requests made of Stanford, both the University and the
Supervisors may be unwilling to accept or advance those interests. Furthermore, many
jurisdictions are monitoring this project and will likely prepare their own recommendations for
inclusion in the DA.
Recommended for Inclusion in DA Discussions1
1 Mayor Filseth sent a letter to the Board of Supervisors President expressing City support for PAUSD and a shared
interest that the University fully mitigates its impacts to the school district. This letter is included with this report
as Attachment A.
City of Palo Alto Page 3
1. Funding for Design Concepts Related to University Avenue CalTrain Station
Improvements, the Transit Center, Grade Separation at Palo Alto Avenue and a
Downtown Coordinated Area Plan.
This recommendation includes a request for one million dollars ($1,000,000) to cost
share the preparation of a Downtown Coordinated Area Plan (Downtown CAP) that
would look at grade separation alternatives at Palo Alto Avenue, changes to the Caltrain
station to accommodate electrification, including a raised platform, and alternatives to
improve the multi-modal functionality of the Transit Center. Included in this design
concept would be alternatives to improve bicycle and pedestrian movement around the
station and create a more welcoming experience for transit riders whose final
destination is toward the University or Downtown Palo Alto. The Downtown CAP will
also address urban design, infrastructure, parking, mobility and land uses for the City’s
Downtown, as well as include preparation of any required environmental analysis. With
this recommendation, the City would seek to maximize any grant funding resources, and
seek funding from other affected institutions, but City funding, beyond staff resources,
is also anticipated.
Preliminary analysis by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission indicates that
improvements to the transit center can reduce bus travel time up to five minutes. This
represents a significant transit enhancement that benefits riders and transit providers.
For many, this station also serves as the entry to the University and there are
opportunities to enhance the quality of this space and movement of people to their final
destination. The University currently, and in the future with the proposed project, will
rely heavily on this Caltrain station to meet their No Net New Commute Trip (NNNCT)
efforts. The City and the University, as well as other parties would benefit from a well-
developed coordinated plan.
2. Fair-share funding for infrastructure and design enhancements that are approved and
implemented from the adoption of the Downtown CAP.
A percentage of Stanford Affiliates2 use Caltrain, which will increase with the proposed
campus expansion. The Caltrain electrification project will add passenger cars and
increase train frequency to respond to increased ridership, including riders to and from
the University. Electrification requires Palo Alto and other jurisdictions to participate
with Caltrain on grade separation projects or face substantial traffic congestion and
other impacts. Residents, workers, and commuters, including Stanford Affiliates, will all
experience delays, increased driver frustration and other quality of life impacts without
grade separation.
2 Includes faculty, students and employees.
City of Palo Alto Page 4
The City of Palo Alto is using the Downtown CAP as a means to evaluate grade
separation at Palo Alto Avenue, enhance the transit center and examine multi-modal
access to and around the station to nearby destinations. Implementation of
infrastructure improvements, design enhancements and wayfinding will benefit the
University and transit providers including VTA, SamTrans and the University’s
Marguerite Shuttle. As a key landowner and primary benefactor of future
improvements, it is appropriate that the University have a significant role in the
planning and implementation phases of the Downtown CAP. Staff recommends the City
Council encourage the Supervisors to work with the City and the University to
determine a fair, cost-sharing framework to implement the Downtown CAP with
appropriate expectations and guidelines for administration and dispute resolution as
part of the DA.
3. Fair-share Funding for Grade Separation at Charleston.
The County prepared final EIR states the proposed expansion will result in a significant
and unavoidable traffic impact at the Charleston/Alma intersection due to the proposed
expansion’s reverse peak hour traffic. Mitigation is proposed that would add a
northbound turning lane on Charleston Road, but this solution conflicts with the City’s
Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. Grade separating CalTrain tracks at this location
would improve the operation of this intersection and address the project-related traffic
impact. The Council may want to consider requesting the Supervisors apply any
mitigation at this intersection toward the Charleston grade separation and further
require an analysis that would fairly evaluate all University bound traffic through this
intersection (existing and anticipated) as a means to allocate fair-share costs toward
grade separation. This analysis and funding would need to be completed in a timeframe
consistent with the City’s work to address grade separation at this location.
4. Contribution to the City’s Affordable Housing Fund.
The City of Palo Alto is the jurisdiction most impacted by existing campus operations
and the proposed expansion. According to County staff, based on self-reported data
from the University, nineteen percent (19%) of Stanford Affiliates reside in Palo Alto.
This demand for housing will increase with the proposed expansion. The County’s
updated recirculated draft EIR estimates an approximate 2,500 additional housing unit
are needed to accommodate the University’s expansion in addition to the 3,150 new
housing units/beds included in the GUP application. Each new Stanford Affiliate creates
a demand for new services (jobs) and new housing. While the Supervisors recently
adopted a new affordable housing impact fee that applies to the University, this money
is controlled and distributed by the County and may or may not directly benefit Palo
City of Palo Alto Page 5
Alto. The University has recently filed a lawsuit against the County regarding the
adoption of this new housing impact fee.
To help mitigate housing-related impacts associated with the University’s academic
growth, staff recommends the City Council request the Supervisors require the
University to pay the City an affordable housing impact fee for any development within
the City’s Sphere of Influence, which generally extends from El Camino Real to Junipero
Serra Boulevard. The City could request this fee be tied to the City of Palo Alto’s housing
impact fee with payment due prior to issuance of any County building permit. Based on
the proposed expansion and the City’s current fee schedule, this would represent
approximately $82,400,000 dollars over the course of 17 years. Alternatively, the
Council may consider other options to request upfront money to facilitate timelier
development of affordable housing units that will be required as a growth inducing
impact of the project.
5. Long Term Preservation of the Foothills from Development.
The County released the Stanford University Sustainable Development Study
Supplement3 on September 1, 2018. This document informs a key question concerning
the University’s ultimate buildout potential and concludes that over the next 100 years
campus development can be contained within the Academic Growth Boundary (AGB).
Beyond this timeframe the report anticipates societal and technological changes will
extend the carrying capacity of the AGB further reducing pressure for development in
the foothills. The 2000 GUP included a provision that required a supermajority 4/5ths
vote by the Supervisors to allow development in the foothills allowing only minor
academic and research support uses and activities (such as barns and farming-related
uses). Staff recommends the Council seek to continue, and strengthen this requirement
based on the conclusions of the sustainability study. For instance, precluding any
development through 2100 or some other time horizon will provide a level of certainty
to Palo Alto residents that the foothills will be protected and allow the Supervisors by a
4/5ths vote to approve minor academic support facilities consistent with the type of
development that has occurred with the 2000 GUP.
6. Upstream Flood Water Detention.
Palo Alto and other communities downstream from the University have endured
repeated flood events. The San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority (SFCJPA)
working with Palo Alto and other partners is completing construction of two major
capital projects downstream of the University. The SFCJPA has been in discussion with
the University regarding options for an upstream flood water detention project at
3 https://drive.google.com/file/d/1mIq6mDuW3pMvl-5O-XCetmGBrPWHT-PE/view
City of Palo Alto Page 6
Searsville dam or other location. The SFCJPA has prepared a letter to the County that
staff recommends the Council support for inclusion in the DA. Specifically, staff
recommends the University join the City of Palo Alto, the SFCJPA and other partners to
provide the land and fair share funding necessary to install upstream storm water
detention facilities adequate to control downstream flows that reduces the risk of
flooding. The SFCJPA letter to the Supervisor’s is provided in Attachment B.
Staff has identified the following additional items for Council deliberation and possible inclusion
in a request to the Supervisor’s for the DA discussion.
A. Housing Development within the Academic Growth Boundary (AGB) and Roadway
Impacts
The County’s recirculated DEIR concludes approximately 2,500 additional on-campus
housing units are needed to meet increased housing demand generated by the
proposed expansion. The University proposes to construct 3,150 housing units/beds,
including 550 deed restricted affordable housing units.
To fully mitigate project related impacts, the Supervisors may require additional housing
on campus. More on campus housing is expected to have the greatest impact to the City
of Palo Alto as more localized trips and reverse commute trips can be anticipated. If
additional on campus housing is required, the City Council may want to assert the need
for a study to evaluate the physical impact on Palo Alto’s local and collector street
system and payment of an ongoing fair share contribution for maintenance to the City’s
impacted roadway.
B. County Collected Affordable Housing Funds.
The 2000 GUP had a restriction that any affordable housing funds collected by the
County were to be used for projects that were located within six miles of the academic
growth boundary. The University has proposed modifying this standard to support
affordable housing projects within one half mile of a transit corridor. The City Council
may want to consider requesting the Supervisors retain the six mile radius or require
housing funds generated from the housing development fee to be spent on projects
within one half mile of a fixed rail location.
C. College Terrace Neighborhood Parks.
The University has indicated as part of its project description that, based on current
levels of Stanford Affiliate use, it would provide a $375,000 one-time payment to the
City of Palo Alto Page 7
City for the four parks4 located in the College Terrace neighborhood. This payment is not
provided to mitigate an environmental impact, but in recognition that future Stanford
Affiliates are most likely to use these parks. Staff supports this aspect of the project and
recommends the Council consider encouraging the Supervisors also include an on-going
(annual) park maintenance contribution to the City based on a proportion of the City’s
annual maintenance budget for these four parks to offset the recognized impacts of
future Stanford Affiliates over the next 17 years.
D. Palo Alto Shuttle Support.
The University has demonstrated its success in running an effective shuttle program
with its Marguerite Shuttle. The City’s shuttle program is smaller and does not achieve
desired ridership but remains an essential transportation solution for many in the
community. The City Council may want to consider if there are opportunities for the
University to replace the City’s shuttle program with enhanced service in addition to
crosstown service. Some residents have expressed concerns that increased Marguerite
Shuttle service in town may result in more Stanford Affiliates parking on residential
streets that do not have parking time restrictions.
E. Bol Park Path Improvements.
This pathway is a key connection from the University to Stanford Research Park and can
be used by Stanford Affiliates and PAUSD students. The University can use trip credits
from the Bol Park Path to achieve NNNCT goals. To make the necessary improvements
an easement for bicycle / pedestrian improvements on University property at Hanover
Street between California and Page Mill Road would be needed, as well as $250,000 for
signal modifications or other physical improvements required for the pathway.
F. Various Topics.
As directed by Council, staff could explore other requests that relate to the following
topics, however, while important to the community, these requests are mostly related
to additional funding and would compete with the larger policy objectives provided
above.
• Funding for the implementation of the City’s 2012 Bike and Pedestrian Plan,
including Safe Routes to Schools, for areas that directly benefit the University;
• Funding for crossing guard program in areas impacted by University traffic and
frequency of use by Stanford Affiliates and their families.
4 Terman, Weisshaar, Cameron and Mayfield Parks
City of Palo Alto Page 8
• Where Stanford Affiliates impact residential neighborhood parking in Palo Alto,
require contribution of funds to the City to be used for establishing Residential
Parking Permit programs including parking use study, infrastructure and on-going
administration.
Conditions of Approval
In addition to addressing project-related impacts to the City through the DA, staff is also
reviewing the past GUP (2000) for applicable conditions that should carry over to the new GUP,
and new conditions to ensure that other issues are addressed. Below are some topics staff will
be included in the letter to the Supervisors for their consideration (full text will be drafted
following the Council meeting):
1. Zoning and Noise. Apply the City of Palo Alto development standards and noise limits to
property and uses in the academic growth boundary within 150 feet of City limits (DEIR
mitigation)
2. Construction Parking. Require the University to submit an on-campus staging and
parking plan that addresses parking for all construction equipment and construction
workers with each project proposed. The University shall be responsible for enforcing
the contractor’s compliance. Such plans shall ensure that at there is at no time any
obstruction to emergency vehicle access to and through the construction area.
3. No Net New Commute Modification. To better address the impact of reverse peak hour
trips and the need to include them in the NNNCT computation, University generated
peak hour trips entering and exiting through the same or adjacent gateways should be
included as peak hour trips.
4. I-280/Page Mill Road. The FEIR bases the fair share payment for mitigation of impacts to
this intersection on a traffic signal. City staff supports the installation of a round-about
at this intersection as included in the County’s Page Mill Expressway Study. This study
was not addressed in the DEIR. The University should provide its fair share of the cost of
the round-about.
5. Improvements to Bowdoin/Stanford Avenue Intersection. Pedestrians and bicyclists
crossings at this gateway intersection between the University and Palo Alto is
challenging. The University shall participate with the City to construct a round-about at
the Bowdoin/Stanford Avenue intersection. This improvement is currently in the
planning stage at the City, pending the University’s participation. Upon the City’s
completion of the design, the University should contribute its fair share, about one-half
the cost of construction.
City of Palo Alto Page 9
6. Special Events. To address parking and traffic impacts generated by special events held
on the campus, require the University to prepare a Special Events Traffic Management
Plan for submittal to the County and City for approval. Public notice requirements for
each event for residents of Palo Alto and Menlo Park and adjacent neighborhoods in
both jurisdictions shall be included in the plan. (2000 GUP condition)
7. Event Facilities. All University projects that include serving large group events such as
stadiums, performance venues, etc. included in the 2018 GUP as academic support
space shall be subject to additional environmental evaluation and traffic and parking
impact studies. (2000 GUP condition)
8. Environmental Review. Establish a limit of 20% on the amount of academic floor area or
housing units that can be redistributed within the AGB between development districts
before additional environmental review is required. (2000 GUP condition, modified)
9. Fireworks. Limit firework displays to two per year, unless otherwise permitted through a
County approved Special Events permit that includes public notice in Palo Alto (2000
GUP condition)
10. Housing Production. Establish a housing linkage ratio that establishes a link between
housing units/beds to be constructed in advance of any expansion of academic and
support floor area. The University should demonstrate to the County that the housing
need generated by the academic space is available and provided before construction
begins. (2000 GUP condition)
11. Parking Reserve. To support Traffic Management Demand (TDM) incentives, limit on
campus parking for academic/academic support space to the maximum allowed in the
2000 GUP, except as necessary for new residential uses in the AGB. (Modification of
Project request for a 2,000 parking space reserve over the total parking allowed in the
2000 GUP, 19,000 spaces.)
12. Mitigation Measures and Development Agreement. The City of Palo Alto should be
informed of any changes approved by the County to the Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program, the Development Agreement, or any permit conditions after project
approval.
13. Update Protocol. The University, County and City currently have a three party
agreement that outlines all adopted land use designations, regulations, restrictions, and
review and referral procedures governing. The Protocol should be updated within six
months following adoption of the GUP application.
Staff will continue to review the prior GUP and consider other conditions that may not be
City of Palo Alto Page 10
reflected above.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The University’s proposed expansion has the potential to impact the City of Palo Alto, PAUSD
and other jurisdictions even with mitigation measures and conditions of approval. Increased
academic floor area will result in more jobs, increased student enrollment and need for more
housing. Additional traffic congestion and University-related intrusions into established
residential neighborhoods is likely and demand for public services are anticipated. From an
environmental perspective, City staff remains concerned that the County prepared documents
have not fully anticipated the increased demand on public infrastructure, traffic and other
factors. Many of these issues could be addressed through the DA, but the City has no direct role
in those negotiations.
The City’s Comprehensive Plan includes policies that support the recommendations in this
report. Specifically, Policy L-4.8 and Programs L4.8.1 and L4.8.2 seek enhance the Downtown
area as a major commercial center that is pedestrian-friendly and inviting to pedestrians and
bicyclists. The two Programs require the preparation of a Downtown area plan and feasibility
studies exploring the conversion of University Avenue to a pedestrian zone. Policy T-3.15
declares as a City priority grade separation along the rail corridor and is supported by Program
T3.15.2, which seeks a study to evaluate the implications of grade separation on bicycle and
pedestrian circulation. Program T1.26.1 encourages collaboration with regional agencies and
neighboring jurisdictions to identify and pursue funding for rail corridor improvements and
grade separation. The City’s Housing Element is replete with policies to promote affordable
housing and the Comprehensive Plan includes programs (N1.1.1 and N4.13.3) seeking to
protect the hillside from development and reducing the risk of flooding for Palo Alto properties
through storm water capture and storage.
This report and recommendations are intended to focus on the key issues that may have the
greatest benefit to the City and University, without seeking funding or mitigation for every
possible impact. The recommendation recognizes the City of Palo Alto as one jurisdiction
among many facing similar issues and attempts to balance the local and regional benefits of the
University to everyday impacts that can be anticipated from the proposed expansion.
RESOURCE IMPACT
The recommendation in this report does not have a specific economic or fiscal impact. This
report includes a recommendation that the County Board of Supervisor’s include through a DA,
or impose as conditions of approval, sources of funding to the City to help off-set anticipated
impacts from the proposed University’s expansion.
City of Palo Alto Page 11
TIMELINE
Following Council deliberation, staff will work with the Mayor or the Vice Mayor to draft a
letter to be sent to the Santa Clara Board of Supervisors Ad Hoc Committee working on the
2018 GUP Development Agreement, Members of the Board of Supervisors, the County Planning
Director, and appropriate agencies. The Ad Hoc Committee is currently meeting with Stanford
University on the DA.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The recommendation in this report does not constitute a project in accordance with the
California Environmental Quality Act and is therefore not subject to environmental review.
Attachments:
A. Letter from City of Palo Alto re Stanford GUP and PAUSD (PDF)
B. SFCJPA GUP Letter (PDF)
SFCJPA.ORG
650-324-1972 * jpa@sfcjpa.org * 615 B Menlo Avenue * Menlo Park, CA 94025
Via e-mail only October 12, 2018
Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors
County Government Center
70 West Hedding Street
San Jose, CA 95110
Re: Stanford University 2018 General Use Permit Negotiated Development Agreement
The Board of Supervisors is currently considering the process and topics of a potential Negotiated Development
Agreement related to Stanford’s application for a new General Use Permit (GUP). The San Francisquito Creek
Joint Powers Authority (SFCJPA), a regional government agency that plans and implements projects that
advance flood protection, ecosystems, and recreational opportunities across jurisdictional boundaries on the
San Francisco Peninsula, encourages you to include in any Development Agreement a topic of keen and
long-standing interest to the communities adjacent to Stanford: flood protection.
Like other areas of Santa Clara County, the communities downstream of Stanford University have endured
repeated flood events, including a flood in 1998 that damaged 1,700 properties. In January of this year, I and
my colleague on the SFCJPA Board, San Mateo County Board of Supervisors President Dave Pine, sent a
letter to Santa Clara County commenting on the need for the GUP’s Draft EIR to demonstrate its assertion that
stormwater infrastructure, including detention basins already constructed on the main campus under the 2000
GUP, would accommodate increased runoff from development proposed in the 2018 GUP.
The SFCJPA is working closely with Stanford to understand the relationship between, and benefits of, our
respective potential projects on the Creek. The SFCJPA and its partners are now completing construction of
the larger of two major capital projects between San Francisco Bay and the Pope-Chaucer Bridge, which in
total cost over $100 million and provide substantial Creek flow and sea level rise protection to thousands of
properties. Upstream of our work, analysis by Stanford indicates that its preferred project at Searsville Dam
and Reservoir adds substantial protection; perhaps enough to remove all properties from the FEMA floodplain.
We applaud Stanford’s willingness to work collaboratively with us, and to study its options for a project at
Searsville. The SFCJPA intends for our projects downstream of the campus to be completed in four years, by
which time Stanford can complete the design and environmental documentation of a complementary project at
Searsville. Our request of Santa Clara County is that Stanford’s implementation of a project that detains
floodwaters at Searsville or elsewhere, which is related to runoff associated with the GUP and is of great interest
to the campus’ neighbors, be included in your public process to craft a Development Agreement.
Sincerely,
Gary Kremen
Chair, SFCJPA Board of Directors and
Director, Santa Clara Valley Water District
cc: SFCJPA Board of Directors
Stanford officials: Catherine Palter, Jean McCown, Tom Zigterman
City of Palo Alto (ID # 9429)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 2/4/2019
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Appeal of Crown Castle Cluster 2 Wireless Communication
Facilties
Title: PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL: Consideration of Appeals of the
Planning and Community Environment Director’s Decisions on Seven Crown
Castle Tier 3 Wireless Communication Facilities Small Cell Nodes (Cluster 2,
University South, File 17PLN-00433) to Conditionally Approve Five Nodes and
Deny Two Nodes; Appealed by Crown Castle and United Neighbors. The
Seven Appealed Tier 3 WCF Permits are in the Public Right of Way Utilizing
Six Replacement Streetlights and One New Pole Adjacent to the Public
Facilities Zone (City Hall Police Station, 275 Forest); Commercial Downtown
CD-C (P) Zone: 345 Forest; Residential Transition (SOFA) RT-35 Zone: 248
Homer, 190 Channing; and the DHS (SOFA) Zone: 385 Homer, 905 Waverley
(formerly 400 Channing), 845 Ramona. Environmental Assessment: Exempt
under CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 and Public Resources Code 21080.
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council conduct a hearing of the appealed Tier 3 Wireless
Communication Facilities (WCF) decisions on application #17PLN-00433 (University South), and
uphold the January 4, 2019 decisions made by the Director of Planning and Community
Environment (Director), by approving the Record of Land Use Action (Attachment A) for:
1. Conditional approval of five WCF nodes on these replacement streetlights:
• Node 25, CPAU Streetlight #23 (near 275 Forest Av);
• Node 27, CPAU Streetlight # 82 (near 248 Homer Av);
• Node 29, CPAU Streetlight # 76 (near 385 Homer Av);
• Node 30, CPAU Streetlight # 86 (near 845 Ramona St); and
• Node 31, CPAU Streetlight # 16 (near 190 Channing Av).
City of Palo Alto Page 2
2. Denial of two WCF nodes on:
• one replacement streetlight, Node 26, CPAU Streetlight # 32 (near 345 Forest Av)
• one new pole structure, Node 28m1 (near 905 Waverley St (AKA 400 Channing Av).
Executive Summary
The Council will conduct a public hearing on the appeals of the Director’s decisions (Attachment
B). The Director approved five ‘small cell’ nodes of the Crown Castle “Cluster 2” University
South proposal (aka file 17PLN-00433) and denied two of the proposed University South nodes.
The appellants are the applicants (Crown Castle), and United Neighbors. These two timely
appeals were submitted January 17 and January 18, 2019, respectively. The applicant appealed
all seven Director’s decisions. United Neighbors appealed the Director’s approval of five WCF
nodes.
The applicant’s appeal (Attachment C) asserts:
• The Director’s decision on all nodes (both denials and conditional approvals) results in a
prohibition of services;
• The Director’s denials do not rest on substantial evidence;
• The Director’s denials serve as a barrier to market entry, in violation of clearly
established federal law; and
• The Director’s denials violate Crown Castle’s Statewide Franchise Rights under Public
Utilities Code Section 7901.
•
The United Neighbors’ appeal (Attachment D) asserts that the City staff’s actions denied the
public a fair timeline and hearing on the design specified in the decisions letter, and asks
Council to:
• overturn the approval decisions for the five WCF nodes,
• ask City staff to (attempt) to extend the tolling agreement to temporarily stop the shot
clock, and
• direct the ARB to review the pole-top mounted ancillary equipment in a public hearing.
The appeal deadline was January 18, 2019, and no other appeals were filed. The Director
approved five small cell nodes proposed for existing streetlights. The Director denied one small
cell node proposed on an existing streetlight and another small cell node proposed on a new
pole where one does not currently exist. The approval conditions for the five approved WCF
nodes require the antenna, cabling, and radio equipment to not be visible; to be concealed and
screened within a custom green painted, cylindrical shroud mounted on top of the replacement
streetlight pole. These approval conditions differ from the applicant’s proposed design, which
place radio equipment in a faux mailbox installed adjacent to the streetlight pole. The applicant
City of Palo Alto Page 3
has asserted – and staff does not dispute – that the conditionally approved design will require
approximately twice as many nodes in total to achieve the same level of coverage.
Background
The appeals, Director’s decisions, plans, public correspondence dating from September 2017 to
the day of the ARB hearing, can be found on this City webpage:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=4120&TargetID=319. The City
Manager’s office also maintains a webpage regarding wireless communication facilities, found
here: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=4120&TargetID=319
Director’s Decisions
On January 4, 2019, the Director of Planning and Community Environment (Director)
conditionally approved five replacement streetlight nodes and denied one replacement
streetlight node and one new pole node referenced under file 17PLN-00433 (University South).
The conditions for approval include a requirement for the antenna, cabling, and radio
equipment to not be visible, and to be concealed and screened within a custom green painted,
cylindrical shroud mounted on top of the replacement streetlight pole. These approval
conditions differ significantly from the applicant’s proposed design, which place radio
equipment in a faux mailbox installed adjacent to the streetlight pole. The ARB had reviewed
Crown Castle’s design for the replacement streetlights and new pole on December 6, 2018.
Images of all seven proposed nodes are shown below, with the adjacent faux mailboxes.
City of Palo Alto Page 4
Crown’s faux mailboxes hid the radio units featured in the below left image. Staff showed the
ARB an image of an installed faux mailbox in Palo Alto (below right image), which was damaged.
City of Palo Alto Page 5
Following staff’s recommendation against the use of faux mailboxes (as detailed in the ARB
staff report), Crown Castle showed the ARB alternative designs for the same equipment
mounted on the sides of the streetlights and within pedestals at the base of the streetlights.
These images are shown below.
The Director’s decision did not support use of either large side-mounted equipment or
placement of the equipment in a pedestal at the base of the poles.
The denied nodes, appealed by the applicant, are Nodes 26 and Node 28m1 as follows:
• Node 26 is CPAU Streetlight # 32 adjacent to 345 Forest Av; and
• Node 28m1, a new pole structure next to 905 Waverley St (formerly 400 Channing Av).
The conditionally approved nodes, appealed by the applicant and United Neighbors, are nodes
25, 27, 29, 30 and 31:
• Node 25, CPAU Streetlight #23 (adjacent to 275 Forest Avenue),
• Node 27, CPAU Streetlight # 82 (adjacent to 248 Homer Avenue),
• Node 29, CPAU Streetlight # 76 (adjacent to 385 Homer Avenue),
• Node 30, CPAU Streetlight # 86 (adjacent to 845 Ramona Street),
• Node 31, CPAU Streetlight # 16 (adjacent to 190 Channing Avenue).
Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Section 18.42.110
Tier 3 WCF Permit applications are processed in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code
(PAMC) section 18.42.110, which sets forth application requirements, standard conditions of
approval and required findings. Tier 3 WCF permit applications are subject to the WCF
City of Palo Alto Page 6
development standards, the Architectural Review findings in PAMC Section 18.76.020, and the
Conditional Use Permit findings in PAMC Section18.76.010. Applications are reviewed and
acted upon by the PCE Director, and subject to appeal to the City Council. While placement on
consent calendar with options for Council action is the standard process, the City’s WCF code
allows appeals to be scheduled as public hearing action items instead of consent calendar given
the limited time for City action under the ‘shot-clock’ calendar.
Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996: Material Inhibition, Significant Coverage Gap, and
Least Intrusive Means
The Telecommunications Act of 1996 recognizes the traditional zoning authority of local
governments, while also precluding local governments from prohibiting, or having the effect of
prohibiting the provision of wireless services. The FCC’s September 2018 Small Cell Order
interprets this law expansively to preclude cities from “materially inhibiting” the provision of
wireless services, including inhibitions on “densifying a wireless network, introducing new
services, or otherwise improving service.” Although it is unclear how the courts will apply this
standard, it undoubtedly provides carriers with broader rights than the Ninth Circuit’s
“significant gap” standard described below.
Prior to issuance of the FCC’s order, the Ninth Circuit had interpreted federal law to mean that
a local government may not deny an application that proposes to (1) close a significant gap in
services using (2) the least intrusive means available. In the Ninth Circuit, the least intrusive
means refers to the technically feasible and potentially available alternative design and location
that most closely conforms to the local values a permit denial would otherwise serve. In other
words, while local governments may enforce local values, they have limited authority to deny
an application where alternative means of providing wireless service are technically infeasible
or otherwise unavailable. Alongside the City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and associated
plans and policies, the Palo Alto Municipal Code (“PAMC”) Section 18.42.110, architectural
review findings in Section 18.76.020(d), and the conditional use permit findings in Section
18.76.010(c) express the local values that guide consideration of a WCF application. Local
governments are not to regulate the specific equipment to be used by an applicant, but may
evaluate how the physical characteristics of a proposal comply with local values concerning
issues like aesthetics, noise, and safety.
Prohibition of Unreasonable Discrimination
The Telecommunications Act also precludes a local agency’s wireless facility siting decisions
from unreasonably discriminating among wireless service providers. The Ninth Circuit has held
that discrimination is unreasonable if a city treats one provider differently from another that is
similarly situated with respect to the structure, placement, or impact of the proposed facilities.
In other words, if the City wishes to impose different requirements on similarly situated
applications, it must be able to explain a reasonable basis for why such differential treatment is
necessary.
City of Palo Alto Page 7
Preemption Regarding Radio Frequency (RF) Emissions
The FCC established comprehensive rules for human exposure to RF emissions (the “FCC
Guidelines”). Under the Telecommunications Act of 1996, federal regulations preempt state
and local governments from regulating RF emissions generated by wireless communications
facilities; state and local governments cannot regulate wireless facilities based on
environmental effects from RF emissions to the extent that the emissions comply with the FCC
Guidelines. Although localities cannot establish their own standards for RF exposure, local
officials may require wireless applicants to demonstrate compliance with the FCC Guidelines.
The Director’s decision requires such analysis for each approved node of the Crown Castle
Cluster 2 both before and after installation.
The FCC Shot Clock and Tolling Agreements
WCF permit applications have a unique application process involving a “shot clock” timeline,
whereby a decision on each node must take place within a “reasonable” timeframe. Under the
September 2018 FCC Small Cell Order, the presumptively reasonable timeframe for a small cell
application is 60 days for all applicable permits (including any appeals), unless extended by
mutual agreement. For this application, the City and applicant previously reached a mutual
agreement that the City will take final action on the applications by February 8, 2019.
Master License Agreement (MLA)
Each WCF small cell node utilizing City utility poles or streetlights must comply at all times with
the terms and conditions in the Master License Agreement for Use of City-Controlled Space on
Utility Poles and Streetlight Poles and in Conduits (“MLA”) between the City of Palo Alto and
Crown Castle (formerly NextG Networks) executed on August 15, 2011. A security instrument,
such as a Performance Bond or Letter of Credit, shall be provided in accordance with Section
14.0 of the Master License Agreement prior to encroachment or street work permit issuance.
The City Manager’s Report to Council for the MLA can be found at the following weblink:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/28100. The MLA contains
agreement terms, obligations, prohibitions, and expiration parameters.
CTC Report
The City hired an Independent Consultant, CTC to evaluate the seven nodes. CTC:
• reviewed the application (coverage maps showing the target area and vicinity,
Equipment specifications, RF level analysis, photo simulations);
• conducted a site visit to inspect the proposed locations and vicinity, and to verify the
documentation provided in the applications;
• conducted on-site coverage and capacity tests at and near the proposed locations;
• conducted an independent review of the applications for compliance with FCC
guidelines on Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields;
• examined the area around the proposed sites to seek to identify suitable alternative
City of Palo Alto Page 8
locations; and
• identified potential site design alternatives that may enhance the aesthetics of the
infrastructure in the City’s judgment.
CTC found:
• The proposed equipment is suitable to meet the purposes set forth by the applications
• Total RF emissions at each site would not exceed FCC guidelines at ground level or at the
antennas’ horizontal planes (after review of RF emissions studies by Jerrold T. Bushberg,
Ph.D. and independent analysis)
• Verizon’s network delivers a strong signal, but throughput levels vary greatly (from on-
site testing of Verizon’s current network performance at the seven sites)
• Wireless signal levels are of sufficient amplitude to support the high-speed transfer of
data—but user demand had a clear effect on network throughput
• Alternative designs and configurations for each site may enhance the aesthetics of the
infrastructure.
Public Hearing and Director’s Decisions
The ARB and members of the public discussed Crown Castle Cluster 2 at one formal hearing on
December 6, 2018. The ARB staff report noted staff’s concerns with the proposal for faux
mailboxes as the method to conceal the equipment. The reasons are repeated here:
• Lack of maintenance and hazards to passers-by when damaged (above photo);
• Obstructions to pedestrian flow in general and especially on narrow sidewalks;
• Maintaining clear pedestrian and vehicle sight lines at intersection street corners,
including at least a minimum of three foot horizontal clearance distance from corners to
address visibility, safety, and intersection operational considerations;
• Maintaining the minimum horizontal clearance requirements for both ADA and at least
1.5 feet horizontal clearance from curblines for safety (which is important for the
operation of bicycle lanes, red curb zones, on-street parking spaces, etc.);
• Cabinets are oversized relative to the volume of wireless equipment;
• Maintaining clear access to residential front doors/courtyards and commercial front
doors; and
• Overall increase in visual elements in the right of way and aesthetic clutter at ground
level.
The ARB staff report also noted designs incorporating the concealment of equipment in a
shroud underneath a proposed streetlight antenna such as shown in AT&T’s Preliminary
Architectural Review application (17PLN-00398) and Crown’s pole mounted equipment on
decorative streetlights in Palo Alto and in other cities.
The ARB recommended the antennas as proposed on top of proposed replacement streetlight
City of Palo Alto Page 9
poles and one new pole for all of the proposed Cluster 2 nodes, but did not recommend
approval of the faux mailbox radio/equipment enclosures. The ARB instead recommended that
all radio equipment be placed underground or otherwise be concealed entirely in existing
infrastructure. The ARB did not support the applicant’s alternative radio enclosure options
(pedestal and mounted to the face of the streetlight poles). Links to the December 6, 2018 ARB
staff report, video and minutes are provided below:
• Report: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/68005
• Video: https://midpenmedia.org/architectural-review-board-74-1262018/
• Draft Minutes: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/68417
In addition, excerpted minutes of the ARB’s hearing of Crown Castle Cluster 2 are provided as
Attachment H to this report.
The Director approved five small cell nodes with detailed conditions of approval on January 4,
2019 (Attachment B). The Director did not incorporate the ARB’s recommendation that radio
equipment be placed underground or otherwise be concealed within existing infrastructure, as
staff did not find such conditions would be feasible. Instead, the Director required that the
radios be placed at the top of the streetlight poles within a shroud with approximately the
same diameter as the proposed antenna. In addition, the Director denied two nodes because
the pole-top design would be aesthetically incompatible with the immediate surroundings at
those sites and additionally because one of the sites would require an entirely new pole to be
installed. These decisions were based on the review of all information contained within the
project file, all public comments received prior to the decision, and the review of the proposal
in comparison to applicable Comprehensive Plan goals and policies, as well as zoning and other
municipal code requirements.
Appeal Process
Under PAMC Section 18.42.110(h)(1), the Director's decision on a Tier 3 wireless application
shall be appealable directly to the City Council. An appeal may be set for hearing before the City
Council or may be placed on the Council's consent calendar, pursuant to the process for appeal
of architectural review. Given the short timeframe provided for City review of this application,
staff has scheduled the appeal for a hearing rather than placing it first on the Council’s consent
calendar. At the hearing, the City Council will be asked to receive public testimony and to
uphold, modify or reverse the Director’s decisions on the WCF nodes.
Discussion
Side Mounted Equipment
Nearly three weeks after the December 6, 2018 ARB hearing, prior to the January 4, 2019
decisions, the applicant provided additional images of side-mounted equipment, shown below:
City of Palo Alto Page 10
Staff does not support the side-mounted equipment as a solution for concealment.
Vaulting
The City’s consultant, CTC, provided an image of vaulting in the attached report (Attachment G)
and excerpted below showing that an underground vault for Crown Castle radio sizes would
need to be at least 3 feet (W) x 6 feet (L) x 3 feet (D) and would need to include space for
drainage and cooling.
The CTC report noted construction challenges, given existing infrastructure in the vicinity,
including that the vault:
• must be located within 90 feet of the antenna due to signal loss limitations in the coaxial
cable connecting radios to antenna,
• distance from the pole could not exceed 70 feet (for a 20-foot-tall pole);
• must be placed no closer than 5 feet from a utility pole (per CPAU);
• cannot be installed in the path of lateral storm drains, water or sewer lines, or other
existing utility infrastructure (e.g., electric, telephone, CATV);
• could require the applicant to pay for rerouting of existing (conflicting) utilities at a site;
City of Palo Alto Page 11
• construction would need to comply with the City’s requirements related to the removal
or endangerment of protected trees.
Staff concur with CTC’s analysis that vaulting of the radio equipment would be extremely
challenging and likely not feasible.
Pole-top Mounted Equipment
The applicant did not provide the City any images of equipment mounted at the tops of the
streetlights. The City’s consultant, CTC, had provided drawn images of smaller sized radio
equipment mounted at the tops of streetlights (Attachment G) and the City has received
preliminary plans from another applicant, AT&T, that show a streetlight pole-top configuration.
The applicant has asserted, and staff concurs, that use of a pole-top configuration would result
in a greater number of nodes (approximately twice as many locations) for the same amount of
coverage. Thus, if the Council affirms the Director’s decision to require a pole-top design, the
City should be prepared to approve applications for additional nodes.
An example of a streetlight top-mounted WCF node (proposed by AT&T) is shown below:
Visual Simulation Excerpted from AT&T’s Preliminary Application 17PLN-00398
The map below is excerpted from a presentation by Crown Castle to City staff demonstrating
the additional nodes that would be required using a pole-top design.
City of Palo Alto Page 12
Summary of Appeals
Applicant’s Appeal
The applicant’s appeal (Attachment C) asserts, in summary that:
• The Director’s denials do not rest on substantial evidence;
• The Director’s denials serve as a barrier to market entry, in violation of clearly
established federal law; and
• The Director’s denials violate Crown Castle’s Statewide Franchise Rights under Public
Utilities Code Section 7901.
• The Director’s decisions, including conditional approvals, results in a prohibition of
services;
Staff disputes each of these assertions. There is substantial evidence in the record, including
the City’s experience with faux mailbox cabinets, that additional ground-mounted cabinets are
not compatible in the downtown environment. The conditionally approved design eliminates
the need for faux mailboxes and minimizes the visual impact of the facilities. The evidence in
the record also supports the Director’s finding that even the pole-top design at 345 Forest
Avenue would interfere with views of a listed historic resource. While the ARB approved an
antenna-only extension to the streetlight at this location, the record also indicates concern that
a larger pole-top or pole-mounted assembly would not be recommended. In addition, the new
pole proposed for 905 Waverley St/400 Channing Av would present many of the same issues as
City of Palo Alto Page 13
new ground-mounted cabinets. Moreover, the record indicates that the applicant expects the
City to assume responsibility for the new pole and any associated streetlight, which the City’s
Utilities and Public Works departments have disavowed. There are numerous nearby
streetlights structures that could serve as alternative locations. The denials are also consistent
with federal law governing the City’s ability to reasonbly discriminate among applications that
are not similarly situated and state law regarding the City’s authority to regulate aesthetic
impacts in the right of way. Notably, the latter issue is currently being litigated before the
California Supreme Court.
The conditioned pole-top design does not result in a prohibition of services, even if, as the
applicant asserts, this design would result in less coverage with the currently proposed nodes.
The Director’s decision expressly invites the applicant to apply for any additional nodes
necessary to achieve its coverage objectives. There are numerous additional sites available to
the applicant within the City’s jurisdiction to make such an alternative configuration feasible.
As of the publication of this report, the applicant has not provided any evidence that it would
be infeasible to pursue this design with a greater number of nodes. As noted above, Council
approval of the conditioned pole-top design on appeal would also indicate the City’s openness
to a greater number of overall nodes.
United Neighbors’ Appeal
The United Neighbors’ appeal (Attachment D) asserts that the City staff’s actions denied the
public to a fair and timeline hearing on the design specified in the decisions letter, and asks
Council to:
• overturn the approval decisions for the five WCF nodes,
• ask City staff to (attempt) to extend the tolling agreement to temporarily stop the shot
clock, and
• direct the ARB to review the pole-top mounted ancillary equipment in a public hearing.
The City is tasked with making decisions on Tier 3 wireless node projects within a restricted
timeline known as the ‘shot clock’ where a decision is due in short order. For Crown Castle
Cluster 2, the shot clock end date (February 8, 2019) includes Council action on the application.
Any extension of this shot clock for additional ARB review would require the applicant’s
agreement. If the City fails to act within the shot clock timeframe and the applicant does not
agree to an extension, under state law (AB 57), an applicant may assert that the application is
deemed approved. The City would then need to initiate litigation to seek additional time.
Policy Considerations
FCC’s September 2018 Small Cell Order
City of Palo Alto Page 14
The FCC recently adopted an Order that will require a 60 day turnaround on these types of
projects going forward. Although many municipalities have filed challenges to this order, this
litigation could take a year to resolve and the federal courts recently denied an application to
stay the new FCC regulations.
Staff are preparing an update to the City’s wireless code, partially in response to the FCC’s
order. One of the goals of the code update will be to create a “menu” of designs that can take
advantage of a streamlined review process. This would relieve the at-times overwhelming
burden of small cell wireless applications on City resources, while retaining an appeal process
before the City Council. This approach has been adopted by some jurisdictions, such as
Huntington Beach, and will likely be necessary to even approach the 60-day timeframe imposed
by the FCC.
The City Council’s action on this appeal may inform staff’s development of designs to be
included in a streamlined review.
Resource Impact
Tier 3 WCF Permit applications are Cost Recovery applications – the City charges the applicant
for the staff time necessary for reports and presentations to Council.
Timeline
The existing shot clock agreement requires Council review and action before February 8, 2019
and a decision on encroachment permits and streetwork permits (which were concurrently filed
with the Tier 3 WCF permit applications). For Council actions other than approval or denial, a
shot clock extension would be required; as noted, the applicant cannot be compelled to sign a
shot clock extension agreement.
Alternative Action
The Council may also approve the application with modified findings and/or approval
conditions.
Environmental Review
The decisions to deny the two (2) WCF nodes are exempt from the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) per Public Resources Code Section 21080.b(5). All nodes were analyzed in
accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City. The decisions
to conditionally approve five WCF small cell nodes are Categorically Exempt under CEQA Class
3, Guidelines Section 15303 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures), in that the
projects propose to install small cell wireless communication equipment in small structures that
can be attached to replacement streetlights.
City of Palo Alto Page 15
Attachments:
Attachment A: Draft Record of Land Use Action (DOCX)
Attachment B: Director's Decisions Letter (dated January 4, 2019) (PDF)
Attachment C: Applicant's Appeal (Crown Castle) (PDF)
Attachment D: Appeal of Five Nodes (United Neighbors) (PDF)
Attachment E: Applicant Project Description (received November 2, 2018) (PDF)
Attachment F: Project Plans (received November 19, 2018) (DOCX)
Attachment G: CTC Report (dated December 6, 2018) (PDF)
Attachment H: Excerpt Minutes ARB 12-6-18 Crown Cluster 2 Wireless (DOCX)
Attachment I: Public Letters to Council (PDF)
ACTION NO. _______:
DRAFT RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO LAND USE
ACTION CROWN CASTLE CLUSTER 2 WIRELESS COMMUNICATION
FACILITY [FILE 17PLN-00433]
On _____, 2019, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing, and after considering all of the
evidence presented, denied the two (2) appeals (19-AP-01 & 19-AP-02) and upheld the Planning and
Community Environment (PCE) Director’s January 4, 2019 decisions to conditionally approve five nodes
and deny two nodes of the Tier 3 Wireless Communication Facility (WCF) Permit Applications (File
17PLN-00433), making the following findings, determination and declarations:
SECTION 1. Background.
A. On December 4, 2017, Sure Site on behalf of Crown Castle filed Tier 3 WCF Permit Applications under
the application file number 17PLN-00433. The proposed WCF nodes were grouped together into a
cluster for processing to allow coordinated City review and transparency to members of the public
about what is proposed in their neighborhoods. This group of applications was referred to as “Crown
Castle Cluster 2.” Cluster 2 was comprised of seven (7) WCF small cell nodes in the public right of way to
be leased by Verizon in the University South neighborhood. Six (6) WCF nodes were proposed on
existing streetlights and were of a project type anticipated by the Master License Agreement. One (1)
WCF node was proposed on one new pole and was submitted under provision in Section 12.16.050 of
the Palo Alto Municipal Code regarding underground utility districts. The proposed WCF nodes under
consideration were as follows:
• Node 25, CPAU Streetlight #23 (adjacent to 275 Forest Avenue)
• Node 26, CPAU Streetlight # 32 (adjacent to 345 Forest Avenue)
• Node 27, CPAU Streetlight # 82 (adjacent to 248 Homer Avenue)
• Node 28m1, New Pole Structure (adjacent to 905 Waverley Street (AKA 400 Channing Avenue)).
• Node 29, CPAU Streetlight # 76 (adjacent to 385 Homer Avenue)
• Node 30, CPAU Streetlight # 86 (adjacent to 845 Ramona Street (West corner of Channing
Avenue and Bryant Street))
• Node 31, CPAU Streetlight # 16 (adjacent to 190 Channing Avenue).
Node 26 (near 245 Forest Av, a Category 2 historic resource) was proposed instead of the previously
proposed new pole (Node 26m1 near 332 Forest Av reviewed as part of the Preliminary Architectural
Review application). Node 28m1 (near “400 Channing”, now addressed as 905 Waverley) was proposed
instead of Node 28 (near 370 Channing Av, considered in the Preliminary Architectural Review
application).
B. The Director of Planning and Community Environment (Director) conditionally approved five WCF
nodes and denied two WCF nodes following review by the Architectural Review Board on December 6,
2018. The action is contained in the CMR #9429. Notices of the Director’s decisions were mailed to
residents and owners regarding the January 4, 2019 decisions.
The PCE Director conditionally approved Tier 3 Wireless Communication Facilities permits for five (5)
WCF nodes on streetlights in the public right of way as follows:
• Node 25, CPAU Streetlight #23 (adjacent to 275 Forest Avenue)
• Node 27, CPAU Streetlight # 82 (adjacent to 248 Homer Avenue)
• Node 29, CPAU Streetlight # 76 (adjacent to 385 Homer Avenue)
• Node 30, CPAU Streetlight # 86 (adjacent to 845 Ramona Street (West corner of Channing
Avenue and Bryant Street))
• Node 31, CPAU Streetlight # 16 (adjacent to 190 Channing Avenue).
The PCE Director denied Tier 3 Wireless Communication Facilities permits for one (1) WCF node on a
streetlight and one (1) WCF node new pole structure in the public right of way as follows
• Node 26, CPAU Streetlight # 32 (adjacent to 345 Forest Avenue)
• Node 28m1, New Pole Structure (adjacent to 905 Waverley Street (AKA 400 Channing Avenue)).
C. Within the prescribed timeframe, two (2) appeals of the Director’s decisions were filed for the
following nodes:
• 19‐AP‐01, Crown Castle, All Seven (7) Nodes (two denials and five conditional approvals)
• 19‐AP‐02, United Neighbors, Five (5) Nodes (all five conditional approvals)
D. On ___, 2019, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on the appeals, at which evidence
was presented and all persons were afforded an opportunity to be heard in accordance with the Palo
Alto Municipal Code and the Council’s Policies and Procedures.
SECTION 2. Environmental Review.
The decisions to deny the two (2) WCF nodes are exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) per Public Resources Code Section 21080.b(5). The decisions to conditionally approve five (5)
WCF small cell nodes are Categorically Exempt under CEQA Class 3, Guidelines Section 15303; the
project, as conditioned, proposes to install small cell wireless communication equipment in small
structures that can be attached to streetlights. The exceptions to the use of this Categorical Exemption
are not applicable for the following reasons: as conditioned, the antennas, cabling, radio and associated
equipment would be enclosed, camouflaged, concealed, and screened through integrated design with
the streetlights; other small cell and DAS facilities, both existing and proposed, are not in the same
locations as the five (5) WCF nodes, and cumulative impacts will not be significant.
SECTION 3. Approval Findings.
According to PAMC Section 18.42.110(h)(2), the Director or Council on appeal shall grant a Tier 3
Wireless Communication Facility (WCF) permit provided the proposed WCF complies with the
development standards in PAMC Section 18.42.110(i), the conditions of approval in Section 18.42.110(j),
and that all of the architectural review findings in Section 18.76.020(d) and the conditional use permit
findings in PAMC Section 18.76.010(c) can be made. Conversely, PAMC Section 18.42.110(h)(3) provides
that the Director, or Council on appeal, shall deny a Tier 3 WCF Permit if the findings above cannot be
made. These requirements are intended to ensure that wireless communications facilities blend with
their existing surroundings and do not negatively impact the environment, historic properties, or public
safety.
These Director’s decisions for conditional approval for five (5) WCF nodes (Node 25, Node 27, Node 29,
Node 30, and Node 31) are granted based upon adherence to the process required by Palo Alto
Municipal Code (PAMC) Section 18.42.110(c)(3) and Section 18.42.110(h). As modified by the conditions
of approval, the five (5) WCF nodes comply with PAMC 18.42.110(i) Development Standards, comply
with PAMC 18.42.110(j) Conditions of Approval, and the Architectural Review Findings in PAMC Section
18.76.020(d) and the Conditional Use Permit Findings in PAMC Section 18.76.010(c) can be made for the
project.
A. Tier 3 WCF Permit Development Standards PAMC 18.42.110(i)
As conditioned, each of the five (5) conditionally approved WCF nodes complies with the Development
Standards in PAMC Section 18.42.110(i)(1) through (11) because:
1. Shall utilize the smallest footprint possible. As conditioned, the five (5) WCF nodes employ a design
that addresses aesthetic considerations and uses the smallest possible footprint in the public right-
of-way and on the replacement streetlight pole. By contrast, the applicant proposed design
without conditions includes a faux mailbox with a much larger footprint in the public right-of-way,
which is inconsistent with this development standard.
2. Shall be designed to minimize the overall height, mass, and size of the cabinet and enclosure
structure. The conditionally approved design option meets the development standard PAMC
Section 18.42.110(i)(2) by utilizing the custom green painted decorative scalloped replacement
streetlight pole that is no higher than the existing pole, a custom green painted shroud, cabling
enclosed within the replacement pole, and the antenna and radio equipment mounted at the top
of the pole. Light masts would be incorporated at their current height, orientation, and color
temperature so that existing photometric conditions would not be influenced by the node. The
conditionally approved design option would minimize height to the extent feasible to incorporate
the antenna and radio equipment at the top of the replacement streetlight pole and still allow the
antennas to remain at a height necessary for effective transmission. Height was also minimized by
ensuring that replacement streetlight poles match the height of the existing pole, instead of use of
a taller pole. This conditionally approved design option minimizes the overall footprint for each
node, including trenching. It also minimizes the overall mass and size of all equipment enclosures.
The conditionally approved design was selected for its superior concealment and integration with
the replacement streetlight pole design. By contrast, the applicant proposed design utilized a faux
mailbox to enclose the radio equipment in proximity to the replacement streetlight pole. The faux
mailbox was shown to be oversized relative to the minimum mass and size necessary to enclose
the equipment and, therefore, would not meet the development standard PAMC Section
18.42.110(i)(2).
3. Shall be screened from public view. As conditioned, the five (5) WCF nodes employ a design option
that encloses and therefore screens each new node through its incorporation into a streetlight
pole location that is already visually anticipated, functioning, and serving in the public right-of-
way.
4. Shall be architecturally compatible with the existing site. As conditioned, the five (5) WCF nodes
employ a custom aluminum green painted decorative scalloped replacement streetlight pole that
is consistent with the existing design guidelines produced by the Public Works Department and is
of a design that is already deployed in the public right-of-way elsewhere in the downtown area.
The conditionally approved design option does not include new ground mounted equipment
necessary for the public to see and navigate at ground level in a district where the City has
undergrounded utilities at great expense.
5. Shall be placed at a location that would not require the removal of any required landscaping or
would reduce the quantity of landscaping to a level of noncompliance with the Zoning Code. As
conditioned, each new WCF node is incorporated into a streetlight pole location that is already
visually anticipated, functioning, and serving in the public right-of-way. No significant landscaping
or parkway planting will be disturbed or lost and there is no need to disturb landscaping to place
ground-mounted equipment.
6. An antenna, base station, or tower shall be designed to minimize its visibility from off-site locations
and shall be of a "camouflaged" or "stealth" design, including concealment, screening, and other
techniques to hide or blend the antenna, base station, or tower into the surrounding area. As
conditioned, the five (5) WCF nodes employ a custom aluminum green painted decorative
scalloped replacement streetlight pole that is consistent with the existing design guidelines
produced by the Public Works Department and is of a design that is already deployed in the public
right-of-way elsewhere in the downtown area. The conditionally approved design option does not
include new ground mounted equipment necessary for the public to see and navigate at ground
level in a district where the City has undergrounded utilities at great expense.
7. A building-mounted antenna, base station, or tower shall be architecturally compatible with the
existing building on which the antenna, base station, or tower is attached. The five (5) WCF nodes
are not building mounted or attached to a building and, therefore, this provision does not apply to
the subject applications.
8. For any Tier 2 or Tier 3 WCF proposed to be attached on an historic structure/site, as designated by
Chapter 16.49, historic review shall also be required. The five (5) WCF nodes are not proposed to
be attached to a historic structure/site and are all in the public right-of-way. Therefore, this
provision does not apply to the subject applications.
9. Except as otherwise permitted by the Spectrum Act, a building-mounted WCF may extend fifteen
(15) feet beyond the permitted height of the building in the zone district. The five (5) WCF nodes
are not building mounted and, therefore, this provision does not apply to the subject application.
10. Except as otherwise permitted by the Spectrum Act, a tower or other stand-alone Tier 3 WCF
Project shall not exceed sixty-five (65) feet in height. As conditioned, the five (5) WCF nodes will
not extend beyond sixty-five (65) feet in height and, therefore, this provision does not apply to the
subject application. Height is minimized to the extent feasible to incorporate the antenna and
radio equipment at the top of the replacement streetlight pole.
11. A tower or other stand-alone Tier 3 WCF may encroach into the interior/street side and rear
setback. This provision does not apply to the subject application. The five (5) WCF nodes are all
located in the public right-of-way, and, therefore, this provision does not apply to the subject
application.
B. Tier 3 WCF Permit Conditions of Approval PAMC 18.42.110(j)
Each of the five (5) conditionally approved WCF nodes complies with PAMC Section 18.42.110(j)
because the referenced Wireless Communication Facility standard conditions of approval are
incorporated into the specific conditions of approval for these nodes.
C. Architectural Review Findings PAMC Section 18.76.020(d)
All of the architectural review findings in PAMC Section 18.76.020(d) can be made for each of the five
(5) conditionally approved WCF nodes because:
1. The design is consistent with applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code,
coordinated area plans (including compatibility requirements), and any relevant design guides. As
conditioned, the proposed project complies with applicable local regulations for WCF’s, specifically
the development standards in PAMC 18.42.110(i). As conditioned, the five (5) WCF nodes employ a
custom green painted decorative scalloped replacement streetlight pole that is consistent with the
existing design guidelines produced by the Public Works Department and is of a design that is
already deployed in the public right-of-way elsewhere in the downtown area. There are several
policies in the City’s Comprehensive Plan that relate to preserving the character and enjoyment of
residential, commercial, and mixed use neighborhoods and wireless communication facilities are not
precluded from locating in these districts. The City’s Municipal Code provides a process to permit
WCF’s that blend with their existing surroundings and do not negatively impact the environment,
historic properties, or public safety. As conditioned, the five (5) WCF nodes employ a design that
addresses aesthetic considerations and minimizes the footprint in the public right-of-way and on the
replacement streetlight pole. None of the five (5) WCF nodes are located on a historic resource and,
as conditioned, each has been designed to blend in with the surrounding neighborhood to the
greatest extent feasible. The Comprehensive Plan includes Program L9.11.2, which provides that the
City identifies City-owned properties where combinations of wireless facilities can be co-located,
assuming appropriate lease agreements are in place. The five (5) WCF nodes are subject to an
approved Master License Agreement (MLA) between the City of Palo Alto and Crown Castle
(formerly NextG Networks) executed on August 15, 2011. Based on the foregoing and information
contained in the administrative record, each of the five (5) WCF nodes complies with this finding. By
contrast, the applicant proposed design (without conditions) utilizes a faux mailbox in the public
right-of-way that would be inconsistent with some of the City’s Comprehensive Plan goals and
policies. As examples:
• Comprehensive Plan GOAL L-4/POLICY L-4.7/Policy L-4.8 (maintaining and enhancing the
downtown area that promotes quality design that recognizes the regional and historic
importance of the area, reinforces its pedestrian character, and that is inviting to pedestrians
and bicyclists),
• Comprehensive Plan GOAL L-6/POLICY L-6.4 (encourage the design of new development to
maintain and support existing historic character),
• Comprehensive Plan GOAL L-7/POLICY L-7.1 (encourage upkeep and preservation of historic
buildings, sites, and districts),
• Comprehensive Plan GOAL L-9/POLICY L-9.3/POLICY L-9.4/POLICY L-9.5/POLICY L-
9.10/PROGRAM L9.10.2 (attractive, inviting public spaces and streets that enhance the image
and character of the City, treating residential streets a public ways and neighborhood amenities,
promote walking and “active transportation,” and preserve and enhance publicly accessible,
shared outdoor gathering spaces within walking and biking distance of residential
neighborhoods, design utility structures to meet high-quality design standards and embrace
technological advances, encourage the use of compact and well-designed utility elements such
as telecommunications infrastructure and place these elements in locations that will minimize
their visual intrusion), and
• Comprehensive Plan GOAL T-6 (providing a safe environment for motorists, pedestrians, and
bicyclists) policies.
2. The project has a unified and coherent design, that:
A. Creates an internal sense of order and desirable environment for occupants, visitors, and the
general community. As conditioned, the five (5) WCF nodes employ a design option that
encloses and therefore screens each new node through its incorporation into a streetlight pole
location that is already visually anticipated, functioning, and serving in the public right-of-way.
The five (5) WCF nodes employ a custom green painted decorative scalloped replacement
streetlight pole that is consistent with the existing design guidelines produced by the Public
Works Department and is of a design that is already deployed in the public right-of-way
elsewhere in the downtown area. The five (5) WCFs are located on streetlights distributed
throughout portions of the City and are not intended to be occupied or visited structures. As
conditioned, the five (5) WCF nodes do not place additional ground-mounted cabinets in the
public right-of-way as the applicant proposed, which would add visual clutter, and create other
adverse public health and safety impacts on the downtown environment.
B. Preserves, respects and integrates existing natural features that contribute positively to the site
and the historic character including historic resources of the area when relevant. As conditioned,
the five (5) WCF nodes employ a design option that utilizes the locations of existing streetlights
and do not disturb existing natural features. The WCF nodes are not proposed to be attached to
a historic structure/site and are all in the public right-of-way.
C. Is consistent with context based design criteria of the applicable zone district. There are context
based design criteria in some of the zoning districts where some of the nodes are located,
however, these standards typically relate to building mass, façade treatment, entries, open
space, site planning, parking and related matters that are not related to the subject small cell
nodes. As conditioned, the five (5) WCF nodes employ a custom green painted aluminum
decorative scalloped replacement streetlight pole that is consistent with the existing design
guidelines produced by the Public Works Department and is of a design that is already deployed
in the public right-of-way elsewhere in the downtown area.
D. Provides harmonious transitions in scale, mass and character to adjacent land uses and land use
designations. As conditioned, the five (5) WCF nodes are designed to blend in with the existing
environment by not having any new ground-mounted equipment and by using a custom
decorative replacement streetlight pole. The five (5) WCF nodes would not impact the scale,
mass or character of adjacent land uses.
E. Enhances living conditions on the site (if it includes residential uses) and in adjacent residential
areas. The proposed project does not include residential uses. Placement of the five (5) WCF
nodes on replacement streetlight poles does not disrupt living conditions in adjacent residential,
commercial, and mixed-use neighborhoods, as the WCF nodes were planned to comply with
Federal Communication Commission (FCC) requirements and are required to submit updated
FCC compliance studies prior to the issuance of streetwork and encroachment permits. Some
residents may benefit from improved wireless coverage.
3. The design is of high aesthetic quality, using high quality, integrated materials and appropriate
construction techniques, and incorporating textures, colors, and other details that are compatible
with and enhance the surrounding. The five (5) WCF nodes necessarily by design and function must
be integrated and employ appropriate construction techniques. The proposed materials and colors
have been reviewed and, as conditioned, determined appropriate for the utility use planned for with
the proposed WCFs. As conditioned, the five (5) WCF nodes employ a custom green painted
decorative scalloped replacement streetlight pole that is consistent with the existing design
guidelines produced by the Public Works Department and is of a design that is already deployed in
the public right-of-way elsewhere in the downtown area.
4. The design is functional, allowing for ease and safety of pedestrian and bicycle traffic and providing
for elements that support the building's necessary operations (e.g. convenient vehicle access to
property and utilities, appropriate arrangement and amount of open space and integrated signage,
if applicable, etc.). As conditioned, the five (5) WCF nodes have been designed in compliance with
local, state and federal safety standards, construction techniques and clearances required to allow
for the ease and safety of pedestrian and bicycle traffic. The conditionally approved design option
does not include new ground mounted equipment necessary for the public to see and navigate at
ground level. The conditionally approved design option will comply with all horizontal and vertical
clearance requirements, including by not having any new equipment within 1.5 feet of curblines.
The design is functional for its intended use and includes components necessary for its operation
and screening. By contrast, the applicant proposed design includes ground mounted equipment that
conflicts with the ease and safety of pedestrian and bicycle traffic.
5. The landscape design complements and enhances the building design and its surroundings, is
appropriate to the site's functions, and utilizes to the extent practical, regional indigenous drought
resistant plant material capable of providing desirable habitat that can be appropriately maintained.
The five (5) WCF nodes employ a custom green painted decorative scalloped replacement streetlight
pole at existing streetlight pole locations and do not incorporate any landscaping.
6. The project incorporates design principles that achieve sustainability in areas related to energy
efficiency, water conservation, building materials, landscaping, and site planning. The five (5) WCF
nodes draw energy from the City’s utility service, require no water, and are designed with material
appropriate to the proposed utility use.
D. Conditional Use Permit Findings PAMC Section 18.76.010(c)
All of the conditional use permit findings in PAMC Section 18.76.010(c) can be made for each of the five
(5) conditionally approved WCF nodes because:
(1) The project will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will
not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience. As conditioned, the
project involves the construction of five (5) WCF nodes to provide wireless communications service
in certain coverage areas of the City. The federal government has preempted local jurisdictions from
denying projects based on electromagnetic radiation generated by WCFs. However, local
governments can impose conditions to verify compliance with federal thresholds, which has been
incorporated into this approval. As conditioned, the antenna, cabling, and radio equipment will not
be visible and shall be concealed and screened within a single custom green painted, cylindrical
shroud that is mounted on and integrated into the top of the replacement streetlight poles. The five
(5) WCF nodes would provide a range of communication services to Palo Alto residents and visitors.
The WCF nodes are consistent with this service objective and are placed in a manner that is
designed to blend in with the environment to the extent feasible. The custom aluminum decorative
replacement streetlight poles were evaluated and determined to be capable of supporting the
increased weight from the antenna, cabling, and shroud. As conditioned, the applicant shall submit
updated structural calculations; all sites shall include streetlight pole loading calculations for the
conditionally approved design option. The antenna and equipment at each WCF node shall be
placed at an appropriate height and will not interfere with motorists, pedestrians or cyclists.
Because the conditionally approved design does not place new ground-mounted equipment in the
public right-of-way, it does not have detrimental impacts on multi-modal travel in the downtown
area where the City has undergrounded utilities at great expense. Based on the foregoing and other
information contained in the administrative record, it is found that the five (5) WCF nodes will not
be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity or to public health, safety,
general welfare or convenience.
(2) The project is located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan
and the purposes of this title (Zoning). Wireless Communication Facilities are permitted uses in
residential, commercial, and mixed use neighborhoods. The City’s Municipal Code provides a
process to permit WCF’s that blend with their existing surroundings and do not negatively impact
the environment, historic properties, or public safety. None of the five (5) WCF nodes are located on
a historic resource and, as conditioned, each has been designed to blend in with the surrounding
neighborhood to the extent feasible. The proposed facilities are to be located on streetlight poles
that typically have equipment cables and power internal to their structure. The Comprehensive Plan
includes Program L9.11.2, which provides that the City identifies City-owned properties where
combinations of wireless facilities can be co-located, assuming appropriate lease agreements are in
place. The five (5) WCF nodes are subject to an approved Master License Agreement (MLA) between
the City of Palo Alto and Crown Castle (formerly NextG Networks) executed on August 15, 2011..
Based on the foregoing and information contained in the administrative record, each of the five (5)
WCF nodes is consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of zoning.
SECTION 4. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR NODE 25, NODE 27, NODE 29, NODE 30, AND NODE 31
Planning Division
1. COMPLIANCE WITH APPROVED PLANS. Each of the five (5) WCF nodes shall be built in
compliance with the approved plans and associated application materials on file with the
Planning Division for 17PLN-00433, except as modified by these conditions of approval. The
aforementioned plans and application materials include:
a. Project Description, received November 2, 2018, including in regard to coverage
and capacity information and azimuth direction.
b. Project Plans, titled “PALO ALTO STREET LIGHT NODES,” received November 19,
2018 for the following nodes:
• Node 25, CPAU Streetlight #23 (adjacent to 275 Forest Avenue)
• Node 27, CPAU Streetlight # 82 (adjacent to 248 Homer Avenue)
• Node 29, CPAU Streetlight # 76 (adjacent to 385 Homer Avenue)
• Node 30, CPAU Streetlight # 86 (adjacent to 845 Ramona Street (West
corner of Channing Avenue and Bryant Street))
• Node 31, CPAU Streetlight # 16 (adjacent to 190 Channing Avenue).
2. NODE ALTERNATES. This approval does not include approval of any WCF node alternates
previously discussed during Preliminary Architectural Review 17PLN-00193 or others discussed
during the review process for 17PLN-00433, specifically Node 26m1 near 332 Forest Avenue and
Node 28 near 370 Channing Avenue.
3. NODES EXCLUDED. This approval does not include approval of other WCF nodes discussed
during the review process for 17PLN-00433, specifically Node 26 adjacent to 345 Forest Avenue
and Node 28m1 adjacent to 905 Waverley Street (formerly 400 Channing Avenue).
4. ADDITIONAL EQUIPMENT EXCLUDED. This approval does not contain battery back-up units,
associated heat exchangers, or other equipment to provide functionality beyond what was
reviewed in 17PLN-00433. The conditionally approved design option is considered the WCF
concealment/camouflage for purposes of the Spectrum Act, and additional equipment shall not
be installed at any node without application for the appropriate WCF permit, consistent with
PAMC Section 18.42.110(c).
5. AMENITY TREES FOR ADDITIONAL SCREENING. Amenity trees are not required as a condition of
approval of the five (5) WCF nodes, although provision of street trees or amenity trees is not
prohibited if they meet horizontal clearance and sight visibility requirements.
6. LIGHTING. The height and orientation of illumination, photometrics and color temperature
employed by the light masts shall remain the same as in existing conditions.
7. CUSTOM DECORATIVE DESIGN FOR REPLACEMENT STREETLIGHT POLE. The WCFs shall use the
custom aluminum green painted decorative scalloped replacement streetlight pole that is
consistent with the existing design guidelines produced by the Public Works Department and is
the same design as those already deployed in the public right-of-way as part of the approval for
Crown Castle Downtown Wireless Project (15PLN-00140).
8. PAINT COLOR FOR REPLACEMENT STREETLIGHT POLE, LIGHTMAST, SHROUD AND OTHER
FEATURES ON THE POLE. Each node shall be painted to match the existing green decorative
streetlight poles located in the downtown area that were deployed as part of the approval for
Crown Castle Downtown Wireless Project (15PLN-00140).
9. ANTENNA/RADIO/CABLING/SHROUD DESIGN. The antenna, cabling, and radio equipment will
not be visible and shall be concealed and screened within a single custom green painted,
cylindrical shroud that is mounted on and integrated into the top of the replacement streetlight
pole. The shroud shall not have gaps or provide visibility to the sky between the top of the
replacement streetlight pole and the bottom of the shroud. The shroud shall employ a taper to
integrate fully with the tapering of the top of the custom aluminum green painted decorative
replacement streetlight pole. The shroud shall not be wider than 15-inches in diameter. Aside
from the portion that is tapered from the bottom of the equipment to meet the tapering of the
pole, the shroud shall be continuous in its face. Venting louvers, if any, shall be minimized to the
extent feasible. The shroud shall not extend more than 5-feet 6-inches in height beyond the top
of the replacement streetlight pole.
10. MINOR MODIFICATIONS AT APPROVED NODE LOCATIONS. For approved node locations and in
his or her sole discretion, the Director of Planning and Community Environment may approve
minor modifications to these conditions, consistent with the required findings, in order to
address any resource, technical, or utilities engineering-related site constraints.
11. SITE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS. Encroachment permit and streetwork permit plan sets shall
include accurate locations of driveways, curb lines, utilities, the existing light mast orientation,
and other existing conditions for each WCF. All existing street signs shall be retained and
reinstalled at their existing heights, or replaced to match existing if damaged. If damaged,
existing painted curbs and other markings, curb ramps, ADA markings, crosswalks, and similar
shall be replaced as part of construction. All street trees and private trees within the primary
construction area and any trenching and boring areas shall be protected in accordance with the
requirements in the City’s Technical Tree Manual.
• Node 25 – Utilities-Electrical requires an intermediate pull box placed on the corner
of Ramona Street and Forest Avenue. The garage extends to the gutter pan at
proposed vault locations. The node shall not impact the existing City Hall podium
through its operation, construction, trenching, boring, or excavation methods.
Underground garage detail does not indicate all proposed work within underground
structure vicinity. SP-1/2 indicates trench/bore work, new conduit, new vaults and
associated sidewalk work that is not depicted in the underground garage detail.
Provide dimensions and depth of all proposed items above underground garage.
Underground garage detail indicates information that does not correspond with as-
builts provided to applicant. Verify depth indicated and base materials. Base rock is
indicated on as-builts, while plan indicates compacted soil. Provide additional
statement/information depicting how underground structure will not be touched.
Proposed foundation shall not impact underground garage structure. There is a
concern regarding the waterproofing of the structure; provide information how this
will be retained and not disturbed, or what measures are in place (i.e. specialty
consultant). Proposed design should include water proofing so intrusion does not
become an issue. Proposed fiber conduit along Forest Ave is only partially shown.
Show entire path of proposed conduit work.
• Node 27 – Utilities-Electrical requires use of the existing box and does not approve a
second new pull box.
• Node 29 – Proposed bore fiber conduit path is not fully shown. Show entire path for
proposed fiber connection.
• Node 30 – Sheets SP1 and SP2 indicate different proposed fiber conduit work.
Proposed bore fiber conduit path is not fully shown. Show entire path for proposed
fiber connection. At the intersection of Bryant Street and Channing Avenue, please
be advised roadway geometry changes are scheduled to begin construction in spring
2018 as part of an awarded construction contract for the city’s Neighborhood Traffic
Safety & Bicycle Boulevard project. Changes at this intersection include new curb
ramps, new utilities, and roadway grading changes. Plans and information on the
project are available here:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=3736. Any city
improvements damaged as part of the project depicted in this planning application
shall be replaced to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
• Node 31 – Proposed bore fiber conduit path is not fully shown. Show entire path for
proposed fiber connection.
12. ANTENNA MODEL NUMBERS, TILTS, AND AZIMUTHS. The antenna model numbers, tilts, and
azimuths for the five(5) WCF nodes shall remain consistent between the permit plans, the
reports prepared by Jerrold Bushberg of Health and Medical Physics Consulting, and CTC
Technology & Energy “Review of Small Cell Wireless Applications – Crown Castle Cluster 2
(17PLN-00433),” dated and received November 6, 2018. Any additional azimuths or antennas
are not approved. Prior to the issuance of streetwork and encroachment permits, any changes
in antenna model numbers, tilts, and azimuths shall be accompanied by updated FCC
compliance studies; the City may elect to peer review these reports at the applicant’s sole
expense.
13. PLANNED FCC COMPLIANCE DOCUMENTATION. Prior to the issuance of streetwork and
encroachment permits, the applicant shall submit updated FCC compliance studies to the extent
that there are any changes to antenna height or other topics that change the analysis presented
in the reports prepared by Jerrold Bushberg of Health and Medical Physics Consulting; the City
may elect to peer review these reports at the applicant’s sole expense.
14. EXPLANATORY AND OTHER SAFETY SIGNAGE. Signs shall be no larger than necessary. The
recommended explanatory signage described in the Reports by Jerrold Bushberg of Health and
Medical Physics Consulting or any other updated Planned FCC Compliance report shall be
incorporated into the permit plan set. Signage shall comply with any relevant requirements of
California Public Utilities Commission General Order No. 95. All radio frequency signage shall
comply with FCC Office of Engineering and Technology Bulletin No. 65 or ANSI C95.2 for color,
symbol, and content conventions. All such signage shall at all times provide a working local or
toll-free telephone number to its network operations center, and such telephone number shall
be able to reach a live person who can exert transmitter power-down control over this Site as
required by the FCC.
15. PERMITTING. This approval letter, including the associated conditions of approval, shall be
printed on the plan sets submitted for encroachment and street work permit review.
16. PERMITTING BY OTHERS. This approval does not include approval or permitting by other entities
that may have additional permitting authority separate from the City of Palo Alto.
17. PLANNING FINAL INSPECTION. A Planning Division Final inspection will be required to
determine substantial compliance with the approved plans prior to the scheduling of a permit
final inspection by the Public Works and/or Building Departments. Any revisions during the
construction process must be approved by Planning, including but not limited to; landscaping,
equipment, and hard surface locations. Contact the Planning Department to schedule this
inspection.
18. NODE MAINTENANCE. All aspects of the WCF small cell nodes shall be well maintained at all
times and replaced, if necessary, to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning.
19. MODIFICATIONS TO APPROVED PLANS. Any modifications, additions and intensification of use
(i.e. additional antennas, equipment substitutions, adjustments in location or height) shall
require review and approval as specified in the Palo Alto Municipal Code prior to construction.
Please see PAMC Section 18.42.110(c) for more information.
20. NOISE ORDINANCE AND NOISE POLICIES. The WCF nodes shall comply with all noise standards
specified in Municipal Code Chapter 9.10.050 and the noise-related policies in Chapter 4
(Natural Environment).
21. REMOVAL OF ABANDONED EQUIPMENT. Any components of the WCF nodes that cease to be in
use for more than ninety (90) days shall be removed by the applicant, Wireless Communications
Service provider, or property owner within ninety (90) days of the cessation of use of that WCF.
A new WCF permit shall not be issued to an owner or operator of a WCF or a wireless
communication service provider until the abandoned WCF or its component is removed.
22. AS-BUILT PLANS. An as-built set of plans and photographs depicting the entire WCF as modified,
including all Transmission Equipment and all utilities, shall be submitted to the Planning Division
within ninety (90) days after the completion of construction.
23. RADIO FREQUENCY EMISSION. The applicant shall hire a radio engineer licensed by the State of
California to measure the actual radio frequency emission of the WCF nodes and determine if it
meets Federal Communications Commission standards. A report, certified by the engineer, of all
calculations, required measurements, and the engineer's findings with respect to compliance
with the FCC's radio frequency emission standards shall be submitted to the Planning Division
within one year of commencement of operation. The report shall have a methodology section
outlining instrumentation, measurement direction, heights and distances, and other protocols
outlined in FCC Bulletin OET 65. The report shall include a list and identify any nearby RF
sources, nearby reflecting surfaces or conductive objects that could produce regions of field
intensification, antenna gain and vertical and horizontal radiation patterns, type of modulation
of the site, polarization and emissions orientation(s) of the antenna(s), a log of all equipment
used, and a map and list of all locations measured indicating the maximum power observed and
the percentage of the FCC Uncontrolled/General Population guidelines at the measurement
location. At the applicant’s expense, the City may elect to have a City-staff observer during the
measurements, may elect to receive raw test measurements by location provided in electronic
format to the observer, and may elect to have the report independently peer reviewed prior to
report acceptance. Applicant may be required to submit these reports periodically for the life of
the project, as determined by the Director of Planning and Community Environment.
24. INDEMNIFICATION. To the extent permitted by law, the applicant shall indemnify and hold
harmless the City, its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the “indemnified parties”)
from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the
indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside or void, any permit or approval
authorized hereby for the Project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City for its
actual attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole
discretion and at Applicant’s expense, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its own
choice.
25. COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE LAWS. The applicant shall comply with all applicable provisions
of the Code, any permit issued under this Code, and all other applicable federal, state and local
laws (including without limitation all building code, electrical code and other public safety
requirements). Any failure by the City to enforce compliance with any applicable laws shall not
relieve any applicant of its obligations under this code, any permit issued under this code, or all
other applicable laws and regulations.
26. PERMIT EXPIRATION. The WCF approval shall be valid for a period of one year from the original
date of approval. In the event street work and encroachment permit(s), if applicable, are not
secured for the WCF nodes within the time limit specified above, the approval shall expire and
be of no further force or effect. A written request for a one-year extension shall be submitted
prior to the expiration date in order to be considered by the Director of Planning and
Community Environment.
27. REVOCATION. The Director of Planning and Community Environment may revoke any WCF
permit if the permit holder fails to comply with any condition of the permit. The Director's
decision to revoke a permit shall be appealable pursuant to the process applicable to issuance of
the permit, as provided in PAMC Section 18.42.110(h), which is pursuant to the process for
appeal of architectural review set forth in Section 18.77.070(f).
Fire Department
28. FIRE CODE. This project shall comply with CFC and local Fire Code ordinance/requirements.
29. ELECTRICAL DISCONNECT. The project shall label the main electrical disconnect.
30. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS REGISTRATION FORM. A Hazardous Materials Registration Form is
required to be submitted and approved prior to bringing any hazardous materials on site. Forms
also available at http://www.unidocs.org
31. SIGNS. The project shall provide warning signs at locations where workers and general public
may be exposed to RF exposure above the federal Maximum Permissible Level.
32. CONTACT INFORMATION. Each site shall have at least one sign per owner/service provider that
indicates the company’s name, site # and 24 hour emergency number.
Transportation Division
33. TRAFFIC CONTROL PLANS: Include site-specific traffic control plans which conform to the latest
version of the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CAMUTCD) with plans
submitted for a Street Work Permit or Encroachment Permit. Temporary traffic control plans
will be reviewed as part of the Street Work and/or Encroachment Permit. Approval of the
planning entitlement does not constitute approval of any temporary traffic control plans.
34. VERTICAL AND HORIZONTAL CLEARANCES: At least 1.5-feet horizontal clearance shall be
provided between the base of any replacement streetlight and the adjacent face of curb or edge
of traveled way for any public roadway, driveway, or alley. At least 1.5-feet horizontal clearance
shall be provided between any WCF equipment and the adjacent face of curb or edge of
traveled way for any public roadway, driveway, or alley and at least a minimum of three foot
horizontal clearance distance from corners and driveways, unless 16-feet vertical clearance is
provided between equipment and the top of adjacent travel way. In no circumstance shall less
than 10-feet vertical clearance be provided between adjacent sidewalk, path, or walkway grade
from the WCF equipment.
Public Works-Urban Forestry Department
35. TREE PRUNING. There will be no tree pruning without the specific approval of the Palo /alto
urban forestry department on all regulated trees. Any violation to this policy will be subject to
penalty. Contact the Palo Alto Urban Forestry Department at (650) 496-5953.
36. TREE DAMAGE. Tree Damage, Injury Mitigation and Inspections apply to Contractor. Reporting,
injury mitigation measures and arborist inspection schedule (1-5) apply pursuant to TTM,
Section 2.20-2.30. Contractor shall be responsible for the repair or replacement of any publicly
owned or protected trees that are damaged during the course of construction, pursuant to Title
8 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, and city Tree Technical Manual, Section 2.25.
37. GENERAL. The following general tree preservation measures apply to all trees to be retained: No
storage of material, topsoil, vehicles or equipment shall be permitted within the tree enclosure
area. The ground under and around the tree canopy area shall not be altered. Trees to be
retained shall be irrigated, aerated and maintained as necessary to ensure survival.
Utilities-Water, Gas, Wastewater Department
38. SERVICE REQUIREMENTS. The applicant shall comply with all the Water, Gas, and Wastewater
Department requirements noted during permit review.
39. PERMIT PLANS. The permit plans shall reflect the following bulleted items when installation requires
underground construction. Incomplete applications will result in plans being rejected for
acceptance, or returned to the applicant during the review process. City performance commitments
will not apply to incomplete submittals.
• Revise the location of the marked locations where the fiber optic conduits are not
adhering to the City’s standards (Std. DWG. 402) to be installed under the sidewalk.
These locations are redlined on the plans.
• Please provide complete and accurate cross sections. See the locations requested on the
sheets. These crossings should be drawn to scale according to the provided information.
Crossing elevations — Provide top/bottom-of-pipe elevations for water, gas mains and
electrical duct banks. Provide invert elevations for non-potable water, sewer, and storm
drains at all crossings. Show the proposed vertical alignment. Indicate the anticipated
depth for the new conduits.
• Complete the plans by adding the missing underground utilities/mains. The drawings
need to show the (e) water, gas, sewer, storm drain, underground electric & JT trench
ducts embankment where the crossings are critical. Revise plans to avoid conflict with
existing vaults, valves, and mains.
• Indicate on the plans the anticipated depth based on sewer mains elevations or bottom
of the electric ducts bank. It is important to confirm if the narrow street allows the bore
machine to achieve the required depth on as obstacle so close to the bore pit. I.e.
Underground electric near to the curb & gutter.
• The applicant shall provide protection for utility lines subject to damage. Utility lines
within a pit or trench shall be adequately supported. All exposed water, gas, and sewer
lines shall be inspected by the WGW Utilities Inspector prior to backfilling.
• Utility vaults, transformers, utility cabinets, concrete bases, or other structures cannot
be placed over existing water, gas or wastewater mains/services. Maintain 1’ horizontal
clear separation from the vault/cabinet/concrete base to existing utilities as found in
the field. If there is a conflict with existing utilities, Cabinets/vaults/bases shall be
relocated from the plan location as needed to meet field conditions.
• All WGW utility work shall be inspected and approved by the WGW utilities inspector.
Inspection costs shall be paid by the applicant's contractor prior to starting work.
Schedule WGW utilities inspections at 650/566-4504 five working days before start of
constructions.
• The applicant's contractor shall immediately notify the Utilities Department (650) 496-
6982 or 650/329-2413 if the existing water, wastewater or gas mains are disturbed or
damaged.
• No water or gas valves or other facilities owned by Utilities Department shall be
operated for any purpose by the applicant's contractor. All required operation will only
be performed by authorized utilities department personnel. The applicant's contractor
shall notify the Utilities Department not less than forty-eight (48) hours in advance of
the time that such operation is required.
• The contractor shall not disconnect any part of the existing water, gas, or wastewater
mains except by expressed permission of the WGW utilities inspector and shall submit a
schedule of the estimated shutdown time to obtain said permission.
• Only City forces can work on the City gas distribution system.
40. MARKING OF UNDERGROUND UTILITIES. The contractor shall contact underground service alert
(800) 227-2600 one week in advance of starting construction to provide for marking of
underground utilities.
41. PLAN SET NOTES. The following notes shall be added to permit plans:
a. The contractor shall immediately notify the Utilities Department 650/329-2413 or
650/496-6982 if the existing water, wastewater or gas mains are disturbed or
damaged. A qualified contractor may perform repairs on City water and wastewater
mains under the direct supervision of the WGW utilities inspector. For water repairs
all the disinfection requirements of the WGW Utility Standards and these conditions
shall be adhered to. All repairs to the City gas system must be performed by the City
of Palo Alto Utilities.
b. No water valves or other facilities owned by Utilities Department shall be operated
for any purpose by the applicant's contractor. All required operation will only be
performed by authorized utilities department personnel. Water valves may be
operated by the contractor under the direct supervision of the WGW Utilities
Inspector. The applicant's contractor shall notify the Utilities Department not less
than forty-eight (48) hours in advance of the time that such operation is required.
Utilities-Electrical Department
42. MASTER LICENSE AGREEMENT. Each WCF small cell node will comply at all times with the terms
and conditions in the Master License Agreement for Use of City-Controlled Space on Utility Poles
and Streetlight Poles and in Conduits (“MLA”) between the City of Palo Alto and Crown Castle
(formerly NextG Networks) executed on August 15, 2011. A security instrument, such as a
Performance Bond or Letter of Credit, shall be provided in accordance with Section 14.0 of the
Master License Agreement prior to encroachment or street work permit issuance.
43. UNMETERED SERVICES. All locations shall use unmetered services.
44. STREET LIGHT CONDUITS. All CPAU street light conduits must be a min’ of 2” and secondary
conduits must be a min’ of 4”.
45. RECEPTACLES. Receptacles on street lights shall be prewired and mounted on the top of the
street light. The receptacles shall be wired into the secondary voltage source and not the street
light circuit.
46. STRUCTURAL/LOADING CALCULATIONS. The custom aluminum decorative replacement
streetlight poles were evaluated and determined to be capable of supporting the increased
weight from the antenna, cabling, and shroud. All sites shall include streetlight pole loading
calculations for the conditionally approved design option; the applicant shall submit updated
structural calculations.
47. SERVICE REQUIREMENTS. The applicant shall comply with all the Electric Utility Engineering
Department service requirements noted during permit review.
48. PRIOR TO WORK. Contractors and developers shall obtain a permit from the Department of
Public Works before digging in the street right-of-way. This includes sidewalks, driveways and
planter strips.
49. IDENTIFICATION OF UTILITIES. The applicant shall be responsible for the identification and
location of all utilities, both public and private, within the work area. At least 48 hours prior to
starting any excavation, the customer must call Underground Service Alert (USA) at 1-800-227-
2600 to have existing underground utilities located and marked. The areas to be checked for
underground facility marking shall be delineated with white paint. All USA markings shall be
removed by the customer or contractor when construction is complete.
50. UTILITY DISCONNECTION. The applicant shall submit a request to disconnect all existing utility
services and/or meters including a signed affidavit of vacancy, on the form provided by
Development Services and/or the Utilities Department. Utilities will be disconnected or removed
within 10 working days after receipt of request. The demolition permit will be issued after all
utility services and/or meters have been disconnected and removed.
Public Works-Engineering Department
51. CITY STANDARD DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS. The permit plans shall be updated to match
the current 2018 details in the City Standard Drawings and Specifications – Public Works.
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pwd/forms_and_permits/specs_drawings.asp
52. ADA ACCESSIBILITY CLEARANCES. Any proposed replacement streetlight shall maintain
adherence to ADA accessibility clearances per Chapter 11A/B of the California Building Code.
The clearance shall be measured from the edge of the equipment to the nearest obstruction
and/or property line. The permit plans shall include a dimension for each location that has
above ground equipment that will be mounted on a sidewalk. The dimension shall be depicted
from the edge of the equipment, as opposed to the center. For each WCF node location, the site
plan and enlarged site plan shall provide these dimensions.
53. INDEFINITE ENCROACHMENT PERMIT. An indefinite encroachment permit is required for all
equipment that is to be installed in the public right-of-way.
54. PERMIT REVIEW. Public Works shall determine the number of encroachment permits and
associated street work permits, if any, that can be processed in a batch. The applicant will be
required to apply for all necessary permits including: Street Work and Encroachment Permit
applications. All required applications shall be in the submittal package for Public Works. Any
necessary traffic control plans shall also be submitted in the permit application packet. These
necessary permit applications and requirements are available from Public Works on our
website: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pwd/default.asp. All traffic control plans
associated with each proposal location shall be reviewed by Transportation Division under
Planning & Community Environment. Public Works will route all traffic control plans for
Transportation review when associated Street Work and Encroachment permits are submitted.
55. TRENCH WORK AND FIBER OPTIC CONDUIT. All trench work and placement of fiber optic conduit
shall adhere to City of Palo Alto Public Works specifications. Refer to City of Palo Alto Public
Works Conduit Location Detail Telecommunications Drawing No. 402. This detail provides
specifics for placement of conduit in both residential and commercial areas. Any deviation from
City Standards and Regulations shall be approved by Public Works and all other applicable
Departments.
56. EASEMENTS. All existing easements shall be indicated on plan submittal to Public Works for
necessary permits. Any proposed items in existing Public Utility Easement areas shall be
approved by CPA Utilities and Public Works Engineering. This can be covered under an
Encroachment Permit. The site plan shall include a note indicating whether easements are
present for each location.
57. PLAN SET NOTES. The following notes shall be added to the permit plans:
• Add a note to the plans that says, “The contractor may be required to submit a
logistics plan to the Public Works Department prior to commencing work that
addresses all impacts to the City’s right-of-way, including, but not limited to:
pedestrian control, traffic control, truck routes, material deliveries, contractor’s
parking, concrete pours, crane lifts, work hours, noise control, dust control, storm
water pollution prevention, contractor’s contact, noticing of affected surrounding
properties , and schedule of work. The requirement to submit a logistics plan will be
dependent on the number of applications Public Works Engineering receives within
close proximity to help mitigate and control the impact to the public-right-of-way. If
necessary, Public Works may require a Logistics Plan during construction.”
• Place the following note adjacent to an affected tree on the Site Plan and Demolition
Plan: “Excavation activities associated with the proposed scope of work shall occur
no closer than 10-feet from the existing street tree, or as approved by the Urban
Forestry Division contact 650-496-5953. Any changes shall be approved by the
same.”
• Include the sidewalk width for each location on the site plans.
• Add a note to the plans that says, “The contractor using the city sidewalk, alley or
parking lot to work on an adjacent private building must do so in a manner that is
safe for pedestrians and vehicles. The contractor must cone or tape-off the work
area while still leaving adequate room for pedestrians and vehicles to safely pass. If
the contractor’s work area leaves insufficient sidewalk or alley space for safe
pedestrian and vehicle passage, the contractor must apply to Public Works for an
encroachment permit to close the sidewalk or alley.”
• Provide the following note on the Site Plan and adjacent to the work within the
Public road right-of-way. “Any construction within the city’s public road right-of-way
shall have an approved Permit for Construction in the Public Street prior to
commencement of this work.”
• The following note shall be included on the Site Plan: “Contractor shall not stage,
store, or stockpile any material or equipment within the public road right-of-way.”
Construction phasing shall be coordinated to keep materials and equipment onsite.
• The following note shall be included on the Site Plan: “The contractor shall be
required to submit a logistics plan to the Public Works Department prior to
commencing work that addresses all impacts to the City’s right-of-way, including, but
not limited to: pedestrian control, traffic control, truck routes, material deliveries,
contractor’s parking, concrete pours, crane lifts, work hours, noise control, dust
control, storm water pollution prevention, contractor’s contact, noticing of affected
surrounding properties , and schedule of work. The requirement to submit a
logistics plan will be dependent on the number of applications Public Works
Engineering receives within close proximity to help mitigate and control the impact
to the public-right-of-way. If necessary, Public Works may require a Logistics Plan
during construction.”
• The following note shall be included on the Site Plan: “The contractor using the city
sidewalk to work on an adjacent private building must do so in a manner that is safe
for pedestrians using the sidewalk. Pedestrian protection must be provided per the
2007 California Building Code Chapter 33 requirements. If the height of construction
is 8 feet or less, the contractor must place construction railings sufficient to direct
pedestrians around construction areas. If the height of construction is more than 8
feet, the contractor must obtain an encroachment permit from Public Works at the
Development Center in order to provide a barrier and covered walkway or to close
the sidewalk.”
58. UTILITIES. Note that all above ground utilities, such as transformer, backflow preventer, gas
meters, etc., shall be located within the project site but accessible from the street. Any new or
relocated utilities will correspond with approved locations from City Utilities Department.
59. STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION. The permit plans shall include the City's full-sized
"Pollution Prevention - It's Part of the Plan.” The sheet is available here:
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/2732
60. SIDEWALK, CURB & GUTTER. In the event existing sidewalks, curbs, gutters, driveway
approaches, or street areas in the public right-of-way are disturbed as part of this project, the
applicant shall repair or replace those sidewalks, curbs, gutters, driveway approaches, or street
areas as directed by and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Contact Public Works’ inspector
at 650-496-6929 to arrange a site visit so that the inspector can discuss the extent of
replacement work along the public road. The site plan submitted with the building/street-
work/encroachment permit plan set must show the extent of the replacement work. The plan
must note that any work in the right-of-way must be done per Public Works’ standards by a
licensed contractor who must first obtain a Street Work Permit from Public Works at the
Development Center.
SECTION 5. Denial Findings
According to PAMC Section 18.42.110(h)(2), the Director or Council on appeal shall grant a Tier 3
Wireless Communication Facility (WCF) permit provided the proposed WCF complies with the
development standards in PAMC Section 18.42.110(i), the conditions of approval in Section 18.42.110(j),
and that all of the architectural review findings in Section 18.76.020(d) and the conditional use permit
findings in PAMC Section 18.76.010(c) can be made. Conversely, PAMC Section 18.42.110(h)(3) provides
that the Director, or Council on appeal, shall deny a Tier 3 WCF Permit if the findings above cannot be
made. These requirements are intended to ensure that wireless communications facilities blend with
their existing surroundings and do not negatively impact the environment, historic properties, or public
safety.
Staff raised concerns with the applicant during the review process regarding placement of ground-
mounted equipment in the right-of-way. Although the City has previously approved faux mailboxes for
WCFs, the City’s practical experience with these deployments over the past several years provides
substantial evidence that additional placement of ground-mounted equipment would be inconsistent
with current City standards and policies and would not be in the best interests of the public. For
example, at least one of the existing faux mailboxes (on Florence Street) was hit, presumably by a
vehicle. Staff observed the damage on June 26, 2018, and reported the damage to the applicant team on
August 1, 2018. The faux mailbox was not repaired as of November 30, 2018. Specific concerns
associated with the faux mailboxes include:
• Lack of maintenance and hazards to passers-by when damaged.
• Obstructions to pedestrian flow in general and especially on narrow sidewalks or busy sidewalks
in the Downtown area.
• Maintaining clear pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicle sight lines at intersection street corners,
including at least a minimum of three foot horizontal clearance from corners to ensure visibility
and safety.
• Maintaining the minimum horizontal clearance requirements both under the ADA and from
curblines (which is important for the operation of bicycle lanes, red curb zones, on-street
parking spaces, etc.).
• Cabinets are oversized relative to the volume of wireless equipment.
• Overall increase in aesthetic clutter at ground level and in the right of way.
The City Council denies Node 26, CPAU Streetlight # 32 (adjacent to 345 Forest Avenue). The proposed
design with the faux mailbox would be located immediately adjacent to 345 Forest Avenue whose
courtyard and building are regularly viewed and photographed from the right of way. For context,
according to the City’s former historic planner, “The node and ground cabinet is [proposed] immediately
adjacent to the historic Staller Court [Laning Chateau], 345 Forest Avenue. The building is a Category 2
resource and occupies a prominent corner location. The building and its accompanying plaza/entry
garden with special landscaping are fine examples of urban form. The plaza itself enriches both the
building and streetscape. The node alone would not be detrimental; however, the faux mailbox ground
cabinet creates a false sense of place and clutters the otherwise careful siting of the corner…”. As a
result, the proposed design would be inconsistent with development standards PAMC 18.42.110(i)(1)
and (2) regarding minimization of footprint, height, mass, and scale and PAMC 18.42.110(i)(4) regarding
compatibility with the existing site, conditional use permit finding PAMC Section 18.76.010(c)(1)
regarding Comprehensive Plan goals and policies, and architectural review findings PAMC Section
18.76.020(d)(1) regarding Comprehensive Plan goals and policies, PAMC Section 18.76.020(d)(2)(B)
regarding respecting the historic character of historic resources in the area and harmonious transitions
in character to adjacent land uses, and PAMC Section 18.76.020(d)(3) regarding having a design that
enhances the surrounding. Relevant Comprehensive Plan goals and policies include, as examples:
• Comprehensive Plan GOAL L-4/POLICY L-4.7/Policy L-4.8 (maintaining and enhancing the
downtown area that promotes quality design that recognizes the regional and historic
importance of the area, reinforces its pedestrian character, and that is inviting to pedestrians
and bicyclists),
• Comprehensive Plan GOAL L-6/POLICY L-6.4 (encourage the design of new development to
maintain and support existing historic character),
• Comprehensive Plan GOAL L-7/POLICY L-7.1 (encourage upkeep and preservation of historic
buildings, sites, and districts),
• Comprehensive Plan GOAL L-9/POLICY L-9.3/POLICY L-9.4/POLICY L-9.5/POLICY L-
9.10/PROGRAM L9.10.2 (attractive, inviting public spaces and streets that enhance the image
and character of the City, treating residential streets a public ways and neighborhood amenities,
promote walking and “active transportation,” and preserve and enhance publicly accessible,
shared outdoor gathering spaces within walking and biking distance of residential
neighborhoods, design utility structures to meet high-quality design standards and embrace
technological advances, encourage the use of compact and well-designed utility elements such
as telecommunications infrastructure and place these elements in locations that will minimize
their visual intrusion), and
• Comprehensive Plan GOAL T-6 (providing a safe environment for motorists, pedestrians, and
bicyclists) policies.
Moreover, even if the faux mailbox were located across the street, from 345 Forest Avenue, the faux
mailbox design remains oversized and incompatible with the pedestrian/multi-modal design, and
therefore would be inconsistent with development standards PAMC 18.42.110(i)(1) and (2), conditional
use permit finding PAMC Section 18.76.010(c)(1), and architectural review findings PAMC Section
18.76.020(d)(1) and (3).
Finally, the Node 26 location cannot be conditioned to meet the required findings, because the
conditionally approved design option outlined for other nodes would not resolve the above concerns
associated with views to historic Staller Court [Laning Chateau]. As a result, even with conditions, Node
26 would be inconsistent with development standard PAMC 18.42.110(i)(4), conditional use permit
finding PAMC Section 18.76.010(c)(1), and architectural review findings PAMC Section
18.76.020(d)(1),(2), and (3).
The City Council denies Node 28m1, New Pole Structure (adjacent to 905 Waverley Street (formerly 400
Channing Avenue)). The proposed design with the faux mailbox represents a proposal for an entirely
new streetlight pole in an existing underground utility district. There are a number of factors that
suggest an alternative location at an existing streetlight or another structure is more appropriate,
including: the applicant proposes that the City pay for power for the illumination component, which the
City is unwilling to do, nor did the applicant submit photometrics and other information necessary to
publicly evaluate the merits of additional lighting at that location. Additionally, the applicant did not
clarify the proposed ownership of the pole with or without a light mast and Utilities-Electrical and Public
Works-Engineering are not in support of City-ownership of a new pole structure for the purposes of
attaching to and leasing for a new facility. The proposed design option would be inconsistent with
development standard PAMC 18.42.110(i)(4) regarding the requirement to be compatible with the
existing site, which is within an underground utility district currently without a streetlight pole structure
or existing wireless communication facility, conditional use permit finding PAMC Section 18.76.010(c)(1)
regarding Comprehensive Plan goals and policies, and architectural review findings PAMC Section
18.76.020(d)(1) regarding Comprehensive Plan goals and policies, PAMC Section 18.76.020(d)(2)(B)
regarding creating an internal sense of order and a desirable environment for the general community
and harmonious transitions in character to adjacent land uses, and PAMC Section 18.76.020(d)(3)
regarding the finding of the design, including photometrics, and a basic structural presence that are
compatible with and that enhances the surroundings, which is currently a planting strip area currently
without a streetlight pole structure. Relevant Comprehensive Plan goals and policies include, as
examples:
• Comprehensive Plan GOAL L-4/POLICY L-4.7/Policy L-4.8 (maintaining and enhancing the
downtown area that promotes quality design that recognizes the regional and historic
importance of the area, reinforces its pedestrian character, and that is inviting to pedestrians
and bicyclists),
• Comprehensive Plan GOAL L-9/POLICY L-9.3/POLICY L-9.4/POLICY L-9.5/POLICY L-
9.10/PROGRAM L9.10.2 (attractive, inviting public spaces and streets that enhance the image
and character of the City, treating residential streets a public ways and neighborhood amenities,
promote walking and “active transportation,” and design utility structures to meet high-quality
design standards and embrace technological advances, encourage the use of compact and well-
designed utility elements such as telecommunications infrastructure and place these elements
in locations that will minimize their visual intrusion), and
• Comprehensive Plan GOAL T-6 (providing a safe environment for motorists, pedestrians, and
bicyclists) policies.
Moreover, the Node 28m1 node location cannot be conditioned to meet the required findings because
the conditionally approved design option outlined for other nodes at Node 28m1 would not resolve the
concerns associated with the placement of new structures (pole structure) for private use in an
underground utility district when streetlight poles anticipated by the Master License Agreement are in
the area. As a result, even with conditions, Node 28m1 would be inconsistent with development
standard PAMC 18.42.110(i)(4), conditional use permit finding PAMC Section 18.76.010(c)(1), and
architectural review findings PAMC Section 18.76.020(d)(1),(2), and (3).
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES: ()
NOES: ()
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
__________________________ ____________________________
Deputy City Attorney City Manager
____________________________
Director of Planning and Community
Environment
____________________________
Director of Administrative Services
ARB Submittal for Major Project
PROJECT DESCRIPTION 17PLN‐00433
RE: Crown Castle – Cluster 2 of 3 for 16 Small Cell Node Expansion Project in Downtown
Palo Alto.
Cluster 2: Six (6) small cell nodes on new highly decorative replacement street lights at
existing streetlight locations and one (1) proposed small cell node on a highly decorative
streetlight at a location with accessory radio equipment within the University South
Neighborhood.
Introduction
Crown Castle (formerly NextG Networks) is seeking approval of a Crown Castle node
expansion project in the core area of Palo Alto. This project will utilize the similar designs as
approved in the previous project in 2015 (15PLN‐00140). As with the 2015 small cell
project, the 2017 expansion project proposes sixteen (16) nodes overall to provide capacity
coverage to the macro cell at 525 University Avenue. This application seeks approval for
seven nodes within the University South Neighborhood. Crown Castle has a Master License
Agreement with the City of Palo Alto that allows for use of city‐controlled space on utility
poles and streetlight poles and in conduits owned by CPAU. This Crown Castle project
small cell project is designed to be installed in the public right of way on existing utility
poles, including wood poles and streetlights. The small cell wireless sites provide capacity
coverage to the larger cell site or cell tower in the area. Verizon Wireless is the carrier
identified to be the tenant in these expansion nodes.
As stated above, this application requests approval for Cluster 2 consisting of seven (7)
nodes of the 16 nodes in proposed expansion project. To summarize the overall expansion
16 node project, Verizon Wireless and Crown Castle Radio Frequency (RF) engineers have
identified locations throughout the city that require service. Sixteen (16) installations are
currently planned to be co‐located on wood utility poles and metal streetlights. Six (6) of
these small cells are proposed to be co‐located on existing city street light poles (poles to
be replaced with new highly decorative octaflute aluminum poles), one (1) on a new
streetlight, and the remaining six (9) small cells are proposed to be installed on existing
wood utility poles. These small cells will provide the City of Palo Alto much needed
improvements in network capacity and coverage. Small cells are currently proposed in
three (3) configurations that are dependent on the design opportunities and constraints of
specific pole locations within the City of Palo Alto. The seven (7) nodes in this application
are distributed within the University South Neighborhood. Please see Vicinity Map.
Coverage Needs
The unprecedented current and future demand for wireless service requires the
densification of existing cellular networks. More people are using a wireless connection for
personal and professional needs, both in home and in transit. As a result, wireless
communication facilities are diminishing in height and being located closer to the user to
meet both daily needs as well as provide essential coverage for emergency personnel. The
coverage map below demonstrates the current need. Intermittent dots indicates poor
coverage and solid green indicates good coverage for capacity. Diagram 1 shows the area
identified for the 16 nodes is predominately intermittent dots. On the following page,
Diagram 2 shows the improvement in capacity is achieved where the green line is solid.
Diagram 1 ‐ Current level of coverage for 1900 MHz:
Diagram 2 ‐ Proposed Improvement in coverage for 1900 MHz:
Diagram 3 ‐ Current level of coverage for 2100 MHz:
Diagram 4 ‐ Proposed Improvement in coverage for 2100 MHz:
Site Locations
The process for site selection by Crown Castle aim to meet the need for service coverage,
while at the same time locating poles that will have the least impact. With high demand of
wireless services, the small facilities need to be located within a relatively narrow area as
compared to a ‘macro’ or traditional larger wireless facility. The sites were initially chosen
based upon the greatest needs in coverage in the area identified. Each site was walked by a
team that included RF (radio frequency) engineers, a construction manager, A&E
(architectural and engineering) professionals and government relations consultants in
order to make on the spot decisions of the best pole in the neighborhood that could
accommodate the wireless equipment within the City’s criteria and with sensitivity to the
neighborhood. Pole location proximity to a residence and sidewalk, orientation of the
placement of the equipment on the pole and general visibility were taken into account as
to which pole in any given area was finally chosen. There are typically only one or two poles
that are viable candidates due to the small size design of the sites and limited range of the
signal. Pole selection in determined in the field ensuring the RF need for the facility and
constructability are met while meeting zoning and other requirements by the City,
including sensitivity to the community needs. The team also walked the sites with staff
from Compliance to confirm which locations were feasible. Two new alternative
streetlights installations were proposed to accommodate requests from staff, the ARB and
community members for Nodes 26 and 28. Currently the only new proposed streetlight is
Node 28 as Node 26 has moved back to the original location on an existing streetlight as
requested by the neighbors to utilize existing infrastructure, rather than add a new light in
this particular neighborhood.
The alternative location for Node 26 near 332 Forest Avenue has been removed due to
feedback from CPAU staff that it will not be supported, as well as feedback from the nearby
residents. Crown has returned to the original Node 26 was proposed at the corner of
Gilbert and Forest Avenue as it was the only existing streetlight in the immediate area that
worked with the RF network design. This streetlight is located in front of the historic Staller
Court at 345 Forest Avenue. The RF engineer did a review of the streetlights in the area
and confirmed no other existing streetlight would provide a feasible alternative. At the
Design Review Committee meeting, the Historic Preservation Planner confirmed there is
concern that this location would have an aesthetic impact, thereby requiring the Node be
located to another pole. Despite multiple efforts to find an alternative, no other existing
pole is feasible. Comments from the neighborhood also reflect a desire to utilize the
existing pole at the corner of Gilbert and Forest, as opposed to a new streetlight or pole.
The original Node 28 was proposed in front of 370 Channing as the only existing streetlight
in that area that could accommodate the RF need. At the Preliminary ARB hearing, the
commissioners discussed a possibility of locating a site near the corner as the residents at
370 Channing raised concerns on the impacts in front of their home. The existing poles on
the corner are traffic signals, which are not allowed to be used for collocation. The Crown
team did an RF analysis and determined a site at the corner would be feasible and a new
streetlight was submitted for review of feasibility. The new location was reviewed and
allowed to be submitted with this location.
Site information on each node
Node Closest address for
identity purposes
Assessor's
address based
on location in
plans
Adjacent APN Pole # Adjacent
Zone Overlay Zone
25
275 Forest Ave
(corner of Ramona
St & Forest Ave)
250 Hamilton
Ave 12027011 23 PF MISP
26
Row across from
675 Gilbert St aka
345 Forest Ave
345 Forest Ave 12016033 32 RM‐40 SOFA I CAP
27
248 Homer (across
from 819 Ramona
St)
248 Homer
Ave 12028012 82 RT‐35 SOFA II CAP/ HE
Corr SOFA II
28m1 near 400 Channing
Ave
400 Channing
Ave 12017043 new R‐2 SOFA I CAP
29
751 Waverley St
(near 760
Waverley)
385 Homer
Ave 12016066 76 DHS SOFA I CAP
30
411 Bryant St
(corner of Channing
Ave and Bryant St)
845 Ramona
St 12028109 86 AMF SOFA I CAP
31
190 Channing Ave
(across from 913
Emerson St)
190 Channing
Ave 12028051 16 RT‐35 SOFA II CAP/ HIS
5
Elevation of example of the installation. Please see site plans for specific elevation of each Node and
accompanying radio equipment cabinet.
Minimizing Visual Impacts
To minimize visual impacts the 24” antenna is located on the pole on the top. All
equipment will be painted to match the proscribed color of the pole. At the Preliminary
ARB meeting, the option of using art wrapped boxes and the mail utility box were
discussed, along with other potential options. For ground equipment, the faux mailbox
styled radio equipment cabinet painted green continues to be proposed as it continues the
consistency of the existing faux mailboxes and appears to have the least visual impact and
least disturbance to the existing sidewalk and street. No concerns have been raised by
community members as to the color and design of the mailboxes.
Node 25 Photo simulation is on the following page. Photo simulations for each node can be
found within the site plans in the planning packet.
Scope of Work
The scope of work includes replacing six (6) existing streetlights and adding one (1) new streetlight
(Node 28). The final design of the new streetlight is pending final direction from staff. The equipment
will be added to these poles, includes adding a 24” antenna on the top with additional radio
equipment to be located in a 24.75” x 48.63” mailbox styled mailbox cabinet. Conduit for fiber will be
installed inside the pole. Where trenching is required for the conduit, the trench will use a bore pit at
each end of the conduit run and bore from one point to the other or a trench will be dug. See SP‐2 for
specific depths for each installation of the seven proposed sites. In order to trench, segments of the
sidewalk will be removed in squares and will replaced after trenching is complete. Any disturbance to
the asphalt in the street to accommodate the work will also be completely repaired and restored.
Project information can be found at http://www.crowncastle.com/projects/palo‐alto_ca.aspx
Respectfully submitted,
Rochelle Swanson
Government Relations Consultant for
Crown Castle
r.swanson@sure‐site.com
916‐801‐3178
ATTACHMENT F
PROJECT PLANS
File No. 17PLN-00433
Hardcopies of project plans are provided to Council Members. These plans are available to the
public online and by visiting the Planning and Community Environmental Department on the
5th floor of City Hall at 250 Hamilton Avenue.
Directions to review Project plans online:
Project Webpage
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=4120&TargetID=319
Permit Tracking System
1. Go to Citizen Portal:
https://aca.accela.com/PALOALTO/Cap/CapHome.aspx?module=Planning&TabN
ame=Planning&TabList=Home%7C0%7CBuilding%7C1%7CPlanning%7C2%7CFire
%7C3%7CPublicWorks%7C4%7CCurrentTabIndex%7C2
2. Go to the Planning tab within Palo Alto Citizen Portal and type in the application
number 17PLN-00433.
3. Both current and superseded files are listed under Record Info and Attachments
4. The current and latest project plans are named:
“17PLN-00433 Cluster 2 Resubmittal Plans 11-19-18 PART 1of2”
“17PLN-00433 Cluster 2 Resubmittal Plans 11-19-18 PART 1of2”
Note:
The address for this application 17PLN-00433 is listed in the City’s permit tracking system under
250 Hamilton Avenue because the utility poles and streetlights that are proposed to host the
small cell deployment nodes are identified by unique pole numbers and do not have specific
property addresses.
Review of Small Cell Wireless Applications –
Crown Castle Cluster 2 (17PLN-00433)
Prepared for the City of Palo Alto
December 2018
Review of Small Cell Wireless Application – Crown Castle Cluster 2 (17PLN-00433) | December 2018
ii
Contents
1 Executive Summary 1
1.1 Overview of Analysis 2
1.2 Findings 2
2 Brief Background on Cellular Antenna Issues 3
2.1 Wireless Coverage and Target Signal Levels 3
2.2 FCC Guidelines for Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Fields 3
3 Overview of Current and Planned Verizon Service in the City 6
3.1 Crown Castle’s Stated Intent for New Sites 6
3.2 On-Site Field Tests 6
4 Summary of the Small Cell Applications 8
4.1 Summary of Small Cell Application for Site 25 8
4.2 Summary of Small Cell Application for Site 26 12
4.3 Summary of Small Cell Application for Site 27 16
4.4 Summary of Small Cell Application for Site 28m1 20
4.5 Summary of Small Cell Application for Site 29 24
4.6 Summary of Small Cell Application for Site 30 28
4.7 Summary of Small Cell Application for Site 31 32
5 Options for Minimizing Visual Obtrusiveness 37
5.1 Place Equipment in Underground Vaults 37
5.1.1 Crown Castle’s Proposed Equipment 37
5.1.2 Considerations for Installing Underground Vaults 38
5.2 Consider a Microcell Architecture 40
Sources 45
Review of Small Cell Wireless Application – Crown Castle Cluster 2 (17PLN-00433) | December 2018
iii
Tables
Table 1: Verizon Capacity by Wireless Band 6
Table 2: Data Transmission Test Measurements at Proposed Site 25 7
Table 3: Data Transmission Test Measurements at Proposed Site 31 7
Table 4: Communications Equipment Specifications (Source: Crown Castle) 11
Table 5: Communications Equipment Specifications (Source: Crown Castle) 15
Table 6: Communications Equipment Specifications (Source: Crown Castle) 19
Table 7: Communications Equipment Specifications (Source: Crown Castle) 23
Table 8: Communications Equipment Specifications (Source: Crown Castle) 27
Table 9: Communications Equipment Specifications (Source: Crown Castle) 31
Table 10: Communications Equipment Specifications (Source: Crown Castle) 35
Review of Small Cell Wireless Application – Crown Castle Cluster 2 (17PLN-00433) | December 2018
iv
Figures
Figure 1: FCC Limits for Maximum Permissible Exposure (mW/cm2) 4
Figure 2: Most Critical Area for Consideration of RF Exposure 5
Figure 3: Drive Test Results for Cluster 2 7
Figure 4: Site 25 Existing Photo (Source: Crown Castle) 9
Figure 5: Site 25 Photo Simulation (Source: Crown Castle) 10
Figure 6: Site 25 Antenna Radiation Pattern 12
Figure 7: Site 26 Existing Photo (Source: Crown Castle) 13
Figure 8: Site 26 Photo Simulation (Source: Crown Castle) 14
Figure 9: Site 26 Antenna Radiation Pattern 16
Figure 10: Site 27 Existing Photo (Source: Crown Castle) 17
Figure 11: Site 27 Photo Simulation (Source: Crown Castle) 18
Figure 12: Site 27 Antenna Radiation Pattern 20
Figure 13: Site 28m1 Existing Photo (Source: Crown Castle) 21
Figure 14: Site 28m1 Photo Simulation (Source: Crown Castle) 22
Figure 15: Site 28m1 Antenna Radiation Pattern 24
Figure 16: Site 29 Existing Photo (Source: Crown Castle) 25
Figure 17: Site 29 Photo Simulation (Source: Crown Castle) 26
Figure 18: Site 29 Antenna Radiation Pattern 28
Figure 19: Site 30 Existing Photo (Source: Crown Castle) 29
Figure 20: Site 30 Photo Simulation (Source: Crown Castle) 30
Figure 21: Site 30 Antenna Radiation Pattern 32
Figure 22: Site 31 Existing Photo (Source: Crown Castle) 33
Figure 23: Site 31 Photo Simulation (Source: Crown Castle) 34
Figure 24: Site 31 Antenna Radiation Pattern 36
Figure 25: Remote Radio Units 38
Figure 26: Underground Vault for Radio Equipment 39
Figure 27: Issues Related to Placing Underground Vault for Radio Equipment 40
Figure 28: RRU-32 Radio Configuration 41
Figure 29: Ericsson 2203 Microcell 42
Figure 30: Light Pole Microsite Architecture – Option A 43
Figure 31: Light Pole Microsite Architecture – Option B 44
Review of Small Cell Wireless Application – Crown Castle Cluster 2 (17PLN-00433) | December 2018
1
1 Executive Summary
The City received applications from Crown Castle (the applicant) on behalf of Verizon Wireless
(Verizon) to mount wireless access facilities on the sites of six existing light poles (which the
applicant will replace with new poles) and on one new light pole to be installed by the applicant
at a location where no light pole currently exists. The small cell wireless facility siting applications,
known formally as “17PLN-00433 Cluster 2 (University South) Tier 3 Wireless Communication
Facility (WCF) Permit,” represent cellular sites that have been designed to serve customers in
targeted areas of the City.
Columbia Telecommunications Corporation (CTC) is an independent telecommunications
consulting firm that has been retained by the City to perform a technical review of the
applications. CTC has performed a technical review and analysis of the applications with respect
to Crown Castle’s communications engineering materials, its justification for the sites, and the
overall functionality of this site in relation to other existing and proposed Verizon transmission
facilities.
This report describes the information that we received and documents our analysis and
conclusions related to the applications. Our analysis does not include a review or evaluation of
the appropriateness of the proposed facilities or sites. Rather, our analysis is confined to the
technical aspects of the applications and includes:
1. A review of the technical equipment that is being proposed by the applications and the
suitability of such equipment to meet the purposes set forth by the applications
2. A review of the RF emissions studies submitted by the applicant to confirm that the
proposal would not exceed the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) RF emissions
guidelines
3. An evaluation of the coverage and network maps submitted by the applicant to determine
whether such existing and potential coverage can be confirmed
4. An evaluation of technically feasible alternative equipment design configurations that
would meet the purposes set forth by the applications
Accordingly, our recommendation is based on an evaluation of the technical characteristics of
the proposal being made and does not intend to address the traffic, public safety, or various
other potential impacts of the proposal upon the surrounding area, the public, or the City as a
whole. While this report describes alternative locations and designs that may affect the visual
impact and aesthetics of the proposal, it does not provide a recommendation on these matters.
Review of Small Cell Wireless Application – Crown Castle Cluster 2 (17PLN-00433) | December 2018
2
1.1 Overview of Analysis
This report documents CTC’s findings relative to Crown Castle’s proposed sites. In November
2018, CTC’s engineers performed the following tasks:
• Reviewed all application materials submitted by Crown Castle, including:
o Coverage maps (showing the target area and vicinity)
o Equipment specifications
o RF level analysis
o Photo simulations
• Conducted a site visit to inspect the proposed locations and vicinity, and to verify the
documentation provided in the applications
• Conducted on-site coverage and capacity tests at and near the proposed locations
• Conducted an independent review of the applications for compliance with FCC guidelines
on Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields
• Examined the area around the proposed sites to seek to identify suitable alternative
locations
• Identified potential site design changes that may enhance the aesthetics of the
infrastructure in the City’s judgment
1.2 Findings
We recommend these applications from a technical standpoint. In summary:
• Our review of the technical equipment being proposed finds that the equipment is
suitable to meet the purposes set forth by the applications.
• Our review of the RF emissions studies submitted by the applicant (prepared by Jerrold T.
Bushberg, Ph.D.) and the independent analysis of our team (under the supervision of Lee
Afflerbach, P.E.) confirm that at each site, the total calculated RF emissions would not
exceed the FCC’s guidelines at ground level or at the antenna’s horizontal planes.
• Our on-site testing of Verizon’s current network performance at the seven sites found
that Verizon’s network delivers a strong signal, but throughput levels vary greatly. In all
cases, our measurements recorded wireless signal levels of sufficient amplitude to
support the high-speed transfer of data—but user demand had a clear effect on network
throughput.
• Alternative designs and configurations for each of the proposed sites may enhance the
aesthetics of the infrastructure in the City’s judgment.
Review of Small Cell Wireless Application – Crown Castle Cluster 2 (17PLN-00433) | December 2018
3
2 Brief Background on Cellular Antenna Issues
The following brief discussion presents a framework for understanding our analysis of Verizon’s
application and our findings.
2.1 Wireless Coverage and Target Signal Levels
Wireless coverage for modern 4G technology broadband services is determined by a carrier’s
radio frequency (RF) signal amplitude and signal quality within a desired service area. Signals
need to be at a minimum amplitude to override noise and, in many cases, interference from other
wireless facilities. Signal levels also need to be maintained at a power level such that user devices
are not constantly connecting and reconnecting (either because of a loss of signal or because an
existing connection is overpowered by another wireless access point).
Handing off a user from one access site to another is part of the mechanics of dealing with users
who are in motion—particularly in an urbanized area with multiple signal paths and tower sites.
Further, modern 4G technologies as employed by Verizon and other carriers operate with
sophisticated encoding technology that permit higher transmission speeds in areas where signal
levels are higher than those required for minimum data rate transfers.
While the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has no technical standards for the services
provided by commercial wireless carriers, the industry and equipment manufacturers have
generally established target signal levels for various service environments. Typically referenced
service environments include outdoor coverage, in-vehicle coverage, and in-building coverage.
For 4G technology, target levels are specified in terms of the ratio of decibels (dB) to milliwatts
(mW) of signal power, with a reference level of 0 dBm being equal to 1 milliwatt of signal power.
Modern cellular equipment is extremely sensitive and can operate at signal levels as low as -120
dBm RSRP.1
2.2 FCC Guidelines for Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Fields
The FCC’s guidelines for evaluating human exposure to RF signals were first established in 1985.
The current guidelines were adopted in August 1996 in FCC OET Bulletin 65.2 The guidelines are
expressed in terms of Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE) to electric and magnetic field
strength and power density. The guidelines cover the frequency range of 300 kHz to 100 GHz.
The guidelines cover two separate tiers of exposure:
1. Occupational/controlled exposure limits apply to situations in which persons are exposed
as a consequence of their employment and in which those persons who are exposed have
1 Reference Signals Received Power, measured In dBm, indicates the power of an LTE cellular signal.
2 “Evaluating Compliance with FCC Guidelines for Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields,” OET
Bulletin 65, edition 97-01. https://www.fcc.gov/general/oet-bulletins-line#65
Review of Small Cell Wireless Application – Crown Castle Cluster 2 (17PLN-00433) | December 2018
4
been made fully aware of the potential for exposure and can exercise control over their
exposure.
2. General population/uncontrolled exposure limits apply to situations in which the general
public may be exposed or in which persons who are exposed as a consequence of their
employment may not be made fully aware of the potential for exposure or cannot
exercise control over their exposure.
Figure 1 is a plot of MPE as a function of RF.
Figure 1: FCC Limits for Maximum Permissible Exposure (mW/cm2)
Figure 2 illustrates the areas where the greatest RF exposure is present—specifically, at or near
the base of the antenna mounting structure and horizontally at an elevated location near the
antenna.
Review of Small Cell Wireless Application – Crown Castle Cluster 2 (17PLN-00433) | December 2018
5
Figure 2: Most Critical Area for Consideration of RF Exposure
Area where an occupied structure might be
adjacent to the antenna
Area where a pedestrian might be near the
pole’s base
Review of Small Cell Wireless Application – Crown Castle Cluster 2 (17PLN-00433) | December 2018
6
3 Overview of Current and Planned Verizon Service in the City
Verizon currently provides commercial wireless service throughout the City with antennas
mounted on buildings and towers. These traditional wireless facilities, which are designed to
serve users in a 1- to 2-mile radius, are often referred to as “macro” sites.
Verizon delivers service in three wireless bands (Table 1). However, while Verizon’s existing sites
cover the City, most areas of the City receive only 700 MHz service. Coverage in the higher-
frequency PCS and AWS bands—which account for 75 percent of Verizon’s total bandwidth—are
limited to areas within one-half mile or less from the macro sites.
Table 1: Verizon Capacity by Wireless Band
Band FCC Spectrum Service Frequency LTE
Bandwidth
% of Total
Bandwidth
700 MHz UHF low band 700 MHz 10 MHz 25
PCS Personal Communications Service 1,900 MHz 10 MHz 25
AWS Advanced Wireless Service 2,100 MHz 20 MHz 50
3.1 Crown Castle’s Stated Intent for New Sites
Crown Castle’s proposed “small cell” antenna sitings are intended to enhance the performance
of Verizon’s Long-Term Evolution (LTE) service. LTE is the standard behind today’s top-of-the-line
4G (fourth-generation wireless) smartphones and tablets. (We note, too, that future 5G
deployment is expected to build upon ongoing upgrades of existing 4G infrastructure.)
The proposed small cells, placed at targeted locations, would provide additional capacity and
increased signal strength to serve users in areas that do not currently have access to Verizon PCS
and AWS signal coverage. The small cells would also reduce the net load on the macro sites.
3.2 On-Site Field Tests
Our signal intensity measurements confirm that Verizon’s existing network delivers a signal level
that is adequate to support a high level of service (i.e., the network provides adequate coverage).
This finding matches our experience in other communities in California where Verizon LTE sites
that are not subjected to the demands of a large concurrent user base (i.e., user demand does
not overwhelm the network’s capacity) consistently deliver reliable download speeds in the
range of 30 Mbps to 40 Mbps and upload speeds ranging from 10 Mbps to 25 Mbps (i.e.,
performance typically achievable with the current generation of 4G LTE transmission equipment).
That said, data transmission rates varied widely at the seven sites at the time of our sampling.
For example, our measurements at Site 25 fell only slightly out of the low end of the 4G LTE
ranges on average (Table 2), while Site 31 exhibited extremely low average download and upload
speeds (Table 3).
Review of Small Cell Wireless Application – Crown Castle Cluster 2 (17PLN-00433) | December 2018
7
Table 2: Data Transmission Test Measurements at Proposed Site 25
Table 3: Data Transmission Test Measurements at Proposed Site 31
In addition to the on-site speed tests, we conducted drive test measurements of signal levels on
primary roads in and near the proposed small cell deployment areas. Figure 3 is a map illustrating
the signal levels recorded. During the day in which testing was conducted, we experienced no
disconnects and no interruption in the connection to the 4G LTE network service.
Figure 3: Drive Test Results for Cluster 2
Review of Small Cell Wireless Application – Crown Castle Cluster 2 (17PLN-00433) | December 2018
8
4 Summary of the Small Cell Applications
The Cluster 2 applications comprise seven individual sites:
• Site 25, adjacent to 275 Forest Ave.
• Site 26, adjacent to 345 Forest Ave.
• Site 27, adjacent to 248 Homer Ave.
• Site 28m1, adjacent to 905 Waverley St. (formerly 400 Channing Ave.)
• Site 29, adjacent to 385 Homer Ave.
• Site 30, adjacent to 845 Ramona St. (west corner of Channing Ave. and Bryant St.
• Site 31, adjacent to 190 Channing Ave.
We describe each site below.
4.1 Summary of Small Cell Application for Site 25
The applicant proposes to install a wireless access facility on the site of an existing street light
pole located in the public right-of-way adjacent to 275 Forest Avenue. The existing 23′ 7″ light
pole will be replaced with a new, more substantial pole and foundation. The overall height of the
new light pole and antenna will be 26′ 2″ above ground level, per the applicant’s site plans. Figure
4 is a photograph of the existing light pole.
Review of Small Cell Wireless Application – Crown Castle Cluster 2 (17PLN-00433) | December 2018
9
Figure 4: Site 25 Existing Photo (Source: Crown Castle)
The site will be connected to the client network through a dedicated fiber optic communications
link. The link will monitor and control the site and will transport the communications traffic (i.e.,
voice and data) to and from the network users.
Two Verizon RRU-32 remote radio units will be enclosed in a cabinet designed to mimic the shape
of a mailbox (24.75″ x 24.75″ x 48.63″) mounted at ground level adjacent to the street light.
Figure 5 (below) is a photo simulation of the site as it will look with the antenna and the cabinet.
The canister antenna will be mounted on the top of the pole. Coaxial cabling, antenna coupling
devices, fiber network interface housing, and a power disconnect switch will be fully enclosed in
the mailbox, within the light pole, or in underground conduits/enclosures.
Review of Small Cell Wireless Application – Crown Castle Cluster 2 (17PLN-00433) | December 2018
10
Figure 5: Site 25 Photo Simulation (Source: Crown Castle)
Crown Castle’s application included specifications for the equipment that will be installed at the
proposed site (Table 4). This equipment is consistent with small cell hardware used throughout
the wireless industry.
Review of Small Cell Wireless Application – Crown Castle Cluster 2 (17PLN-00433) | December 2018
11
Table 4: Communications Equipment Specifications (Source: Crown Castle)
Item PCS (1900 MHz) AWS (2100 MHz)
Antenna
Amphenol CUUT070X06FXYZ0 Shared Antenna
Horizontal Beamwidth (°) 70 70
Bearing Azimuth (°) 190 190
Gain (dB) 9.4 9.6
Vertical Beamwidth (°) 16.0 15.3
RAD Above Ground (feet) 25’2” 25’2”
Dimensions (inches) 24″ H X 14.6″ Diameter Shared Antenna
Coordinates 37.443835/-122.159714 Shared Antenna
Remote Radio Units (RRU)
Ericson RRUS-32 RRUS-32
Power (Watts) 160 160
ERP (Watts) 386.4 443.7
Dimensions (inches) 27.2″ H x 12.1″ W x 7.0″ D 27.2″ H x 12.1″ W x 7.0″ D
Crown Castle submitted an independent engineering study of the level of RF emission exposure
(both at ground level and antenna height level) for the small cell equipment to be located at Site
25. The study was prepared by the consulting firm of Jerrold T. Bushberg, a firm that specializes
in RF emission analysis consistent with the guidelines established by the FCC. The consultant
calculated that the maximum ground-level RF exposure level due to the proposed Verizon
operation will be 0.075 mW/cm², which is 7.5 percent of the applicable public exposure limit. The
consultant calculated that at antenna height level, the nearest building is 12 feet away and will
have an exposure level less than 1 percent of the MPE.
As part of our assignment, we performed an independent analysis of the calculated RF exposure
levels at Site 25. Figure 6 provides graphs of the RF energy emitted by the proposed antenna in
the horizontal and vertical planes. Note that in the horizontal plane, the radiation pattern is
directional facing 190°. In the vertical plane, the maximum radiation is focused outward,
perpendicular to the pole. In the downward direction (toward the ground at the pole) the
radiation is at least 16 dB (1/50th) of the radiation in the horizontal plane.
Review of Small Cell Wireless Application – Crown Castle Cluster 2 (17PLN-00433) | December 2018
12
Figure 6: Site 25 Antenna Radiation Pattern3
Horizontal Radiation Pattern Vertical Radiation Pattern
Based on the specifications of the proposed antenna and transmission equipment, we concur
with the applicant’s findings that the maximum general-population RF exposure calculated for
the site at both the base and at the antenna’s horizontal plane is within the FCC’s MPE.
4.2 Summary of Small Cell Application for Site 26
The applicant proposes to install a wireless access facility on the site of an existing street light
pole located in the public right-of-way adjacent to 345 Forest Avenue and across the street from
675 Gilman Street. The existing 18′ 9″ light pole will be replaced with a new, more substantial
pole and foundation. The overall height of the new light pole and antenna will be 21′ 4″ above
ground level, per the applicant’s site plans. Figure 7 is a photograph of the existing light pole.
3 2,100 MHz (AWS band) amplitude in dB relative to maximum value in the respective plane.
Review of Small Cell Wireless Application – Crown Castle Cluster 2 (17PLN-00433) | December 2018
13
Figure 7: Site 26 Existing Photo (Source: Crown Castle)
The site will be connected to the client network through a dedicated fiber optic communications
link. The link will monitor and control the site and will transport the communications traffic (i.e.,
voice and data) to and from the network users.
Two Verizon RRU-32 remote radio units will be enclosed in a cabinet designed to mimic the shape
of a mailbox (24.75″ x 24.75″ x 48.63″) mounted at ground level adjacent to the street light.
Figure 8 (below) is a photo simulation of the site as it will look with the antenna and the cabinet.
The canister antenna will be mounted on the top of the pole. Coaxial cabling, antenna coupling
Review of Small Cell Wireless Application – Crown Castle Cluster 2 (17PLN-00433) | December 2018
14
devices, fiber network interface housing, and a power disconnect switch will be fully enclosed in
the mailbox, within the light pole, or in underground conduits/enclosures.
Figure 8: Site 26 Photo Simulation (Source: Crown Castle)
Review of Small Cell Wireless Application – Crown Castle Cluster 2 (17PLN-00433) | December 2018
15
Crown Castle’s application included specifications for the equipment that will be installed at the
proposed site (Table 5). This equipment is consistent with small cell hardware used throughout
the wireless industry.
Table 5: Communications Equipment Specifications (Source: Crown Castle)
Item PCS (1900 MHz) AWS (2100 MHz)
Antenna
Amphenol CUUT360X06FXYZ0 Shared Antenna
Horizontal Beamwidth (°) 360 360
Bearing Azimuth (°) Omni Omni
Gain (dB) 9.4 9.6
Vertical Beamwidth (°) 16.0 15.3
RAD Above Ground (feet) 20’4” 20’4”
Dimensions (inches) 24″ H X 14.6″ Diameter Shared Antenna
Coordinates 37.444953/-122.158639 Shared Antenna
Remote Radio Units (RRU)
Ericson RRUS-32 RRUS-32
Power (Watts) 160 160
ERP (Watts) 386.4 443.7
Dimensions (inches) 27.2″ H x 12.1″ W x 7.0″ D 27.2″ H x 12.1″ W x 7.0″ D
Crown Castle submitted an independent engineering study of the level of RF emission exposure
(both at ground level and antenna height level) for the small cell equipment to be located at Site
26. The study was prepared by the consulting firm of Jerrold T. Bushberg, a firm that specializes
in RF emission analysis consistent with the guidelines established by the FCC. The consultant
calculated that the maximum ground-level RF exposure level due to the proposed Verizon
operation will be 0.045 mW/cm², which is 4.5 percent of the applicable public exposure limit. The
consultant calculated that at antenna height level, the nearest building is 40 feet away and will
have an exposure level less than 1 percent of the MPE.
As part of our assignment, we performed an independent analysis of the calculated RF exposure
levels at Site 26. Figure 9 provides graphs of the RF energy emitted by the proposed antenna in
the horizontal and vertical planes. Note that in the horizontal plane, the radiation pattern is
essentially omni-directional with minor nodes due to the various fabrication components. In the
vertical plane, the maximum radiation is focused outward, perpendicular to the pole. In the
downward direction (toward the ground at the pole) the radiation is at least 16 dB (1/50th) of the
radiation in the horizontal plane.
Review of Small Cell Wireless Application – Crown Castle Cluster 2 (17PLN-00433) | December 2018
16
Figure 9: Site 26 Antenna Radiation Pattern4
Horizontal Radiation Pattern Vertical Radiation Pattern
Based on the specifications of the proposed antenna and transmission equipment, we concur
with the applicant’s findings that the maximum general-population RF exposure calculated for
the site at both the base and at the antenna’s horizontal plane is within the FCC’s MPE.
4.3 Summary of Small Cell Application for Site 27
The applicant proposes to install a wireless access facility on the site of an existing street light
pole located in the public right-of-way adjacent to 248 Homer Avenue and across from 819
Ramona Street. The existing 18′ 10″ light pole will be replaced with a new, more substantial pole
and foundation. The overall height of the new light pole and antenna will be 21′ 5″ above ground
level, per the applicant’s site plans. Figure 10 is a photograph of the existing light pole.
4 2,100 MHz (AWS band) amplitude in dB relative to maximum value in the respective plane.
Review of Small Cell Wireless Application – Crown Castle Cluster 2 (17PLN-00433) | December 2018
17
Figure 10: Site 27 Existing Photo (Source: Crown Castle)
The site will be connected to the client network through a dedicated fiber optic communications
link. The link will monitor and control the site and will transport the communications traffic (i.e.,
voice and data) to and from the network users.
Two Verizon RRU-32 remote radio units will be enclosed in a cabinet designed to mimic the shape
of a mailbox (24.75″ x 24.75″ x 48.63″) mounted at ground level adjacent to the street light.
Figure 11 (below) is a photo simulation of the site as it will look with the antenna and the cabinet.
The canister antenna will be mounted on the top of the pole. Coaxial cabling, antenna coupling
Review of Small Cell Wireless Application – Crown Castle Cluster 2 (17PLN-00433) | December 2018
18
devices, fiber network interface housing, and a power disconnect switch will be fully enclosed in
the mailbox, within the light pole, or in underground conduits/enclosures.
Figure 11: Site 27 Photo Simulation (Source: Crown Castle)
Crown Castle’s application included specifications for the equipment that will be installed at the
proposed site (Table 6). This equipment is consistent with small cell hardware used throughout
the wireless industry.
Review of Small Cell Wireless Application – Crown Castle Cluster 2 (17PLN-00433) | December 2018
19
Table 6: Communications Equipment Specifications (Source: Crown Castle)
Item PCS (1900 MHz) AWS (2100 MHz)
Antenna
Amphenol CUUT070X06FXYZ0 Shared Antenna
Horizontal Beamwidth (°) 70 70
Bearing Azimuth (°) 70 70
Gain (dB) 9.4 9.6
Vertical Beamwidth (°) 16.0 15.3
RAD Above Ground (feet) 20’ 5” 20’ 5”
Dimensions (inches) 24″ H X 14.6″ Diameter Shared Antenna
Coordinates 37.442865/-122.158448 Shared Antenna
Remote Radio Units (RRU)
Ericson RRUS-32 RRUS-32
Power (Watts) 160 160
ERP (Watts) 386.4 443.7
Dimensions (inches) 27.2″ H x 12.1″ W x 7.0″ D 27.2″ H x 12.1″ W x 7.0″ D
Crown Castle submitted an independent engineering study of the level of RF emission exposure
(both at ground level and antenna height level) for the small cell equipment to be located at Site
27. The study was prepared by the consulting firm of Jerrold T. Bushberg, a firm that specializes
in RF emission analysis consistent with the guidelines established by the FCC. The consultant
calculated that the maximum ground-level RF exposure level due to the proposed Verizon
operation will be 0.115 mW/cm², which is 11.5 percent of the applicable public exposure limit.
The consultant calculated that at antenna height level, the nearest building is 8 feet away and
will have an exposure level less than 1 percent of the MPE.
As part of our assignment, we performed an independent analysis of the calculated RF exposure
levels at Site 27. Figure 12 provides graphs of the RF energy emitted by the proposed antenna in
the horizontal and vertical planes. Note that in the horizontal plane, the radiation pattern is
directional, facing 70°. In the vertical plane, the maximum radiation is focused outward,
perpendicular to the pole. In the downward direction (toward the ground at the pole) the
radiation is at least 16 dB (1/50th) of the radiation in the horizontal plane.
Review of Small Cell Wireless Application – Crown Castle Cluster 2 (17PLN-00433) | December 2018
20
Figure 12: Site 27 Antenna Radiation Pattern5
Horizontal Radiation Pattern Vertical Radiation Pattern
Based on the specifications of the proposed antenna and transmission equipment, we concur
with the applicant’s findings that the maximum general-population RF exposure calculated for
the site at both the base and at the antenna’s horizontal plane is within the FCC’s MPE.
4.4 Summary of Small Cell Application for Site 28m1
The applicant proposes to install a wireless access facility on a new street light pole to be
constructed by the applicant (subject to approval by the City) in the public right-of-way adjacent
to 905 Waverley St. (formerly 400 Channing Ave.). The overall height of the new light pole and
antenna will be 21′ 4″ above ground level, per the applicant’s site plans. Figure 13 is a photograph
of the site.
5 2,100 MHz (AWS band) amplitude in dB relative to maximum value in the respective plane.
Review of Small Cell Wireless Application – Crown Castle Cluster 2 (17PLN-00433) | December 2018
21
Figure 13: Site 28m1 Existing Photo (Source: Crown Castle)
The site will be connected to the client network through a dedicated fiber optic communications
link. The link will monitor and control the site and will transport the communications traffic (i.e.,
voice and data) to and from the network users.
Two Verizon RRU-32 remote radio units will be enclosed in a cabinet designed to mimic the shape
of a mailbox (24.75″ x 24.75″ x 48.63″) mounted at ground level adjacent to the street light.
Figure 14 (below) is a photo simulation of the site as it will look with the antenna and the cabinet.
The canister antenna will be mounted on the top of the pole. Coaxial cabling, antenna coupling
devices, fiber network interface housing, and a power disconnect switch will be fully enclosed in
the mailbox, within the light pole, or in underground conduits/enclosures.
Review of Small Cell Wireless Application – Crown Castle Cluster 2 (17PLN-00433) | December 2018
22
Figure 14: Site 28m1 Photo Simulation (Source: Crown Castle)
Crown Castle’s application included specifications for the equipment that will be installed at the
proposed site (Table 7). This equipment is consistent with small cell hardware used throughout
the wireless industry.
Review of Small Cell Wireless Application – Crown Castle Cluster 2 (17PLN-00433) | December 2018
23
Table 7: Communications Equipment Specifications (Source: Crown Castle)
Item PCS (1900 MHz) AWS (2100 MHz)
Antenna
Amphenol CUUT180X06FXYZ0 Shared Antenna
Horizontal Beamwidth (°) 180 180
Bearing Azimuth (°) 35 (bi-directional) 35 (bi-directional)
Gain (dB) 9.4 9.6
Vertical Beamwidth (°) 16.0 15.3
RAD Above Ground (feet) 20’4” 20’4”
Dimensions (inches) 24″ H X 14.6″ Diameter Shared Antenna
Coordinates 37.444157/-122.155167 Shared Antenna
Remote Radio Units (RRU)
Ericson RRUS-32 RRUS-32
Power (Watts) 160 160
ERP (Watts) 386.4 443.7
Dimensions (inches) 27.2″ H x 12.1″ W x 7.0″ D 27.2″ H x 12.1″ W x 7.0″ D
Crown Castle submitted an independent engineering study of the level of RF emission exposure
(both at ground level and antenna height level) for the small cell equipment to be located at Site
28m1. The study was prepared by the consulting firm of Jerrold T. Bushberg, a firm that
specializes in RF emission analysis consistent with the guidelines established by the FCC. The
consultant calculated that the maximum ground-level RF exposure level due to the proposed
Verizon operation will be 0.035 mW/cm², which is 3.5 percent of the applicable public exposure
limit. The consultant calculated that at antenna height level, the nearest building is 28 feet away
and will have an exposure level less than 1 percent of the MPE. Subsequent to the Bushberg
analysis, a nearby property owner commenced approved construction; the approximate distance
between Node 28m1 and the new building will be 18 feet.6
As part of our assignment, we performed an independent analysis of the calculated RF exposure
levels at Site 28m1. Figure 15 provides graphs of the RF energy emitted by the proposed antenna
in the horizontal and vertical planes. Note that in the horizontal plane, the radiation pattern is
bi-directional with major lobes pointing at 35° and 216°. In the vertical plane, the maximum
radiation is focused outward, perpendicular to the pole. In the downward direction (toward the
ground at the pole) the radiation is at least 16 dB (1/50th) of the radiation in the horizontal plane.
6 Information provided by the City.
Review of Small Cell Wireless Application – Crown Castle Cluster 2 (17PLN-00433) | December 2018
24
Figure 15: Site 28m1 Antenna Radiation Pattern7
Horizontal Radiation Pattern Vertical Radiation Pattern
Based on the specifications of the proposed antenna and transmission equipment, we concur
with the applicant’s findings that the maximum general-population RF exposure calculated for
the site at both the base and at the antenna’s horizontal plane is within the FCC’s MPE.
4.5 Summary of Small Cell Application for Site 29
The applicant proposes to install a wireless access facility on the site of an existing street light
pole located in the public right-of-way adjacent to 385 Homer Avenue and across from 751
Waverley Street. The existing 18′ 10″ light pole will be replaced with a new, more substantial pole
and foundation. The overall height of the new light pole and antenna will be 21′ 5″ above ground
level, per the applicant’s site plans. Figure 16 is a photograph of the existing light pole.
7 2,100 MHz (AWS band) amplitude in dB relative to maximum value in the respective plane.
Review of Small Cell Wireless Application – Crown Castle Cluster 2 (17PLN-00433) | December 2018
25
Figure 16: Site 29 Existing Photo (Source: Crown Castle)
The site will be connected to the client network through a dedicated fiber optic communications
link. The link will monitor and control the site and will transport the communications traffic (i.e.,
voice and data) to and from the network users.
Two Verizon RRU-32 remote radio units will be enclosed in a cabinet designed to mimic the shape
of a mailbox (24.75″ x 24.75″ x 48.63″) mounted at ground level adjacent to the street light.
Figure 17 (below) is a photo simulation of the site as it will look with the antenna and the cabinet.
The canister antenna will be mounted on the top of the pole. Coaxial cabling, antenna coupling
devices, fiber network interface housing, and a power disconnect switch will be fully enclosed in
the mailbox, within the light pole, or in underground conduits/enclosures.
Review of Small Cell Wireless Application – Crown Castle Cluster 2 (17PLN-00433) | December 2018
26
Figure 17: Site 29 Photo Simulation (Source: Crown Castle)
Review of Small Cell Wireless Application – Crown Castle Cluster 2 (17PLN-00433) | December 2018
27
Crown Castle’s application included specifications for the equipment that will be installed at the
proposed site (Table 8). This equipment is consistent with small cell hardware used throughout
the wireless industry.
Table 8: Communications Equipment Specifications (Source: Crown Castle)
Item PCS (1900 MHz) AWS (2100 MHz)
Antenna
Amphenol CUUT360X06FXYZ0 Shared Antenna
Horizontal Beamwidth (°) 360 360
Bearing Azimuth (°) Omni Omni
Gain (dB) 9.4 9.6
Vertical Beamwidth (°) 16.0 15.3
RAD Above Ground (feet) 20’ 5” 20’ 5”
Dimensions (inches) 24″ H X 14.6″ Diameter Shared Antenna
Coordinates 37.444773/-122.156820 Shared Antenna
Remote Radio Units (RRU)
Ericson RRUS-32 RRUS-32
Power (Watts) 160 160
ERP (Watts) 386.4 443.7
Dimensions (inches) 27.2″ H x 12.1″ W x 7.0″ D 27.2″ H x 12.1″ W x 7.0″ D
Crown Castle submitted an independent engineering study of the level of RF emission exposure
(both at ground level and antenna height level) for the small cell equipment to be located at Site
29. The study was prepared by the consulting firm of Jerrold T. Bushberg, a firm that specializes
in RF emission analysis consistent with the guidelines established by the FCC. The consultant
calculated that the maximum ground-level RF exposure level due to the proposed Verizon
operation will be 0.045 mW/cm², which is 4.5 percent of the applicable public exposure limit. The
consultant calculated that at antenna height level, the nearest building is 17 feet away and will
have an exposure level less than 20 percent of the MPE.
As part of our assignment, we performed an independent analysis of the calculated RF exposure
levels at Site 29. Figure 18 provides graphs of the RF energy emitted by the proposed antenna in
the horizontal and vertical planes. Note that in the horizontal plane, the radiation pattern is
essentially omni-directional with minor nodes due to the various fabrication components. In the
vertical plane, the maximum radiation is focused outward, perpendicular to the pole. In the
downward direction (toward the ground at the pole) the radiation is at least 16 dB (1/50th) of the
radiation in the horizontal plane.
Review of Small Cell Wireless Application – Crown Castle Cluster 2 (17PLN-00433) | December 2018
28
Figure 18: Site 29 Antenna Radiation Pattern8
Horizontal Radiation Pattern Vertical Radiation Pattern
Based on the specifications of the proposed antenna and transmission equipment, we concur
with the applicant’s findings that the maximum general-population RF exposure calculated for
the site at both the base and at the antenna’s horizontal plane is within the FCC’s MPE.
4.6 Summary of Small Cell Application for Site 30
The applicant proposes to install a wireless access facility on the site of an existing street light
pole located public right-of-way at the west corner of Channing Avenue and Bryant Street near
the multi-family residential building at 845 Ramona Street. The existing 18′ 9″ light pole will be
replaced with a new, more substantial pole and foundation. The overall height of the new light
pole and antenna will be 21′ 4″ above ground level, per the applicant’s site plans. Figure 19 is a
photograph of the existing light pole.
8 2,100 MHz (AWS band) amplitude in dB relative to maximum value in the respective plane.
Review of Small Cell Wireless Application – Crown Castle Cluster 2 (17PLN-00433) | December 2018
29
Figure 19: Site 30 Existing Photo (Source: Crown Castle)
The site will be connected to the client network through a dedicated fiber optic communications
link. The link will monitor and control the site and will transport the communications traffic (i.e.,
voice and data) to and from the network users.
Two Verizon RRU-32 remote radio units will be enclosed in a cabinet designed to mimic the shape
of a mailbox (24.75″ x 24.75″ x 48.63″) mounted at ground level adjacent to the street light.
Review of Small Cell Wireless Application – Crown Castle Cluster 2 (17PLN-00433) | December 2018
30
Figure 20 (below) is a photo simulation of the site as it will look with the antenna and the cabinet.
The canister antenna will be mounted on the top of the pole. Coaxial cabling, antenna coupling
devices, fiber network interface housing, and a power disconnect switch will be fully enclosed in
the mailbox, within the light pole, or in underground conduits/enclosures.
Figure 20: Site 30 Photo Simulation (Source: Crown Castle)
Review of Small Cell Wireless Application – Crown Castle Cluster 2 (17PLN-00433) | December 2018
31
Crown Castle’s application included specifications for the equipment that will be installed at the
proposed site (Table 9). This equipment is consistent with small cell hardware used throughout
the wireless industry.
Table 9: Communications Equipment Specifications (Source: Crown Castle)
Item PCS (1900 MHz) AWS (2100 MHz)
Antenna
Amphenol CUUT070X06FXYZ0 Shared Antenna
Horizontal Beamwidth (°) 70 70
Bearing Azimuth (°) 350 350
Gain (dB) 9.4 9.6
Vertical Beamwidth (°) 16.0 15.3
RAD Above Ground (feet) 20’ 4” 20’ 4”
Dimensions (inches) 24″ H X 14.6″ Diameter Shared Antenna
Coordinates 37.442778/-122.156771 Shared Antenna
Remote Radio Units (RRU)
Ericson RRUS-32 RRUS-32
Power (Watts) 160 160
ERP (Watts) 386.4 443.7
Dimensions (inches) 27.2″ H x 12.1″ W x 7.0″ D 27.2″ H x 12.1″ W x 7.0″ D
Crown Castle submitted an independent engineering study of the level of RF emission exposure
(both at ground level and antenna height level) for the small cell equipment to be located at Site
30. The study was prepared by the consulting firm of Jerrold T. Bushberg, a firm that specializes
in RF emission analysis consistent with the guidelines established by the FCC. The consultant
calculated that the maximum ground-level RF exposure level due to the proposed Verizon
operation will be 0.115 mW/cm², which is 11.5 percent of the applicable public exposure limit.
The consultant calculated that at antenna height level, the nearest building is 27 feet away and
will have an exposure level less than 1 percent of the MPE.
As part of our assignment, we performed an independent analysis of the calculated RF exposure
levels at Site 30. Figure 21 provides graphs of the RF energy emitted by the proposed antenna in
the horizontal and vertical planes. Note that in the horizontal plane, the radiation pattern is
directional, focused at 350°. In the vertical plane, the maximum radiation is focused outward,
perpendicular to the pole. In the downward direction (toward the ground at the pole) the
radiation is at least 16 dB (1/50th) of the radiation in the horizontal plane.
Review of Small Cell Wireless Application – Crown Castle Cluster 2 (17PLN-00433) | December 2018
32
Figure 21: Site 30 Antenna Radiation Pattern9
Horizontal Radiation Pattern Vertical Radiation Pattern
Based on the specifications of the proposed antenna and transmission equipment, we concur
with the applicant’s findings that the maximum general-population RF exposure calculated for
the site at both the base and at the antenna’s horizontal plane is within the FCC’s MPE.
4.7 Summary of Small Cell Application for Site 31
The applicant proposes to install a wireless access facility on the site of an existing street light
pole located public right-of-way adjacent to 190 Channing Avenue and across from 913 Emerson
Street. The existing 25′ 3″ light pole will be replaced with a new, more substantial pole and
foundation. The overall height of the new light pole and antenna will be 27′ 10″ above ground
level, per the applicant’s site plans. Figure 22 is a photograph of the existing light pole.
9 2,100 MHz (AWS band) amplitude in dB relative to maximum value in the respective plane.
Review of Small Cell Wireless Application – Crown Castle Cluster 2 (17PLN-00433) | December 2018
33
Figure 22: Site 31 Existing Photo (Source: Crown Castle)
The site will be connected to the client network through a dedicated fiber optic communications
link. The link will monitor and control the site and will transport the communications traffic (i.e.,
voice and data) to and from the network users.
Two Verizon RRU-32 remote radio units will be enclosed in a cabinet designed to mimic the shape
of a mailbox (24.75″ x 24.75″ x 48.63″) mounted at ground level adjacent to the street light.
Review of Small Cell Wireless Application – Crown Castle Cluster 2 (17PLN-00433) | December 2018
34
Figure 23 (below) is a photo simulation of the site as it will look with the antenna and the cabinet.
The canister antenna will be mounted on the top of the pole. Coaxial cabling, antenna coupling
devices, fiber network interface housing, and a power disconnect switch will be fully enclosed in
the mailbox, within the light pole, or in underground conduits/enclosures.
Figure 23: Site 31 Photo Simulation (Source: Crown Castle)
Review of Small Cell Wireless Application – Crown Castle Cluster 2 (17PLN-00433) | December 2018
35
Crown Castle’s application included specifications for the equipment that will be installed at the
proposed site (Table 10). This equipment is consistent with small cell hardware used throughout
the wireless industry.
Table 10: Communications Equipment Specifications (Source: Crown Castle)
Item PCS (1900 MHz) AWS (2100 MHz)
Antenna
Amphenol CUUT360X06FXYZ0 Shared Antenna
Horizontal Beamwidth (°) 360 360
Bearing Azimuth (°) Omni Omni
Gain (dB) 9.4 9.6
Vertical Beamwidth (°) 16.0 15.3
RAD Above Ground (feet) 26’ 10” 26’ 10”
Dimensions (inches) 24″ H X 14.6″ Diameter Shared Antenna
Coordinates 37.441488/-122.157801 Shared Antenna
Remote Radio Units (RRU)
Ericson RRUS-32 RRUS-32
Power (Watts) 160 160
ERP (Watts) 386.4 443.7
Dimensions (inches) 27.2″ H x 12.1″ W x 7.0″ D 27.2″ H x 12.1″ W x 7.0″ D
Crown Castle submitted an independent engineering study of the level of RF emission exposure
(both at ground level and antenna height level) for the small cell equipment to be located at Site
31. The study was prepared by the consulting firm of Jerrold T. Bushberg, a firm that specializes
in RF emission analysis consistent with the guidelines established by the FCC. The consultant
calculated that the maximum ground-level RF exposure level due to the proposed Verizon
operation will be 0.026 mW/cm², which is 2.6 percent of the applicable public exposure limit. The
consultant calculated that at antenna height level, the nearest building is 49 feet away and will
have an exposure level less than 1 percent of the MPE.
As part of our assignment, we performed an independent analysis of the calculated RF exposure
levels at Site 31. Figure 24 provides graphs of the RF energy emitted by the proposed antenna in
the horizontal and vertical planes. Note that in the horizontal plane, the radiation pattern is
essentially omni-directional with minor nodes due to the various fabrication components. In the
vertical plane, the maximum radiation is focused outward, perpendicular to the pole. In the
downward direction (toward the ground at the pole) the radiation is at least 16 dB (1/50th) of the
radiation in the horizontal plane.
Review of Small Cell Wireless Application – Crown Castle Cluster 2 (17PLN-00433) | December 2018
36
Figure 24: Site 31 Antenna Radiation Pattern10
Horizontal Radiation Pattern Vertical Radiation Pattern
Based on the specifications of the proposed antenna and transmission equipment, we concur
with the applicant’s findings that the maximum general-population RF exposure calculated for
the site at both the base and at the antenna’s horizontal plane is within the FCC’s MPE.
10 2,100 MHz (AWS band) amplitude in dB relative to maximum value in the respective plane.
Review of Small Cell Wireless Application – Crown Castle Cluster 2 (17PLN-00433) | December 2018
37
5 Options for Minimizing Visual Obtrusiveness
As part of our assignment, we have been asked to provide input on options whereby the
applicant's design might be modified to deploy the equipment in a less visually intrusive manner.
The seven sites comprising Cluster 2 are six existing light poles that will be replaced with new
poles and one new street light pole. The applicant proposes to place antennas on top of the poles
and to mount all radio equipment in faux mailboxes near the light poles. Alternatives to the faux
mailboxes include landscaping utility cabinets to blend with the environment (using shrubs or
stone or brick barrier walls), placing equipment within a pedestal at the base of a pole, placing
equipment in underground vaults, or considering a microcell architecture with the electronic
equipment integrated into the antenna or mounted on the light pole.
5.1 Place Equipment in Underground Vaults
Under certain situations, underground vaulting of equipment is possible. Generally, the industry
refrains from this type of deployment due to the difficulties in construction created by the
general overcrowding of the right-of-way in urban environments, the need for cooling fans, and
the need for plumbing and pumps to control rainwater runoff. Additionally, equipment placed
underground typically is more difficult to service because doing so often requires more staff and
additional maintenance tools.
In the sections below, we describe the modifications that might be required to the applicant’s
proposed equipment if it were to be installed in an underground vault—as well as additional
considerations for the applicant and the City.
5.1.1 Crown Castle’s Proposed Equipment
Crown Castle proposes to place two Ericsson remote radio units (RRU) at each of the sites in this
cluster. The Ericsson radios were originally designed for deployment in a convection-cooled
environment, either on top of or at the base of traditional wireless macro towers; the enclosure
for the radio housing includes aluminum cooling fins (Figure 25).
Review of Small Cell Wireless Application – Crown Castle Cluster 2 (17PLN-00433) | December 2018
38
Figure 25: Remote Radio Units
In each of the applications, Crown Castle proposes to mount the three radio in a convection-
cooled cabinet on the pole. The three units together would generate 320 Watts of radio
frequency energy and would continuously generate 1,500 Watts of heat energy that must be
dissipated.
5.1.2 Considerations for Installing Underground Vaults
Typically, underground communications vaults are designed for placement in the public right-of-
way and are sufficiently sturdy to withstand a vehicle driving over it. The vaults are constructed
with a polymer concrete top and corrugated fiberglass sidewalls.
An underground vault suitable for installing the radio equipment proposed by Crown Castle
would need to be at least 3 feet (W) x 6 feet (L) x 3 feet (D) to provide adequate space for the
equipment and adequate air flow to support cooling.11 The vault area will also need to include
11 See, for example: MacLean Highline, http://www.highlineproducts.com/pdfs/PHG367236X0004%20REV-
B%2011-2-17.PDF
Review of Small Cell Wireless Application – Crown Castle Cluster 2 (17PLN-00433) | December 2018
39
space for drainage and space required for additional radio equipment to support planned future
5G services. Figure 26 is an example of a vault that is suitable for the applicant’s proposed RRUs.
Figure 26: Underground Vault for Radio Equipment
Due to its large size, the installation of a vault will present construction challenges—especially
given the location of existing infrastructure above and below ground in the vicinity of the
proposed sites. Crown Castle would need to comply with the following requirements:
1. The vault would need to be located within approximately 90 feet of the antenna due to
signal loss limitations in the length of the coaxial cable connecting the radios to the
antenna. For a 20-foot-high pole, the vault’s horizontal distance from the pole could not
exceed roughly 70 feet.
2. City of Palo Alto Utilities (CPAU) requires that vaults be placed no closer than 5 feet from
a utility pole.
3. The vault cannot be installed in the path of lateral storm drains, water or sewer lines, or
other existing utility infrastructure (e.g., electric, telephone, CATV). Existing (conflicting)
utilities at a site could potentially be rerouted to accommodate a vault at the applicant’s
expense.
4. The vault construction would need to comply with the City’s requirements related to the
removal or endangerment of protected trees.
Review of Small Cell Wireless Application – Crown Castle Cluster 2 (17PLN-00433) | December 2018
40
Figure 27 illustrates some of the pertinent issues and challenges for installing underground vaults
in the Palo Alto right-of-way.
Figure 27: Issues Related to Placing Underground Vault for Radio Equipment
5.2 Consider a Microcell Architecture
A viable alternative to the current design (which employs traditional high-power remote radios)
would be to substitute the proposed radios with a lower-power radio. The smaller radios would
reduce visual impact at individual sites by reducing the volume of equipment—and would
potentially offer other benefits:
• Reduced the RF Emission from the site
• Higher data throughput capability (increased segmentation)
• Greater compatibility with future 5G architecture deployment strategies
The Ericsson type RRU-32 radios proposed for both the AWS and PCS bands were originally
designed for use in traditional macro cell sites; they weigh 55 pounds each and have a volume of
1.46 cubic feet. (See Figure 28.)
Review of Small Cell Wireless Application – Crown Castle Cluster 2 (17PLN-00433) | December 2018
41
Figure 28: RRU-32 Radio Configuration
Review of Small Cell Wireless Application – Crown Castle Cluster 2 (17PLN-00433) | December 2018
42
Ericsson manufactures significantly smaller radio units (model 2203) that are marketed to
address the metro-area microsite market (see Figure 29).
Figure 29: Ericsson 2203 Microcell
The model 2203 microcell radio units emit far less power per radio (10 W) than do the RRU-32
units (160 W), however, so there would be tradeoffs if the applicant were to use the smaller
radios. Achieving the same coverage as the currently proposed design with microcell radios
would likely require deploying wireless facilities at up to twice as many locations.
In addition, while the applicant would be able to use the same type of antenna as specified in the
current design, shifting to a microsite deployment would involve a total redesign for this cluster.
All existing sites would have to be redesigned and new site locations would have to be added to
the exiting seven sites in order to provide a coverage footprint similar to that of the current
proposal.
The figures below illustrate two approaches to microcell deployment. These are feasible because
the model 2203 radios weigh 10 pounds and their compact size permit mounting directly on the
upgraded street light poles. (In contract, the RRU-32s weigh more than 50 pounds and are not
suitable for pole mounting.)
Review of Small Cell Wireless Application – Crown Castle Cluster 2 (17PLN-00433) | December 2018
43
Under option A, the radio equipment would be mounted in multi-radio assembly (up to six radios)
shrouded to appear as an extension of the 24-inch Amphenol antenna.
Figure 30: Light Pole Microsite Architecture – Option A
Review of Small Cell Wireless Application – Crown Castle Cluster 2 (17PLN-00433) | December 2018
44
Option B would have the same antenna mounted on the top of the light pole with the radio
housing (up to five radios) mounted mid-pole on a stand-off bracket. The radios would connect
to the antenna enclosed in a riser conduit.
Figure 31: Light Pole Microsite Architecture – Option B
Review of Small Cell Wireless Application – Crown Castle Cluster 2 (17PLN-00433) | December 2018
45
Sources
• “17PLN-00433 Cluster 2 Resubmittal Project Description 11-02-18” – Crown Castle.
• “17PLN-00433 Cluster 2 Resubmittal Plans 10-30-18” – Crown Castle.
• “17PLN-00433 Cluster 2 Resubmittal Plans 11-19-18” – Crown Castle.
• RF emission reports prepared on behalf of Crown Castle for each proposed site –
Jerrold T. Bushberg, Ph.D., DABMP, DABSNM, FAAPM, FHPS. Health and Medical Physics
Consulting, Sacramento, CA.
• “Evaluating Compliance with FCC Guidelines for Human Exposure to Radiofrequency
Electromagnetic Fields” – OET Bulletin 65, edition 97-01, Federal Communications
Commission, Office of Engineering & Technology, Washington, D.C.
https://www.fcc.gov/general/oet-bulletins-line#65
• Antenna Specifications – Amphenol Industries, Danbury, CT.
http://www.amphenolrf.com
• Coaxial Cable & Antenna Mounting – CommScope, Hickory, NC.
https://www.commscope.com/
• Wireless Radio Equipment – Ericsson, Global Headquarters, Stockholm.
https://www.ericsson.com/ourportfolio/radio-system/radio
• Underground Vault – MacLean Highline, Sweetwater, TN.
http://www.highlineproducts.com/pdfs/PHG367236X0004%20REV-B%2011-2-17.PDF
• City communications regarding new construction adjacent to Node 28m1 and site
addresses.
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Present: Chair Wynne Furth, Vice Chair Peter Baltay, Board Members Alexander Lew, Osma
Thompson and Robert Gooyer.
Absent: None.
5. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. Crown Castle/Verizon Cluster 2, University
South Multiple Addresses [17PLN-00433 File Uses 250 Hamilton Avenue Address]:
Request by Sure Site (on behalf of Crown Castle to Lease to Verizon) for Seven Small
Cell Node Tier 3 Wireless Communication Facility Permits in the Public Right of Way,
Including Six Streetlight Nodes and One New Streetlight Node. Environmental
Assessment: An Initial Study is Being Prepared Pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Zoning of Node Locations is Public Facilities,
Adjacent to These Zones: Public Facilities (275 Forest); Commercial Downtown CD-C
(P): 345 Forest; Residential Transition (SOFA) RT-35: 248 Homer, 190 Channing; DHS
(SOFA) - 385 Homer, 905 Waverley (formerly 400 Channing), 845 Ramona. For
further background information, please refer to the City’s website under the project
file number 17PLN-00433). For More Information Contact the Project Planner
Rebecca Atkinson at Rebecca.atkinson@CityofPaloAlto.org.
Amy French, Chief Planning Officer: I'm Amy French, Chief Planning Officer, here to present the project
called Crown Castle/Verizon Cluster 2. It's some small-cell nodes for wireless communication facilities in
the University South neighborhood. The address is noted on the ad that we've published in the
newspaper, The Post, as well as what we sent out to the neighborhood with notice cards. They are
wireless communication facilities in the right-of-way, in different zones, including the Commercial
Downtown zone; the DHS, which is a SOFA zone; the RT-35, also a SOFA zone; and... I think that was it
as far as the zones. This is the first hearing on Cluster 2 proposed by Crown Castle on behalf of Verizon.
Rebecca Atkinson -- to my left -- is the project planner. I am here to deliver the report. Albert Yang, to
my left as well, our City Attorney staff, here to represent. We have the applicants here. They do have, I
just wanted to mention, a Dr. Bushberg, I think is his name. He is to teach a class at UC Davis at 2:00
p.m. today, so there was a request for earlier presentation by this gentleman. I will make my
presentation, and then, possibly, they can reverse the order of their presentation to have him speak first.
Okay. I'll begin. This is Cluster 2 in University South. There are six streetlight poles that are involved
here, existing streetlight poles to be replaced by new streetlight poles, and there is one streetlight pole
proposed that does not exist currently. The poles would receive canister antennas on the top, and their
proposal is to install ground-mounted fake mailboxes containing radio units. They are large radio units.
That is their proposal. They have, today, some alternate images, alternatives to where to put those
radios, and they will show in their presentation that we saw last night at 7:00 p.m. I wanted to also note
that at places, we have two reports, one for each of these clusters. Cluster 2 is what you are looking at
now. We have the CTC technology and energy report at places. This is a consultant that the City hired to
help us understand what the design alternatives are and the RF radio frequency emission technical
matters. We have that. Also at places we have some comments from members of the public that the ARB
should have received at places. On the screen, showing images of each of these nodes; you can count
them. Did I say six? There are seven nodes proposed; six of them, again, existing locations for
streetlights, with proposal to replace the streetlights, and one new streetlight in a place that does not
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD
EXCERPT MINUTES: December 6, 2018
City Hall/City Council Chambers
250 Hamilton Avenue
8:30 AM
City of Palo Alto Page 2
exist. There's only one streetlight here that is not on a corner, and that's the one that's proposed where
none exists. The other six are located near intersections. Staff recommends denial of three of those
nodes, and the reasons are on the screen. I would note that the applicant would request feedback on
alternatives that they are proposing today, in the presentation we saw last night, and our email. They will
go through those for each of those nodes that staff recommends denial on. They are also showing
alternatives for all the nodes as far as faux mailbox pedestal or side-mounted equipment. Staff is
recommending approval on four of those nodes on the screen, and with alternatives that can be explored
today, and conditioned. Again, the applicant is going to present some alternate images. Here are some
images showing the mailbox problem. This is not a mailbox; it's an enclosure, and it's subject to
vandalism, and there are issues with repair of these, and not happening in a timely manner. Here in the
middle is the image of the size of the radio, the remote radio unit that is proposed. This is... Several of
these radios going into an enclosure makes for a large enclosure. On the right is an image of other types
of utility boxes in Palo Alto in the right-of-way, so that's showing an alternative not proposed by the
applicant. We have some images here that are from this technology report, CTC report, regarding
underground, being the size of vault would have to be for undergrounding, and some other
considerations. We have construction challenges. You have this on the screen now that talk about, you
know, how far you can put one of these enclosures from the antenna. There is a 90-foot requirement,
there's a 70-foot requirement here. If anyone has questions, we can go back to this if the vaulting
question comes up. Here is an image of a vault, showing the size that our consultant determined would
be required. This is not proposed by the applicant. Vaulting. On the right, there is an image of the AT&T
proposals using these microcells that are much smaller than the radios proposed with this application.
Here are, again from our CTC report, consultant report, some examples of mounting on top of the pole,
the conjunction of the antenna, and the radio or radios. And then, on the right, the images of a side-
mounted sets of radios.
Chair Furth: Amy?
Ms. French: Again, these are the smaller, microcell radios.
Chair Furth: Sure. I know you got a lot of information from them at the last minute, and from our
consultant. I just wanted to clarify. When do you need to leave by? Ten minutes ago?
Dr. Gerald Bushberg: Yeah.
Ms. French: Do you want a break?
Chair Furth: Well, if you would like to, with the permission of the Board, if you would like to take some of
your applicant's time to make whatever brief presentation you can before you leave. I'd hate to have
your trip be in vain.
Ms. French: Okay.
Chair Furth: We'll go back to staff report...
Ms. French: Sure.
Chair Furth: ...after that, and we'll just...
Ms. French: Do you have a presentation to upload?
Dr. Bushberg: No, I can speak from my notes here.
Chair Furth: Okay, and this will count against the applicant's time.
Dr. Bushberg: Thank you for your consideration.
City of Palo Alto Page 3
Chair Furth: If you could spell your name for the record.
Dr. Bushberg: It's Gerald Bushberg [spells name].
Chair Furth: Thank you.
Dr. Gerald Bushberg: I am a consultant retained by Crown Castle to do the analysis that's before you,
and was reviewed by outside counsel, or outside experts. There's only just a few points that I'd like to
make. My general background is I'm a clinical professor of radiology and radiation oncology at UC Davis.
I’m also the chairman of the board and senior scientist at the National Council on Radiation Protection
and Measurements in Washington. We study both ionized and radiational x-rays, as well as
radiofrequency energy. The comments that I have today apply to both Clusters 2 and 3. I just want to
make a few points. First of all, I know a lot of people think that this wireless technology is something new
that we don't know much about, but actually, when you really think about it, it's really the coming
together of three pretty old technologies. It's a combination of radio, computer and a telephone. We
have over 100 years' experience with RF broadcast and have been studying biological effects of RF
energy for over 60 years now. As shown in the reports, the maximum exposures at ground level are less
than one percent of what is allowed by the FCC for continuous public exposure. And the thing that is
important to understand about that is that the exposure standards are not set right at the threshold of
potential harm and safety. In fact, they are set 50 times below a level that is thought to be potentially
harmful. That really represents a safety factor of over 5,000 times, and that is the maximum exposures
that are anticipated. Finally -- and this is sort of a counterintuitive point, but -- for those people who are
concerned about RF exposure, the vast majority of RF exposure today comes from uses over your cell
phone. Because it's not so much that it's high-powered, but because it's close to your body. Both your
exposure and the exposure to people next to you are the highest RF exposures that people typically
experience. The other thing that people don't know about their phones usually is that the phones have,
all phones have something called adaptive power control, which means that when they are really close to
a cell site and have good coverage, like, all the bars, they're only operating at about one percent or one-
tenth of a percent of their maximum. When they are far away and you only have one bar, the phone
reaches out to its maximum. The difference between your exposure when you have good coverage and
you have bad coverage can be 1,000 to 1. For those people who are really concerned about RF exposure
and live in a community that has wireless service, the very best thing you could do to reduce the ambient
levels of RF exposure would be to have really good coverage in the area that's being served, because
then, the phones would be operating at extremely low power. And they do this not because of a safety
issue. They do it to preserve battery life, and also to keep signals within the site that the cell sites want
to see. For those that have a concern, it seems counterintuitive, but having really good coverage in an
area is one way -- probably the most effective way -- to reduce the greatest public exposure. I will
conclude my comments with that, and would be happy to answer any questions that you might have.
Chair Furth: Does anybody have questions of the speaker? When thinking about radiation exposures of
any kind, is it cumulative exposures we're concerned with? Or peak? Or both?
Dr. Bushberg: Well, with x-rays, the answer is yes. With radio waves, the answer is no. Let me give you
an example. With x-rays...
Chair Furth: I'll take your answer. That's fine.
Dr. Bushberg: Oh. Okay. It's no. The RF exposure is non-ionizing radiation, like visible light. For example,
visible light does not accumulate in the body, so there's not an intensity that builds up and damages the
optic nerve. The same thing is true with RF energy. You're exposed, the energy is dissipated.
Chair Furth: So when my dermatologist is telling me to limit my sun exposure, cumulatively, she's wrong?
City of Palo Alto Page 4
Dr. Bushberg: No. They're talking then about ultraviolet radiation, which is right at the threshold of
ionizing and non-ionizing. The RF radio waves are about a million times less energetic. In fact, they're
less energetic than light waves.
Chair Furth: Thank you.
Dr. Bushberg: Okay.
Chair Furth: Any other questions?
Dr. Bushberg: Thank you for indulging me. Appreciate it.
Chair Furth: Yes. Hope you make it to class.
Dr. Bushberg: I will. Thank you.
Chair Furth: Safely. (inaudible) for the disruption, but you did advise us of this necessity, so we will get
back to the staff report.
Ms. French: Yes. And that was very nice. I'll move along here. The images that I had just finished
describing on the screen are examples or concepts for placement of the radios between the top of the
pole and the antenna that's proposed above the pole. That's on the left side. On the right side is a side-
mounted set of radios. These radios here in this concept are really the micro or pico-size radios, which
are much smaller than the radios that the applicant is proposing. Here are just some images of other
poles that are nearby some of the proposed nodes. Again, the applicant's presentation will describe in
detail how they came up on the node locations that they are proposing, but I'll just briefly blow through
these images we took in the field, showing what else is out there. These are all relatively short poles,
providing light, street lighting. I'm just going to... These are available if the ARB wishes to go back and
look at some of these alternate possibilities. Again, the applicant would have some comments on these,
I'm sure. Just showing, especially for the ones that the staff is recommending denial on. This is a
situation where we have a historic building, Category 2 on our local historic inventory, and the options
are several: To relocate to a different site entirely for a node; the image on the right shows a nearby
streetlight. The applicant will show you today their proposal to put the mailbox in a different location but
retain the location next to what's known as Staller Court today. This is the other recommended-for-denial
location. The City does not want to have a new streetlight placed where there is none today. There is
some analysis that would go with that. Those are the nearby poles on the right. The CTC report, not to
bore you with details, but it is, we had quite a scope for them to look at. They had site visits, they did
review of the capacity and on-site coverage -- All of these things related to the technical aspects of the
project. And, they did propose these images of alternate design. Their findings related to the scientific,
the RF's, are on the screen, and signal strength, etc. They believe that the proposal will provide the
service that they are looking at providing to their customers. Again, here are just a couple images.
Showing on the left, these are the radios that cause the large mailbox size to be proposed, two of these.
They are longer, 27 inches tall, or long, and 12.5 inches wide, and a depth of seven inches. As opposed
to the pico or microcell units on the right, which are 7.8 inches wide and 3.9 inches deep. More of a
square shape. Again, here's our recommended motion. Conditional approval of four nodes, denial of three
nodes, and comments on the potential alternative design locations that the applicant is showing. We
have the generic standards that are in the staff report on these packet pages -- 200, and findings, 202.
We have not crafted findings for approval of this project, nor conditions of approval at this time. We
have... The next steps on the screen would be director's decision within 14 days of the ARB
recommendation, and then, appealable to the City Council. That's the standard. Here on the screen, I'm
going to remove this so the applicant can upload their presentation. And we have staff here for answers
to questions, if we want, before their presentation. Or, hear next from the applicant.
Chair Furth: I think we'll go ahead with hearing from the applicant first, and again, we have a transcriber,
so if you would spell your name, give us your address. If you have a corporate affiliation and that needs
City of Palo Alto Page 5
spelling, do that, too. Applicant is entitled to 10 minutes at the beginning of the public hearing, and 10
minutes after you hear from the public, which you will. You have six minutes and 37 seconds left.
[crosstalk]
Chair Furth: Okay.
Ms. Swanson: If I may, Chairman Furth, is it possible to take Dr. Bushberg's time off of my Cluster 3 10
minutes, considering that is a shorter presentation?
Chair Furth: We'll split it.
Ms. Swanson: Thank you. I appreciate that. If I may, I ...
[crosstalk]
Ms. Swanson: ...timer on here. What shall I put my time for?
Chair Furth: Eight.
Ms. Swanson: Eight minutes. Thank you so much.
Chair Furth: Coordinate with her. She gets eight.
Ms. Swanson: Hopefully you can see that; it's a little dark. First, I want to thank you again for having us
here. This is our second appearance. We had a preliminary back in September of 2017. Hard to believe
it's been that long, but it has. I want to start by introducing the change...
Chair Furth: You need to remind us what your name is.
Rochelle Swanson: I'm sorry. Rochelle Swanson. I work for SureSite Consulting. I'm doing government
relations on behalf of Crown Castle International, who is the applicant in this matter. I know Verizon has
been brought up a few times. However, they are a tenant. This is a Crown Castle project, Crown Castle
being the nation's largest owner of fiber infrastructure and working through wireless deployment. I want
to first, like I said, introduce the team. I'm sorry, you want my address. I live in Davis, California, another
lovely college community. Do you need my street address, or is that adequate?
Chair Furth: (inaudible, off microphone)
Ms. Swanson: All right, 2780 Brentwood Place, Davis, California. Behind me I have Dick Stoddard, who is
our construction manager; Morgan Hunt, who is our manager of RF engineering; Todd Threw, who is the
CEO of Costal Communications, lead designer of their A&E, and helps us with compliance on all design
issues, local, state and federal; Michael Shawnafell [phonetic], our legal counsel, as well as Sharon
James, the director of government relations, and Reejay Redivarie [phonetic], who is the project
manager. I share the titles and the depth because I believe that if you have questions that have to do
with those subject matters, rather than to referring to an analysis of generalists like myself and staff, that
they are really the go-to people to ask. Just a little bit of background. Crown Castle is a competitive local
exchange carrier, also...Oh, this is not working. Hold on. It's not clicking through. [Technical difficulties
with digital presentation.] All right. Going back to, explaining that Crown Castle is acelic [phonetic,] and
what that means is that they qualify as public utility and have special status to the public right-of-way
and poles and equipment, but also being regulated as a utility as opposed to a carrier. This project here
is an expansion of a previous project of 19 sites, from 2015. This build-out here is an expansion, as
mentioned before, and it really is about bolstering infrastructure. While everybody is very much excited
and talking about smart cities and 5G, this is also for 4G infrastructure, which is important to have the
ubiquitous coverage within communities and between communities. The real core of this is the need for
City of Palo Alto Page 6
coverage and capacity. Years back, it was really about coverages and holes in coverage, but now it's
really about capacity because of the ubiquitous use of wireless devices. Not just phones, of course, but
there's also tablets, laptops, and at some point, cars and other issues. As you can see here -- and I won't
belabor going through -- the numbers, and they continue to grow, is the amount of people who are using
data, it's rapid increase. What's interesting is that, going back to the need for infrastructure, we're 36th
in the world for actually having the deployment, though we're probably some of the highest in demand
there. Right here it says that 48 percent have wireless service only. Actually, that number has already
climbed to nearly 53 percent just in the time since putting this together. I will note as I go through here,
I'm going to try to address some of the other questions from CTC. We received that this morning,
because I know that was just also received by staff last night, so, where possible, try to connect it, which
is also why... And I apologize for the late submittal for our own report. We have been waiting on photo
sims to address the staff report that came out on Friday night, so, to try to give you the most information
that we have. The specific request that we have here is to take a look at all the nodes. As staff put out,
as far as the different ways that we can house the equipment, as put into potential conditions of approval
for those four nodes, and also, being able to use them as solutions for the remaining three. Specifically
looking at Node 26 and the different options on the mailbox, which was discussed. The preference for the
location for Node 28m1, if you'll recall, we came here with Node 28 in front of 370 Channing back in
September 2017, and it was recommended then that while it is stated that it would be preferable to avoid
corners, but to go ahead and go and look at the corner, especially what was explained there by our
engineer, Ernesto, theorized that we have an ability to actually have greater coverage when we locate on
corners rather than mid-block. Because there's a line of sight for two different streets, and that allows for
more efficient use of each site, potentially less sites, depending on the location. Node 25 of the request,
while it's for denial, to allow us to move forward with a conditional approval, to continue to work with
staff to address their concerns, considering the fact that that's the only viable node that we have there.
And then, of course, any additional feedback from all of you, as well as, you know, looking forward to the
landscaping proposed by the urban forester. No opposition to working there with staff and doing what is
applicable and feasible in each one of those locations. Just quickly here for the history because I want to
be able to recap those two minutes that were lost, is that we first walked the start sites in 2016, in
November, and then, of course, was here in September 2017. I raise this, the whole history here, to kind
of denote the way that Crown Castle does business when it comes to locating locations. It is not a
desktop exercise, so, a node that gets proposed isn't throwing something on the wall. Whenever there is
a sidewalk, there is a full team of people -- usually folks want to stop us on the street and know what
we're doing -- anywhere from five, seven, sometimes 12 people. Everybody from every discipline, half of
which are here, take into account, what does the code say, what is General Order 95, which is the
regulations from the Utility Commission, as well as orientation of equipment, climbing space, proximity to
balconies, to homes, to second stories; what's the proximity to the street; what's the least-intrusive
piece? And that all goes into an account physically in the field before we even approach staff with doing
the pre-application meeting. Which, of course, I did have a couple of pre-application meetings. We've
had a number of community meetings, any time that we've made a change based on feedback. When we
were here before and it was considered that we should look at an alternative to Node 26 because of the
concerns with Staller Court, we held a public meeting. When we moved 28 to 400 Channing to replace an
existing sign, we had another community meeting. We've actually erred on the side of caution, and when
we come, we bring all the information in case there were members of public who wanted to discuss any
of the other nodes, and have had only a handful of people who have shown up. And I'll discuss more on
Cluster 3 some of the specific changes that we made. The main concerns that have come up have been
RF noise and siting. I take that that I'm getting very close to the end. As was mentioned, the different
options that we have are a side mount in relation to what staff had recommended. There is a pedestal
mount. I want to point out the pedestal chosen here is from Cupertino, where all the carriers came
together to agree on a design that would work for their equipment. While a pole-mounted/top-mounted
was mentioned, that is not a solution for all carriers. That takes a very small footprint and a very specific
kind of antenna. And then, beyond that -- and I'll read this for your specific questions about the nodes
for denial -- is that our RF engineer will be able to go through... And I put these in the slide, not for my
coverage, but for his ability to look and show the due diligence that was done, and why we have been,
they are unable to have a feasible alternative on both Node 25, 26, and that 28 really is either the pole at
City of Palo Alto Page 7
400, or at 370 Channing. With that, just, again, request that we can move forward with the conditions of
approval, and we're here to answer any and every question that you have. Thank you.
Chair Furth: Thank you. We have speaker cards. Somewhere. The first speaker is Nicolas Flegel, to be
followed by Don Jackson.
Nick Flegel, Partner, Jorgensen, Siegel, McClure & Flegel: Good afternoon. Nick Flegel [spells name]. I'm
a partner at the firm Jorgensen, Siegel, McClure & Flegel in Menlo Park. Our office address is 1100 Alma
Street, Suite 210.
Chair Furth: Thank you.
Mr. Flegel: I'm here speaking on behalf of my clients, Mike Midolo and Neil O'Sullivan. They are the
owners of 362 Channing, which the original proposal was for a node to be put at 370 Channing. They
came here during that original proposal and opposed it back in September 2017. They came here
because they said, hey, it's an undergrounding district; number two, that there's absolutely no tree
coverage for where that pole was, and there's no possibility for tree coverage because there are utility
boxes right underneath where that pole is. And number three, the pole is, and where this node will go,
are directly visible from their upstairs window. I brought some pictures, and this is the first picture.
Chair Furth: We have those, thank you.
Mr. Flegel: This board suggested to the applicant, "You should look at alternatives." And they did look at
alternatives, and we really appreciate that. And keep in mind, 362 Channing is mid-block, okay? They
proposed this new pole, it's 28m1, and we really appreciate that proposal. We support that proposal. We
think it meets a lot of the sitting criteria in terms of it being, having coverage there. There is a pole there.
It would be replacing a pole. It's replacing a pole. I saw staff's report. I think that there are some issues
that are not insurmountable, that applicant and staff can work together and make this pole at 400
Channing work. That's our request. Number two, alternatives we have, maybe this Board could give
direction to look at other proposals, and another proposal might be, we think is a really good one,
moving it basically one block west... I'm sorry, one lot west, to where there's the Mini Sharp [sic] Park.
That's a location where there is not a light. There's a crosswalk there, there's tree coverage there. We
think that that would be a benefit for the City, for safety reasons.
Chair Furth: I beg your pardon - A mini shark park?
Mr. Flegel: Mini...
Male?: [off microphone, inaudible]
Chair Furth: Oh, Scott Park.
Mr. Flegel: Sorry, sorry. I apologize. And then... That's picture number two in my presentation. And then,
number three, the last couple pages are four other alternative sites that we think that it would be nice if
the Board could ask the applicant to look at. Our fourth request would be, the Board can just deny this
node, Node 28. I don't think we really have any evidence that it's 100 percent needed for this coverage
plan to work. We certainly just don't want it in front of our client's property. And if there is going to be a
proposal for that, we don't want it... Our clients don't want it there. That's it. Thank you.
Chair Furth: I have one question for you. Could you...? Your clients don't want it there because...?
Mr. Flegel: Well, the main reason, there's zero coverage, tree coverage.
Chair Furth: Visibility. You're talking about the appearance.
City of Palo Alto Page 8
Mr. Flegel: The pole is right there. You can see it right from outside their upstairs room. There's just no
way to make it look nice, in our mind.
Chair Furth: Thank you. That testimony pertained to site, which is now 28M1, right? No? Formerly...?
Which...?
Board Member Lew: It was the original 28. And then, they approved an alternate, which is 28m1.
Chair Furth: Staff, which of the ones you presented to us today are we talking about?
Ms. French: Twenty-eight-m-1 is the 400 Channing, also known as 905 Waverley. That's the alternate
node for the node at 370 that was originally proposed.
Rebecca Atkinson, Project Planner: And was removed from the plan set.
Board Member Thompson: Sorry, what page is that?
[inaudible response]
Chair Furth: Let's just talk about today. Actually, we can talk about recent history. The applicants came in
2017, or 2014? I forget. A while ago.
Ms. French: Twenty-seventeen.
Chair Furth: Twenty-seventeen. And they asked that a proposed pole be moved from in front of their
house. The applicant submitted an application, which is now our number 28m1? Which removed it from
in front of the objectors' house. However, the City has objections to that proposed relocation, and the...
Mr. Flegel, on behalf of his clients, is saying, "Don't put it back in front of our house." Is that correct? Is
that a summary of what just happened?
Ms. French: Yes.
[crosstalk]
Ms. French: ...accurate.
Chair Furth: Thank you. I would just say that it's very helpful when people are talking to do as you did
and address both the address, the street address, and the node number, because otherwise, we get quite
easily confused. Thank you. We have another speaker, as soon as I find the cards I just buried. And that
would be Don Jackson, to be followed by Michael Midolo. Yes?
Don Jackson: Hello. I'm Don Jackson [spells name].
Chair Furth: Thank you.
Mr. Jackson: I reside at 845 Waverley Street.
Chair Furth: Thank you.
Mr. Jackson: Yesterday, I sent an email to the Board, describing my interest in this project, which, to
summarize, is to explore the feasibility of leveraging any associated street trenching, boring conduit, that
are required to link these various cell nodes by a fiberoptic link, in order for me to use the same
trenching to establish a fiberoptic link connecting between my house and either Packs [phonetic], which
is at 529 Bryant, or an existing city fiber vault at the corner of Waverley and Channing, which is
approximately 125 feet from my property. Obviously, if this were to happen, I would have to bear the
City of Palo Alto Page 9
cost of any additional work that would benefit only me. If this project goes forward, the City will be
allowing the applicant to install communications equipment on City street lights, install and maintain
associated cell site electronics at ground level on City property, and inside enclosures that look similar to
postal relay boxes, and to link the cell sites by fiberoptic cables that will be installed underneath city
streets. The space area underneath our city streets is a limited and finite resource and should be used as
efficiently and cooperatively as possible. Additionally, trenching a city street is highly disruptive, leaving
patches of replaced asphalt, and, as I recently discovered, it is incredibly expensive. And we should seek
to minimize any such projects. My request is that if this project moves forward, that the applicant be
encouraged to make a good faith effort to explore the possibility of leveraging any associated street
trenching.
Chair Furth: Could I ask a question?
Mr. Jackson: Sure thing.
Chair Furth: Familiar issue over the last 20 years, how to get this higher-speed connectivity. You're
asking that they...? What are you envisioning, just briefly? Who would own...? Additional fiber? Or would
other people have access to it.
Mr. Jackson: As you know, there are numerous ideas and discussions about...
Chair Furth: Twenty years, at least I remember.
Mr. Jackson: ...city... No, I'm talking about city, I'm talking about me getting fiber from Point A to Point
B.
Chair Furth: Right, and you're proposing to own that line?
Mr. Jackson: Yeah, I would use that line.
Chair Furth: Thank you. Mr. Midolo.
Mr. Midolo: Good afternoon, members of the Architectural Review Board. It's nice to see you again. I saw
you last in September of 2017. At that time, I came before you to stress concerns that I and Neil
O'Sullivan have for our home at 362 Channing. We have lived in Palo Alto for 25 years. We own our
home. I'm here this afternoon in support of -- and I'm going to be very specific -- 28m1, which is the
alternative site. This is not the one in front of our home. This is the one at 400, located at 400 Channing.
The proposed location is a result of over a year of discussions with the City and Crown Castle, and I urge
you to support it. There is currently just a street pole there. It is not a light pole, it's just a regular old
street pole, right there. It's to indicate parking and such. At the same time, I also urge you to deny the
placement of any node at this time, or in the future, on the light pole outside of our home. I believe you
have in your exhibits very clear documentation of how visible that pole is from inside our home. And
there will never be the ability to shade or shield in any way that pole because of the other utilities
immediately surrounding it. It is also one of the exceptions that... I know Amy mentioned earlier that
they are all on corners. This is the one exception. This is the one that's in the block, right in the middle of
the block. We have been through a labor of love, remodeling our home. We retained the architect in
2013. It's taken three years to remodel it. You guys have seen the photos, you know that it's quite a big
commitment. And we appreciate that Crown Castle is trying not to exacerbate the unattractive light pole
outside of our house. Over a year ago, in September 2017, we came to the preliminary ARB board to
oppose location on the pole outside our house. The architect showed you pictures of the home. The close
proximity to the pole, to our windows, and the lack of tree screening. We identified how the pole at 370
does not meet the City's location and criteria for small nodes because the pole is in an undergrounding
district. There is no tree screening. The node would be highly visible, again, through the windows. At the
meeting, you encouraged, as a body, you encouraged Crown Castle to pursue alternative locations for
the node. We anticipated that your indications would be followed. However, several months ago, we
City of Palo Alto Page 10
received notice from Crown Castle that, again, they were proposing to put Node 28 on the pole outside
our house. So, we went to that community meeting and expressed our disappointment, and then, worked
with them on alternatives again, pointing them towards the location at either 400, or multiple other sites.
We provided at least six sites for them to consider. Our attorneys have followed up numerous times with
the City staff and Crown Castle and still don't understand why any of these sites that were suggested
aren't reasonable. We appreciate that Crown Castle is working with us in supporting an alternative
location. If there is more information the staff needs to be comfortable with a new light pole at 400
Channing, we encourage you to direct the applicant to provide that information, and direct staff to work
with them to make it work. One alternative that I think would be perfect would be to remove the pole at
370 Channing, the one that is right in front of my house. Remove it, move it just down the street to 346,
at 346 Channing, at Scott Street. What I am suggesting here is the pole in front of our house at 370 be
moved to 346. Why? Because after the Summerhill development, there was the new Heritage Park.
There's a walkway, so, what people do, including myself and my 69-year-old dementia-affected aunt, do
is we constantly cross that, at least three times a day, and there is no light there. None at all. That's the
natural connector between Scott Park and Heritage Park, and everybody uses that, including pedestrians,
elderly and young. No light there whatsoever. Yet, in front of our house, where we don't need a pole,
there is a pole. Either 400 would be a great location for that node, or else, quite simply, if that pole,
there could be a pole at 346 Channing, or if not, there is also one inside the park, or if not... "Inside the
park," I'm referring to inside Scott Mini Park. Or if not, the other alternative is denial of it. You've got four
different options, five different options there, for 28. Sorry?
Chair Furth: Thank you. Thank you for coming to speak to us. Sorry we kept you waiting so long, and
your time has elapsed.
Mr. Midolo: Thank you.
Chair Furth: Any questions for Mr. Midolo? Other than M-I-D-O-L-O? Is that the spelling of your name?
Mr. Midolo: M-I-D-O-L-O. Yeah. Again, it's...
Chair Furth: Thank you.
Mr. Midolo: ...since there's no light mid-block, it would be great to have a light mid-block.
Chair Furth: Thank you.
Mr. Midolo: Thank you.
Chair Furth: Okay, and then, we had a final speaker card from David Baumgarten [spells Baumgarten].
And he could not stay, so, he says: "Consistent with staff recommendation, no cell unit at 400
Channing/905 Waverley." We have a full range of public comments on that one. Anybody else wish to
speak as a member of the public on this matter?
Board Member Thompson: Wait, his note was not in favor of...?
Chair Furth: He supports the staff recommendation.
Board Member Thompson: To deny it? Okay.
Chair Furth: To not approve that one. Applicant, you are entitled to another 10 minutes to respond to
public comment.
Ms. Swanson: At this time, I'd like to have Morgan Hunt address specifically those nodes, especially
Nodes 28 and 28m1, as well as 26 and 25 respectively. And then, if time remains, I'll talk about the
design between the pedestal and the side mount.
City of Palo Alto Page 11
Chair Furth: Thank you.
Morgan Hunt: Hello. My name is Morgan Hunt, and I am the RF manager for Crown Castle. You want my
address?
Chair Furth: No, I don't.
Mr. Hunt: Okay. All right. Great. And, you should...
Chair Furth: Oh, I'm sorry, I do need your address. I though you said, did I know your address.
Mr. Hunt: No, do you need it. Okay, is that your presentation up there? My address is 695 River Oaks
Parkway in San Jose.
Chair Furth: Thank you.
Mr. Hunt: All right.
Ms. Swanson: You might ask them which node that is because it's hard to read. It's just the first one.
Mr. Hunt: Yeah, I don't know what that is. That looks like 25, right?
[Adjusting presentation]
Mr. Hunt: Okay, so, in this presentation, there are three locations presented with the alternatives
analysis. This one is 25, right? This is adjacent to 200 Forest Avenue. The objective is to provide
continuous coverage on Forest Avenue and Ramona Street. Look closer, the node location is to, the
intersection is bare coverage. Once you start moving further away from the intersection, the coverage
objective will start degrading. That's what causes some of these alternates to not be acceptable. This
shows the 200 Forest Avenue, that meets the coverage objective. We looked at 688 Ramona Street,
which we could not use it due to the close location to the balcony. And then, at 275 Forest, it's too far
from the Forest Avenue/Ramona intersection, with no line of sight, so, it is not covering our objective.
And then, we looked at two more locations that were further down the block, 720 Ramona and 223. Both
those locations don't meet the coverage objective. That's 25. I'm on a time limit, right? Okay, so, I'm
going to go to 28, try to...
Chair Furth: (inaudible)
Mr. Hunt: Okay, thanks. Yes. What's up there now is 28. This is proposed 28m1 at 400 Channing, and the
objective is to provide continuous coverage on Channing Avenue in both directions, and partial coverage
on Waverley. The objective is to be closer to the Waverley intersection. We looked at a number of
alternatives. The original location, which is acceptable for the coverage, 370 Channing. And as presented
by the speakers, by the public speakers, what evolved is we chose the 400 as an alternate to the
acceptable alternative, and being submitted, and is to replace an existing parking sign pole. And we also
looked at, on the intersection, which has traffic signal poles, which are not allowed. We cannot go on city
traffic light poles. And then, 425 Channing is farther from the intersection and has less line of sight. That
impacts both Channing and Waverley Street. We looked at 346 Channing Avenue. That is closer, I believe
that park that was mentioned, and there is no pole there, and it is a little bit further from the
intersection, and closer to an existing site, SF Palo Alto 030. So, for a couple of reasons, this location is
not acceptable. There's no existing infrastructure to replace, you know, an existing pole, and it is not
quite meeting the coverage objective on Waverley. Nine-twenty-eight Waverley Street was also looked at.
It is even... Let's see where that location is. Sorry, get my bearing. Oh, yes. That is down south, in a
southern direction on Waverley from the intersection that is... We are losing the coverage on Channing,
which is the objective. That is the same as the case for 842 Waverley. We can look at 26 real quickly,
before I run out of time. Somehow... Okay. Is that 28...? I think that's 26. This is across from 675
City of Palo Alto Page 12
Gilman, and it's objective to provide coverage on Forest Avenue and Gilman Street. Again, we want to be
closest to the intersection to provided the best coverage. And clear line of sight provides the best
coverage. There are existing nodes on Hamilton Avenue and Bryant Street that need to be considered in
the placement of this node. We look at alternatives, and one of them is 332 Forest Avenue, is a viable
location, but there.... in alternate to 26, but there is no existing pole there. It would be a new pole
placement. Three-oh-three Forest, as you see, moves down. Stop?
Chair Furth: Why don't you finish your sentence.
Mr. Hunt: Okay, so, 303 Forest moves down to the middle of the block and is preventing, preventing the
coverage objective not to be met.
Chair Furth: Thank you. Staff? Any responses?
Albert Yang, Deputy City Attorney: Sure. Deputy City Attorney Albert Yang. I think the information about
the applicant's coverage objectives is informative for the planning director, and he ultimately preps the
City Council. But, from the ARB, we are primarily looking for your judgment on the aesthetics of the
various options that are presented.
Chair Furth: Thank you. Anybody have questions of staff? Or anybody else?
Board Member Thompson: Yeah. In terms of the aesthetic options presented to us, it sounds like there's
only one option for the actual, what's happening on top of the light pole. And then, seeing a photoshop
of the mailboxes with the side attachment is just in that diagram, we don't have any other documentation
of what that looks like? And any other option? Okay.
Chair Furth: Go ahead.
Ms. Atkinson: Question of staff. On the staff report, there is a web link that points to some visual
simulations that Crown produced for other cities, with their decorative pole and side mount. I believe the
applicant has some preliminary visual simulations from other cities that have a side mount and a pedestal
for associative support equipment. The faux mailbox was a design solution in the past that was large
enough to accommodate two carriers' equipment, and right now, the second carrier is not in the existing
faux mailbox. My third comment was that the faux mailbox solution potentially identified in the past is
oversized relative to the equipment proposed on these individual nodes.
Board Member Thompson: I'm sorry, so, is there an image of the other types of mounting in our packet?
Because I think I just saw the mailbox, but maybe I missed it. In our drawings.
Ms. Atkinson: Sure. Yes, you can find that on page 13 of the staff report, and it's packet page 179. Those
are existing side-mounted deployments in downtown Palo Alto, and the web link leads to other visual
simulations, and the web link is on packet page 177. And then, the applicant presentation, there are a
few visual simulations of side-mounted. Staff hasn't had the time to fully analyze, but nonetheless, they
are there. The same with pedestal. I think with the side-mounted pole placement and pedestal,
transportation and public works and planning would need to very carefully look at horizontal and vertical
clearance implementation relative to curb lines, corners and sidewalks. The horizontal and vertical
clearance are also important considerations.
Ms. French: Board Member Thompson, would you like to have one of those images displayed on the
screen for discussion? From the applicant's presentation?
Board Member Thompson: I would prefer that. Probably ask permission of the Board to show that.
City of Palo Alto Page 13
Chair Furth: Yeah, let's take a look at them. Meanwhile, I have another question of counsel while you're
finding that. Our recommendation, the recommendation to us is to deny a number of these nodes. Are
you comfortable with that recommendation?
Mr. Yang: Yes, and as noted, staff would like the ARB's comments on potential alternatives to the nodes
that are recommended for denial.
Chair Furth: Thank you. I have a minor question for staff. In looking at these not-mailboxes, are they
reviewed to make sure that they don't eliminate a parking space? Because you can't open your curbside
door anymore?
Ms. Atkinson: That's one of the items that makes it important to have the 1.5 minimum clearance from
curb lengths. You know, for any equipment.
Chair Furth: You believe that there is enough space to open car doors and get out with these
installations.
Ms. Atkinson: Only if they are placed at a minimum of 1.5 from a curb line.
Chair Furth: But that's what you are proposing, no?
Ms. Atkinson: No. Right now, the...We're not proposing anything...?
Chair Furth: They are, right?
Ms. Atkinson: Right, so, what I’m saying is, the applicant design, in order to meet clearance
requirements, would have to be a minimum of 1.5.
Ms. French: We are not recommending the faux mailboxes.
Chair Furth: Counsel? You had a comment?
Mr. Yang. I think, just to clarify, what staff is saying is that there may be some issues with what you've
described.
Chair Furth: Thank you.
Ms. Swanson: All right, thank you. If I may address that just briefly, is that, especially on the sites that
are on the...
Chair Furth: Yeah, let's try to get the hearing. We're at the deliberation section, and...
[crosstalk]
Ms. Swanson: Oh, I'm sorry.
Chair Furth: ...raise your hand and I'll...
Ms. Swanson: I'm sorry, when you looked at me, I thought you were ready for me to talk about the...
Chair Furth: I'm staring into space. Sorry. We were looking for an image, right? Correct.
Board Member Thompson: I think we just need to see the image.
Chair Furth: From my point of view, it's invisible.
City of Palo Alto Page 14
Ms. Atkinson: It does tend to blend with the pole and with the color....
[crosstalk]
Chair Furth: (inaudible).
Board Member Thompson: I don't know that that image is satisfactory enough to describe exactly what's
happening right there.
Ms. Swanson: Let me see if I can get you a better...
Chair Furth: Six feet up?
Ms. Swanson: Yeah, let me go to 31, It might be a little bit clearer there for the side mount. Let me
know... That's a little bit easier to see.
Chair Furth: Why don't you just give us the rough dimensions of that. Is it cylindrical?
Ms. Swanson: No. This shows, this would be square, and it would be 28 by 24 by 20.5. It's basically 8.7
cubic feet, and it would be on the side. Typically, we try to orient...
Chair Furth: [inaudible and off-microphone]
Ms. Swanson: I'm sorry. That would be 28 inches high and 24 inches wide, with a depth of 20.5 inches.
Chair Furth: [inaudible and off-microphone]
Ms. Swanson: You're very welcome. I'm sorry.
Chair Furth: Trying to visualize. Having a little trouble.
Ms. Swanson: Yeah, feel free... And I apologize, with the copies, we have a black and white, I would
have made more color copies for you guys. Normally these come up a little bit brighter on here. And that
would be mounted on the side and oriented in the safest manner. When these sims were made, we kind
of were trying, at the last minute, directly address the staff report. Because we've been talking off and on
the last year and a half or so what are some options.
Chair Furth: I'm going to cut you off just because...
Ms. Swanson: That's okay.
Chair Furth: ...it's such a complicated conversation. And I'll let you...
Ms. Swanson: And I also have, like, the construction guys, who may...
[crosstalk]
Board Member Thompson: I just want to mention, I was handed this exhibit that I'll pass out, but the
first page has the side-mounted, and the second page has the pedestal. It's a lot easier to look at.
Mr. Yang: This is just a printout of what the applicant is trying to show on the screen.
Chair Furth: And take us through what staff is recommending in terms of installation. I know we have a
recommendation that, when you've recommended approval, it should be in an underground vault if
City of Palo Alto Page 15
technically and logistically feasible. To date, everybody has assured us that it never is, so, what are we
thinking at this moment? What is staff recommending?
Mr. Yang: Staff is seeking the ARB's recommendation among the alternative designs. That is not the
mailbox.
Chair Furth: [inaudible and off-microphone]. That would be the large object attached to the pole, or
undergrounding? Are those the options?
Mr. Yang: The box that is attached on the side of the pole, or the pedestal design that's on the next
page. And then, staff's consultant on the last couple pages of the CTC report presents an alternative
technology which may or may not (inaudible) doesn't work, but we would appreciate the ARB's feedback.
Chair Furth: That's the CTC report.
Mr. Yang: That's correct.
Chair Furth: Okay, so, colleagues, these are very frustrating and complicated hearings because we are
very constrained as to what we can do. There is a wealth of material, but sometimes not that much
information. And we're also looking at multiple sites. And we have shot clocks, and we have federal
legislation which is designed to minimize our discretion, and yet, we need to do what we can. I would
suggest that we take perhaps the simpler ones first, and I'm going to... I'm going to suggest that we do
it site by site because it's hard to generalize. You're disagreeing with me completely. But... Okay. We
have a staff recommendation, which we can accept, or we can reject. They are different on each side. I
would like to start, as a pilot project, with the one that is -- I keep losing my index there -- the one that
is in front of what used to be Laning Chateau and is now something-or-other court. Staller Court. Which
apparently is the older name. And that is illustrated in the CTC report on pages 14 and 15. And the staff
recommendation on that one, Amy, is...?
Ms. French: Denial.
Chair Furth: Because?
Ms. French: It obstructs views of the historic resource.
Chair Furth: I would like to say, from my point of view, I agree with staff on this one. This is a historic
structure, it's catty-corner from a historic structure. We have spent a fortune in public money on
restoration of this site, and it's frequently and heavily viewed. And to plop this little structure in front of it
seems to me to conflict with everything we have done in terms of trying to keep that corner simple and
open, because this is a building that orients towards the corner. I have two questions. One is, do my
colleagues agree with me, and secondly, does our counsel think that's a valid basis for recommending
that this be located somewhere else?
Vice Chair Baltay: Yes, I'd like to talk, Wynne, to this, but to me, the issue is really not just site-by-site,
yes or no, but rather the separation of the antennas from the rest of the ground-mounted equipment. I
think in almost every case, the antennas are by far the less-noticeable, obtrusive, objectionable item on
this. What I would like to focus our conversation on is the ground-mounted equipment, and whether we
should be allowing that. In this particular case, I would say that the antenna is okay, but the ground-
mounted equipment is absolutely not okay.
Chair Furth: Let's here from everybody on the narrow issue of, do the antennas generally not offend the
sensibilities? Do we think that they are part of a reasonable urban infrastructure that is no more
objectionable than the light poles themselves?
City of Palo Alto Page 16
Board Member Gooyer: Let me ask a question, then. You'd be happier with a big box hanging on the pole
than...
Chair Furth: No, I'm not saying that.
[crosstalk]
Board Member Gooyer: Okay...
[crosstalk]
Chair Furth: The question is, right now, I'm just asking you about antenna, at the suggestion of Vice
Chair Baltay. I'm trying to keep my blood sugar up here, too.
Board Member Gooyer: I was talking to Peter when I asked that, but it... This antenna, as you said, isn't
that bad, but what I usually have a problem with is this massive box hanging on the side of the pole.
Chair Furth: Okay, we'll put that as our next item.
Board Member Gooyer: I would rather it even have a full mailbox than a big box hanging on the pole,
because the reality of it is the average person is going to notice the box hanging on the side of the pole
much more readily than a faux mailbox.
Chair Furth: Okay, I'm going to try to keep us confined to the issue of the antenna for a moment. Alex.
Talking about these sites.
Board Member Lew: I'm okay with the antenna.
Chair Furth: Osma.
Board Member Thompson: I think in general, I'm okay with the antenna. Just isolated as its own
element.
Chair Furth: Okay.
Board Member Thompson: Distinct from equipment.
Chair Furth: Peter? You started out with saying you're generally okay with the antenna.
Vice Chair Baltay: Yes. I think in every case today the antennas are acceptable. I can make the necessary
architectural review findings to allow the antennas to be placed on top of the light poles, as they are
presented in the proposal in front of us.
Chair Furth: So, they can have an antenna. The question is, can they communicate with anything or
anybody? Yeah. Do you have any thing to say specifically on that point?
Ms. Swanson: I do, I do, and thank you for giving me the opportunity. In this particular one, especially
when we looked at the alternatives, even the neighbors didn't want to necessarily be moved closer. If
you look at this particular slide that's on your monitor...
[crosstalk]
Chair Furth: ...you're talking about Site 26?
City of Palo Alto Page 17
Ms. Swanson: Site 26, right there, is that we can have the antennas alone on the node on the corner,
and we propose to move the faux mailbox across the street, adjacent to two existing newsstands. It just
requires a little bit longer of a trench, but that would protect the integrity of the viewpoints of installing,
and still allow us to have our equipment that, in that particular environment, just blends with the existing
street frontage.
Chair Furth: Your response to this criticism is to suggest locating it across Gilman?
Ms. Swanson: Correct.
Chair Furth: Across Gilman. Thank you.
Ms. Swanson: Correct. Thank you.
Chair Furth: That's helpful. Okay. I think we have one piece of... You have one piece of feedback from
the ARB. We're okay with antenna design. I think the next piece is that we are not okay with the
associated equipment. I'm going to ask people to briefly state their position, if they have one. As I
understand it, Robert, your belief is that whatever its intrinsic merit, something on the ground looking like
a mailbox or some other box is preferable to a...
[crosstalk]
Board Member Gooyer: I'm better with that than something hanging from the pole, yeah.
Chair Furth: Thank you. Alex.
Board Member Lew: Yeah, so, I think I would prefer, in the situation of, for the faux mailbox across the
street, the side-mounted equipment, I think does work on telephone poles. The telephone poles are
larger. When they are streetlights, then there's more of a difference between the equipment and any
shroud in the light pole. I think that's my preference. My recollection is we went, in the past, went with
the faux mailbox because on downtown corners, there were people on the second floors, and there were
no trees screening them. And then...yeah. And there may be issues with the mailboxes and delivery
trucks, say, like on Florence Street, but I think that would be less true on corners.
Chair Furth: Which often have red curbs.
Board Member Lew: Yeah.
Chair Furth: Except next to our new housing project. Osma?
Board Member Thompson: Can I quickly ask staff what the reason is, why we're being asked to consider
anything but the mailbox as an option?
Chair Furth: Why is staff opposed to the mailbox option?
Ms. Atkinson: The size of the mailbox being oversized, for one, relative to our development standards
and findings. Secondarily, the maintenance issue. When they are hit, we even reported the faux mailbox
damage, and it has yet to be repaired. Third, Transportation and Planning have been looking at the
bicycle and pedestrian transportation plan, and on narrow sidewalks especially in the downtown, this is
one more aspect of street furniture in the public realm that doesn't serve the public. And... In the way of
pedestrian flow. And then, also, clearance regarding, excuse me, horizontal and vertical clearance, and
ADA clearance.
Chair Furth: To amplify on Osma's question, are you supporting smaller sidewalk-mounted facilities?
Instead of faux mailboxes?
City of Palo Alto Page 18
Ms. Atkinson: That's something that hasn't been presented by the applicant. We've requested design
options and alternatives. I would be happy to forward that to Transportation and Public Works for review.
Chair Furth: As it stands now, they proposed mailboxes, you proposed not mailboxes. We're not looking
at a series of alternatives. It's, our mailbox is acceptable. All right?
Ms. French: Yeah, we do not like the mailboxes. If there had been a proposal, say, for a bench that
would serve the pedestrians in an amenity sort of way, we could have evaluated that, but we didn't
receive any such alternative. The other alternatives that have been presented today are the side mounted
on the pole. We also would say mounting it on top of the pole, which, you know, the problem is the size
of the radios. If you have smaller radios, it's a smaller footprint. And we have these large radios, so it's
tough.
Chair Furth: I have a question for the applicant, just briefly. It used to be that what we got was all these
applications for antennas on buildings. Is it now the case that they must be installed on these smaller
poles in our neighborhoods? Or is that that's what you have the right to do, and that's what you're
pursuing?
Ms. Swanson: It's a mix. They're called macro sites that are on buildings, and that services a larger area.
And Mike may want to weigh in on this a little. And then, within the right-of-way, they can be smaller
installations that are lower powered, that helps with capacity, and capacity's issue is you may have four
bars, but you try to download something or make a call, and it fails. That's why we're able to do it, and it
has a smaller footprint. One other option that wasn't mentioned is that there are pedestals also that go
on the bottom of these if the side mount is not something that...
Chair Furth: I'm sorry, that go on the bottom of what?
Ms. Swanson: Of the light pole. So, along with a side mount, we also have the pedestal option that we
can do. And Amy is correct that for the top mount that's suggested in CTC, those work with the much
smaller antennas and smaller radios. That doesn't necessarily accommodate everybody. The pedestal that
we're proposing here, all four carriers came together over a number of months, working with the city of
Cupertino, and agreed that this particular design is the one design they could all agree on. So, in that
situation, it could be a ubiquitous design that there is no choice; you have to make it work in that one.
That's why we scrambled to get this one in, once we saw that a pedestal or a side mount was an
opportunity for us to be able to have a condition of approval.
Chair Furth: Great, and could you show us a picture of the pedestal to remind us what it looks like?
Ms. Swanson: Yes. I believe there is one right there. On the pedestal. A couple different viewpoints so
you could see it from more than one site.
Chair Furth: Do we have a picture where it's big enough to see?
Ms. Swanson: Yeah, that's, I'm trying to get you one there, where you're able to see that. Is that one
showing up on your screens better?
Chair Furth: No.
Ms. Swanson: Okay. If I may approach, I can show you the one in my particular printout. That might be
a little easier. Unfortunately, these are... Yes. And it's one of the reasons why it was late, is that I had
pushed back to be able to get larger sims for you to be able to see. But I do have it here in color if you
would like to see it up close.
Chair Furth: Does it go around all four sides? I'm looking at...
City of Palo Alto Page 19
Ms. Swanson: It does.
Chair Furth: ... view 1, page 16, as it goes around all four sides of the post.
Ms. Swanson: Correct. It actually sits...
Chair Furth: It's like a large base.
Ms. Swanson: Right. The light standard, the octo-flute [phonetic] matching, what staff has requested, it
would just mount there. We would keep the luminaire at the existing height.
Chair Furth: Thank you.
Ms. Swanson: And then have that... You're welcome.
Chair Furth: Appreciate that. Well, we'll keep slogging our way through it, but one of the problems we
have here is that we don't have good illustrations of options, we don't have the materials that would let
us make the findings we need to make. We need better graphics. This is frustrating. I will say that I
believe that Alex is correct when he says that the side, pole-mounted, in the air facilities are out of scale
with these rather delicate street lights. They are not... It's a very different situation there. They are not
full of wire connections, they don't have transformers on them. These are simple... Somebody gave a lot
of thought to the design of these things, and they were designed to be simple. I do not think that...
Personally, I don't think a problem is created by putting an antenna on top of it, but clearly, there are
members of the public who feel strongly and differently and have come here to tell us that. Anybody
have a thought that they want to express?
Vice Chair Baltay: I wanted to see if I could get staff to pull up a photograph taken yesterday of Node 29.
That's the one across from St. Thomas Aquinas Church. Amy? You have this in your server. Could you put
that on the screen for everybody? What I'd like to point out is this. I think that Alex is absolutely correct,
that the pole-mounted boxes on the side of the light poles is clearly way out of scale. My opinion, full
mailboxes are often, almost all the time, inappropriate, out of scale, in the way of the sidewalk, causing
traffic hazards, perhaps. I don't think they are a real solution most of the time. Obviously, when you
move it across the street and put it next to a bunch of other items, it kind of fits. But, in general, it
doesn't. And I have to say that we just haven't been shown alternatives that really work, that fit into the
infrastructure that we have without being clumsy and heavy-handed. I think the same goes for the stuff
mounted on the telephone poles. We'll come to that. But certainly, the light poles cannot withstand it
being mounted on. The base that you show, as best I can tell on the three-quarter-of-a-inch square
photo, is really clumsy looking. And what I'm pulling up then, if they can find the photo I took yesterday
of the one across from the church. You guys conveniently cropped out, there's a very large underground
vault for electric utilities right next to it. To me, that's an answer that works. You put the thing under the
ground, in a vault. The photo shows you very clearly how, it's there, you don't notice it, you don't think
about it. And what I'd like to really press my colleagues on is this: If we establish a firm standard of what
this equipment has to be, or how it has to be put away, then we've done everybody a favor because
we're not constantly going back and forth and arguing about these things.
Board Member Gooyer: I think...
Vice Chair Baltay: Come out and say the equipment has to be completely concealed within something
existing, like the delicate base of the light pole. Or, put underground in a vault. Or, put next to a bunch
of existing equipment. But all of the solutions you're showing us are not that. That's where we're
struggling so hard, because we get such a sense of pushback, it can't be done, it's not technically
possible, they're not going to give us anything but a tiny, postage stamp photo at 11 o'clock this
morning. We're not getting a sense of cooperation to find answers. And what we really want is to find a
standard that these things need to be concealed.
City of Palo Alto Page 20
Board Member Gooyer: I think the reality of it is, it's strictly a matter of money. Putting a box in is a heck
of a lot more expensive than putting a faux mailbox or hanging something from a pole. It's as simple as
that.
Vice Chair Baltay: I take the photo I took yesterday of the, across the street from St. Thomas Aquinas
Church, and I take your proposal here, and I look at the architectural findings we're required to apply,
and I’m sorry, but what you're doing is required to enhance the living condition on the site. And if you
ask me which one of these enhances the living condition, it is decided not the faux mailbox. I cannot
make that finding based on the faux mailbox. On the second one, comparing it to the other vault that is
right there, right now, I can easily make that finding. Thank you.
Chair Furth: Board Member Thompson.
Board Member Thompson: I just wanted to mention that I also have, was brought this laptop, which has
an image of the pedestal option. I would have to agree with a lot of what Board Member Baltay said. If
there's an existing vault, there's no reason why we shouldn't be using it. And if there's existing
infrastructure that allows for equipment like this, there's also no reason that we shouldn't be using it. In
general, the pole-mounted, the pedestal options, are both extremely under-baked and not aesthetically
acceptable in any way, shape or form. They are just detrimental, in fact, to the public experience on the
street. There might be ways to make the pedestal option better. There might be ways to increase the
functionality of the aesthetics of that. There could be ways to make that great. As it has been presented,
it is unacceptable, in my opinion. The mailbox, as well, has a bunch of problems associated with it that
are extremely understandable, and I can see why we're being encouraged to look at other options. So, I
would support staff's analysis on why the mailbox option also does not work. There's also all this extra
signage on these poles that will add to the visual clutter, in general, and some of these renders show
them, which is good. But I think also an approach for how to reduce the visual clutter. I know these signs
are probably mandatory, but there could be ways to shape them. Maybe they're not just, like, flags on a
pole. Maybe they're thinner and a bit better integrated with the pole. I think there's a lot of design work,
honestly, that needs to get done, I think, before -- I'll just speak for myself -- before I can even think
about approving this.
Ms. Swanson: May I ask a question?
Chair Furth: Just a minute, please. Okay, that's not a very favorable recommendation from us so far.
Alex, did you have something you wanted to add? I have a question for staff and for counsel. I think
there's a majority up here that believes we cannot make the normal architectural review findings with
respect to these properties, these proposals. I will say that the pictures are, they're really illustrative of
what the problem is. This is an area where we've undergrounded utilities, at great expense, to get this
open, clear sidewalk and this open clear vista. So, what you see is trees, an open sidewalk that is easy
for people with strollers, people proceeding slowly with canes, to maneuver. I think that across the street
from -- I still think there's Laning Chateau -- is an example of a place where that's better, but generally,
our streets and our corners are getting more and more crowded, and every piece of equipment makes it
worse. Every piece of above-ground equipment makes it worse and less functional. We spend all our time
here, trying to encourage more people to use the sidewalks, and then we plop all these objects in. And
they are not, they're not what they should be. So, I have to agree with my colleague that they should be
underground. Albert, counsel, what can you tell us about our ability...? This is what we believe. Is this
what we can find?
Mr. Yang: If that's the ARB's recommendation, that's what staff and the Planning Director will take into
account. I guess I would ask for the ARB's thoughts on the micro cell configuration that's in the last two
pages of the CTC report.
Chair Furth: We are now picking up the CTC report, which is this document, for Cluster #2, and we're
looking at the last two pages. Looking at 44 and 45? Is that right? What am I looking at?
City of Palo Alto Page 21
Ms. French: Yes.
Chair Furth: I'm looking at this, right?
Ms. French: Yes. Page 44-45. Using the small...
Chair Furth: This is referenced by... Amy, I'm sorry, I'm just reduced to first names at this point. In her
presentation, this is somewhat smaller equipment. It is 21 inches by 22 inches. Is that right?
Ms. French: The small pico cells are seven inches square, and then, about four inches deep.
Chair Furth: Which page are you on?
Ms. French: Sorry, that's each radio, and that's not on this page. This shows, you know, a...
[crosstalk]
Ms. French: Shroud, thank you. That's what I was looking for.
Board Member Gooyer: the problem with this, tough, is it shows 35 inches, and the drawing relates it to
be about 12.
Board Member Thompson: It's totally not to scale.
Board Member Gooyer: I mean, this thing is so out of scale, it's not even close.
Board Member Thompson: I don't think we can evaluate those.
Board Member Gooyer: I mean, this is not... I mean, luckily, you have the numbers there. If it wasn't, I
would assume both of those were about a foot high. Based on the proportion of the light next to it.
Rather than, you know, five feet.
Chair Furth: It's two feet, I think.
Board Member Thompson: Oh, the numbers say it is, but the actual drawing scale is...
Chair Furth: Right, is wrong.
Board Member Thompson: ...really deceptive.
Chair Furth: I think to give you good commentary, we would need an accurate drawing, and perhaps a
photo simulation. I think that we can at least...
Board Member Gooyer: There you go. That's a better...
Ms. French: If I may, on the screen now...
Board Member Gooyer: ...reality.
Ms. French: ... is an example of the Erickson 2203 micro or pico sell. That has been used in AT&T's
proposal, which they stacked them vertical. Stacking vertical of smaller radios, it's easier to conceal.
Board Member Thompson: Does this not have a mailbox option? This is everything in one?
Ms. French: This is everything in one, correct.
City of Palo Alto Page 22
Mr. Yang: To clarify, this is not something that the applicant has...
Chair Furth: Proposed.
Mr. Yang: ...proposed at all, and it would require more sites overall. But we are interested in the ARB's
thoughts.
Chair Furth: What's the ratio of more to present? Twice as many? Three times as many?
Mr. Yang: I believe our consultant has said about twice as many.
Chair Furth: Twice as many.
Board Member Thompson: And does it also come with this underground diagram to the right? Or the left?
Mr. Yang: No, that's a separate...
Board Member Thompson: It's separate?
Mr. Yang: ...diagram.
Board Member Thompson: Okay.
Chair Furth: If we're trying to get consensus, we have no enthusiasm for large structures on the curb. We
have... I guess none of us would object to underground facilities if they were feasible. Is that right?
Vice Chair Baltay: Can I try making a motion here?
Chair Furth: Okay. And before we do that... Well, the other issue, let's address that issue later, but the
other issue we haven't addressed is the location of the antenna in the vicinity of Scott Park. Let's do that
later. Okay. Go ahead and make a motion.
MOTION
Vice Chair Baltay: What I'm thinking is that we can make a motion to approve this with a condition
regarding the location of the equipment. Let me take a stab at this and see what you folks think. I
recommend that we recommend approval of all of these nodes, conditional to all equipment and
associated wiring, except the antenna, being located either underground, or concealed within, or
camouflaged directly adjacent to existing infrastructure.
Chair Furth: I’m sorry, what?
Vice Chair Baltay: Let me try that...
Chair Furth: Camouflaged adjacent to existing infrastructure?
Board Member Gooyer: That is such a gray...
Vice Chair Baltay: Okay, well, help me out. I'm trying to think of a way...
Chair Furth: You could drive a truck through that one.
Vice Chair Baltay: ... [crosstalk] say it has to be underground, but it has to have some way of concealing
the equipment within something that's already there, or right next to something that's already there. Like
the [crosstalk].
City of Palo Alto Page 23
Board Member Gooyer: Well, that's actually an easier way to put it, is just to say conceal it in something
that's already there, rather than adjacent to...
Vice Chair Baltay: Fair enough.
Chair Furth: I don't think that's going to help the applicant.
Board Member Thompson: The one problem I think there is in that is that it's, it's vague enough that I
think if we were to approve it with that condition, it would just be too... We would just not know what we
would get.
Vice Chair Baltay: How can we...? I'm trying...
Chair Furth: Well, let's break it down into what is acceptable. Can we have a motion that it's the sense of
the ARB that the antenna design itself is acceptable on the light pole?
Vice Chair Baltay: Sure.
Chair Furth: I so move. Is there a second?
Vice Chair Baltay: I second that.
Chair Furth: All those in favor?
Vice Chair Baltay: Aye.
Chair Furth: Aye.
Board Member Lew: Aye.
Board Member Gooyer: Aye.
Board Member Thompson: Nay.
Chair Furth: Nay. Okay, 4 to 1 on...
MOTION PASSES 4 TO 1, WITH BOARD MEMBER THOMPSON VOTING IN OPPOSITION TO
THE MOTION.
Board Member Gooyer: But what does that get us?
Chair Furth: It gets a piece of clarity in a sea of confusion. Actually, in a fairly complex bunch of
decisions.
Board Member Thompson: Can I explain why I said, "nay?"
Chair Furth: Mm?
Board Member Thompson: Can I explain why I dissented?
Board Member Gooyer: Sure, sure.
Chair Furth: Yeah.
City of Palo Alto Page 24
Board Member Thompson: The only reason I did, because I do generally agree that it is on its own
acceptable, but in case we wanted to push for something like an integrated system, that would change
the design.
Chair Furth: Right. We're simply saying that the aesthetics of your antenna looks good to us.
Ms. Swanson: Understood. Thank you.
Chair Furth: And it's not out of...
[crosstalk]
Chair Furth: ...destroying the aesthetics of the....
[crosstalk]
Board Member Gooyer: The other alternative is to say either underground, or if not underground, it has
to come back to us.
Vice Chair Baltay: That's a good way to do it, yeah.
Board Member Gooyer: That way, it will be up to them. Is it more convenient for them to...?
[crosstalk]
Chair Furth: Okay, and that underground equipment installation is fine with us. That's another unanimous
point of view up here.
Board Member Thompson: Well, I also have a caveat on that.
Chair Furth: Okay, it's 4 to 1. Go.
Board Member Thompson: If there is existing underground infrastructure and vaults, then I'm okay with
it. But if we're...
Vice Chair Baltay: It has to be a new vault.
Chair Furth: You can't stick it in an existing vault.
Board Member Thompson: Well, I guess what I mean is, if there is already existing vaults in the area,
we...
Chair Furth: That doesn't make any sense.
Board Member Thompson: That they would put it adjacent to...
Chair Furth: Doesn’t make any sense.
Board Member Gooyer: [inaudible and off-microphone]
Chair Furth: [inaudible and off-microphone]
Board Member Thompson: So, I don't know if I support digging up the ground and putting a bunch of
holes in it.
City of Palo Alto Page 25
Chair Furth: All right, so, there are four of us in support of undergrounding the equipment when feasible.
I want to talk... I'm just trying to get off anything we can get consensus on, or at least three votes for.
One of the things we were asked about specifically was the location of these particular proposals, and
staff recommended denial of three of them. Do we disagree with staff?
Board Member Lew: I'm having a harder time with the, the 28m1.
Chair Furth: This is [crosstalk] up and down Channing, right? Channing [crosstalk].
Board Member Lew: In my mind, the 28m1 is good because there is a whole row of existing palm trees
that provide screening from the new house that's being built. And the staff mentioned that there's an
underground district, underground utility district, and there's issues of ownership and maintenance of the
pole. But I don't really know any of the details of that, so that's not... I'm only judging it by the aesthetic.
I don't...
Chair Furth: Yeah, this is a proposal for a new not-currently-existing pole, right? And is this...? This is not
in front of Scott Park, right?
Ms. French: Correct. It's in front of a new home that the ARB approved.
Chair Furth: That nobody occupies yet, so they can't come and object?
Vice Chair Baltay: I think, Alex, the issue is that what they are proposing on that particular one is to put a
new street pole, street light where it suits their needs. And I think there's a process in town for
determining when and where we need new street lights, and the City basically has to pay for that. They
pay for the power. There's, I'm sure, a process to decide how it should be. And I would think, if perhaps
the applicant wanted to work with the City to pay for the street light, that would be reasonable. Because
it is a good location. But, to open up the Pandora's Box of allowing an applicant to just put the pole
where they want it is very slippery.
Chair Furth: Counsel, so, they have a license, or whatever, an agreement with the City about installing
equipment on existing poles. Do they have any right to have new ones?
Mr. Yang: Their right to create new structures would be based under federal law and, you know,
California law. But, so, it's not necessary for them to have a license agreement with the City because they
wouldn't be using any of our existing facilities.
Chair Furth: They have no particular right to install a new pole except under the general, by agreement
with us; it's simply their general rights under federal and state law to put their equipment in the city.
Mr. Yang: Correct.
Chair Furth: And under what circumstances would they be entitled to put in a new pole like this? I mean,
is it the same set of findings we have right now?
Mr. Yang: Yes.
Chair Furth: What about the issue of providing power to this thing?
Mr. Yang: The applicant would be responsible for paying for the power. There...
Chair Furth: I'm dealing with a negative recommendation from staff, so I'm trying to understand.
Mr. Yang: I think one of the primary objections of staff... I guess, actually, maybe you guys can speak to
the problem with the new pole.
City of Palo Alto Page 26
Ms. Atkinson: I'd like to say that we, we do have electrical staff here if you have any questions in regard
to the master license agreement and paying for power, and so forth. However, in terms of objections to a
new location, it would be a typical Tier 3 wireless communication facility permit for a new pole in the
right-of-way, just like it would be a new... Any new facility would be a new Tier 3 permit, like I say, on a
private building, or anything like that. It's the same process as outlined in our municipal code. Objections
include all the things that we mentioned before -- pedestrian flow, clearance issues, in general. As you
mentioned also, the benefits of an underground utility district.
Chair Furth: Even underground utility districts have over ground light poles, right? This process that you
describe for locating poles in the city right-of-way, we don't ordinarily review, right? It's got nothing to do
with us. It's only because these are telecommunication facilities that we're dealing with this. Large
communication facilities.
Mr. Yang: That's correct. It's because it's a third-party application to build a new structure.
Chair Furth: But if the City decides to put in new light poles somewhere, that never comes to us.
Mr. Yang: That's correct.
Chair Furth: None of our business.
Mr. Yang: Right. And in this instance, the City is not interested in having a new light pole in this location.
And perhaps our utilities staff could speak to why.
Chair Furth: I'm just trying to figure out what our role is here. If we think aesthetically its preferable to
any of the other alternatives submitted to us, we can just tell you that and let it go?
Mr. Yang: That's correct.
Chair Furth: Okay. Do we think it's preferable to the other alternatives?
Board Member Lew: I think it's preferable because of the palm trees. I think there are three or four, and
they are very dense, and they are large. And then, on the opposite side of the street, my recollection is
that that's the side of somebody's house. It’s not like somebody's front porch.
Chair Furth: It is the side. You're right.
Board Member Lew: And I think that, to me, those are very important differences compared to the
original 28 location, which is in front of somebody's front porch, or close to it.
Chair Furth: Thank you, Alex. All we ever do around here is recommend anyway. We don't have any
decision-making powers, so, it is the view of the ARB that this proposal is preferable to any of the others
that we've seen, for the reasons discussed. I would add that we spend a lot of looking at this corner
because we just worked on a problem of shoe-horning or placing four new residences in that corner, in
an old, interesting neighborhood. Speaking purely from the aesthetic and functional aspects of the use of
the sidewalk and the looks of the neighborhood, we favor that proposal. We have no comment on other
City issues that might make it undesirable. That fair? Okay.
Board Member Lew: There's an existing planting strip. It's not sidewalk there. Right?
Chair Furth: Uh-huh.
Board Member Lew: There's not...
Chair Furth: We could not obstruct [crosstalk]...
City of Palo Alto Page 27
Board Member Lew: We're not... My recollection is we're not obstructing anything there.
Chair Furth: We think it would be feasible from the point of view of the things that we look at. What
about the recommendation for "no" on Site 25, which is adjacent to 275 Forest Avenue? Staff, why are
you saying no?
Board Member Thompson: Board Member Furth?
Chair Furth: Yes?
Board Member Thompson: I actually...
Chair Furth: Sorry, I interrupted.
Board Member Thompson: It's okay. I actually have to... I have to go. It's...
Chair Furth: We all do.
Board Member Thompson: If it seems like we won't be making a motion in the next five minutes or so,
then I might have to...
Chair Furth: [inaudible and off-microphone], and then we're going to have to adjourn. Staff, quickly,
anything on Site 25? As to why you said no? Remind us.
Ms. French: There are logistical aspects in conflict with the city parking garage.
Chair Furth: Okay, well, that's not an area in which we have expertise. If it's not feasible from an
engineering technical point of view, we don't second-guess you on that. Site 26? You recommended no?
Ms. French: That's the Laning Chateau, Stalling Court.
Chair Furth: Okay. How do we feel about sticking the antenna on top of the...? It's only the ground
equipment that we objected to on that one. Is that correct?
[crosstalk]
Chair Furth: I think we're [crosstalk].
Board Member Lew: I think the issue, I guess for me, is what is the historic standard? And then, if there's
some historic standard about the corner view, I would think that's the HRB's input and not ours.
Chair Furth: Yeah, talk to the HRB. Like that. The staff is recommending approval of locations subject to
not having this above-ground equipment on 29, 30 and 31. I guess we could say that we find the other
locations acceptable provided the equipment is underground. Somebody want to move that?
MOTION
Vice Chair Baltay: Sure. I'll move that we find the antennas and the locations for these nodes acceptable
or recommend approval with the condition that all equipment and associated wiring be located
underground. Or completely concealed within existing equipment. I think you need to have something
(inaudible).
Chair Furth: All right.
Board Member Gooyer: I'll second that.
City of Palo Alto Page 28
Chair Furth: Is there a second?
Board Member Thompson: Can I amend?
Board Member Lew: Let me clarify. You're saying all nodes? All of the nodes in this...? Is it seven?
Vice Chair Baltay: Yes. I think what's been presented to us is a logical package of reasonable places. I
don't think the historic stuff is really stuff that we can bite our teeth into. And whether or not the City can
work out to get a new light pole with these guys, again, it's not really an architectural board issue.
Chair Furth: We have no idea.
Vice Chair Baltay: I would recommend strongly that the City cooperate with the applicant to the benefit
of the citizens. You've made it abundantly clear that, a number of people who live around here all agree
that this is the right place. Let's get Public Works to put a light pole there. Tell them to find a way to do
it. I'm sure there's enough motivation to make that happen. But I think we need to keep our eye on the
ball, that we want the equipment out of sight or underground.
Chair Furth: Okay. And for the benefit of counsel, we're not making the extensive findings we might
ordinarily make. Yes, Osma?
AMENDMENT TO MOTION
Board Member Thompson: I was wanting to amend the motion. That whatever the applicant's solution is
for the equipment come back to us in a subcommittee.
Vice Chair Baltay: If it's underground, or if it, just in general?
Chair Furth: I'm not going to support...
Board Member Thompson: If it's not underground.
Chair Furth: Okay. Any above-ground alternatives come back to us?
Board Member Thompson: Anything that's visible on the [crosstalk].
Chair Furth: Okay. I think they have it, too.
Vice Chair Baltay: I'll accept that.
Chair Furth: Okay. Did the seconder accept it? Who seconded?
Board Member Gooyer: Yeah. I did.
Chair Furth: All right. All those in favor say aye?
Vice Chair Baltay: Aye.
Chair Furth: Aye.
Board Member Gooyer: Aye.
Chair Furth: Opposed?
City of Palo Alto Page 29
Board Member Lew: I’m going to abstain. I've not considered undergrounding for any of these locations.
It was not brought up in the packet and I never even thought about it.
AMENDED MOTION PASSED 4-0-1, with Board Member Lew abstaining from the vote.
Chair Furth: Okay. Staff, this is a highly-litigated and regulated area. We would ordinarily make extensive
findings. We would ordinarily have much better information. We would not be looking at last-minute, on-
the-wing proposals. I think we're only doing this because we have a sense that the City is in a hurry. But
we would be happy to look at this matter again with better information, if that is useful to the City.
Ms. French: Thank you.
1
Carnahan, David
From:Jeanne Fleming <jfleming@metricus.net>
Sent:Sunday, January 20, 2019 6:07 PM
To:Architectural Review Board
Cc:Council, City; Planning Commission
Subject:1/17/19 Cell Tower Hearing
Dear Chair Furth, Vice-Chair Baltay, Mr. Hirsch, Mr. Lew and Ms. Thompson,
Thank you for your concern for the quality of life in Palo Alto and for your thoughtful analysis of the
telecommunications companies’ applications to locate cell towers in close proximity to residents’
homes.
All of us at United Neighbors are most appreciative of your decision on Thursday to stop Crown
Castle/Verizon in its rush to install heavy, unsightly equipment on utility poles in the Downtown North
neighborhood.
Sincerely,
Jeanne Fleming
Jeanne Fleming, PhD
JFleming@Metricus.net
650-325-5151
&DUQDKDQ'DYLG
)URP &OHUN&LW\
6HQW 7KXUVGD\-DQXDU\ $0
7R &RXQFLO&LW\
6XEMHFW ): &URZQ&DVWOH9HUL]RQ'RZQWRZQ1RUWKFHOOWRZHUDSSOLFDWLRQV
$WWDFKPHQWV &URZQ&DVWOH9HUL]RQ3LHGPRQWYDXOW-3* 9HUL]RQ6DQWD&UX]YDXOWMSJ
dŚĂŶŬƐĂŶĚŚĂǀĞĂŐƌĞĂƚĚĂLJ͘
Ͳ
ĞƚŚDŝŶŽƌ͕ŝƚLJůĞƌŬ
ŝƚLJŽĨWĂůŽůƚŽ
ϮϱϬ,ĂŵŝůƚŽŶǀĞŶƵĞ
WĂůŽůƚŽ͕ϵϰϯϬϭ
;ϲϱϬͿϯϮϵͲϮϯϳϵ
&ƌŽŵ͗:ĞĂŶŶĞ&ůĞŵŝŶŐфũĨůĞŵŝŶŐΛŵĞƚƌŝĐƵƐ͘ŶĞƚх
^ĞŶƚ͗tĞĚŶĞƐĚĂLJ͕:ĂŶƵĂƌLJϭϲ͕ϮϬϭϵϲ͗ϯϲWD
dŽ͗ƌĐŚŝƚĞĐƚƵƌĂůZĞǀŝĞǁŽĂƌĚфĂƌďΛĐŝƚLJŽĨƉĂůŽĂůƚŽ͘ŽƌŐх
Đ͗ůĞƌŬ͕ŝƚLJфĐŝƚLJ͘ĐůĞƌŬΛĐŝƚLJŽĨƉĂůŽĂůƚŽ͘ŽƌŐх͖WůĂŶŶŝŶŐŽŵŵŝƐƐŝŽŶфWůĂŶŶŝŶŐ͘ŽŵŵŝƐƐŝŽŶΛĐŝƚLJŽĨƉĂůŽĂůƚŽ͘ŽƌŐх
^ƵďũĞĐƚ͗ƌŽǁŶĂƐƚůĞͬsĞƌŝnjŽŶŽǁŶƚŽǁŶEŽƌƚŚĐĞůůƚŽǁĞƌĂƉƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶƐ
'HDU&KDLU)XUWK9LFH&KDLU%DOWD\0U+LUVFK0U/HZDQG0V7KRPSVRQ
7KDQN\RXIRU\RXUFRQWLQXLQJFRQFHUQIRUWKHTXDOLW\RIOLIHLQ3DOR$OWR¶VQHLJKERUKRRGV
2QEHKDOIRI8QLWHG1HLJKERUV,DPZULWLQJWRUHVSHFWIXOO\UHTXHVWWKDW\RXGLUHFW&URZQ
&DVWOH9HUL]RQWRORFDWHXQGHUJURXQGWKHDQFLOODU\HTXLSPHQWIRUWKHVL[FHOOWRZHUVWKH\DUHDSSO\LQJ
WRLQVWDOOLQ3DOR$OWR¶V'RZQWRZQ1RUWKQHLJKERUKRRG
+HUHDUHWKHIRXUUHDVRQVZK\
)LUVW 'RZQWRZQ1RUWKLVDVPDOOLQYLWLQJQHLJKERUKRRGRIFODVVLF3DOR$OWREXQJDORZVERUGHUHGRQ
WKHQRUWKE\WKHZLQGLQJZRRGV\6DQ)UDQFLVTXLWR&UHHNDQGRQWKHVRXWKE\ORZULVHDSDUWPHQW
EXLOGLQJVDQGFRQGRPLQLXPV<HWHDFKRIWKHFHOOWRZHUV&URZQ&DVWOH9HUL]RQSURSRVHWRLQVWDOO
WKHUH²LQSODLQYLHZ²LQFOXGHVKXQGUHGVRISRXQGVRIXJO\SROHPRXQWHGHTXLSPHQW
,EHOLHYHWKDWQHLWKHUWKHGHVLJQQRUVLWLQJRIWKHVHIDFLOLWLHVFRPSO\ZLWK3DOR$OWR¶VFRUHDHVWKHWLF
VWDQGDUGVRUZLWKWKHWKRXJKWIXOJXLGHOLQHV\RXWKH$UFKLWHFWXUDO5HYLHZ%RDUGHVWDEOLVKHGLQ
6HFRQG 7KHUHLVQRJRRGUHDVRQZK\&URZQ&DVWOH9HUL]RQFDQQRWORFDWHDQFLOODU\FHOOWRZHU
HTXLSPHQWXQGHUJURXQGLQ'RZQWRZQ1RUWK
7RSDUDSKUDVH8QLWHG1HLJKERUDQG8&%HUNHOH\(QJLQHHULQJSURIHVVRU7LQD&KRZ¶VFRPPHQWVWR
\RXLQ'HFHPEHUWKHVHZHUOLQHVJDVOLQHVDQGHYHU\WKLQJHOVH&URZQ&DVWOH9HUL]RQVD\SUHYHQW
WKHPIURPXQGHUJURXQGLQJLQ'RZQWRZQ1RUWKH[LVWLQHYHU\FRPPXQLW\<HWWKH\KDYHYDXOWHGWKHLU
HTXLSPHQW²RUKDYHVXEPLWWHGSODQVWRYDXOWWKHLUHTXLSPHQW²LQPDQ\FLWLHV6KRXOGDSDUWLFXODU
VLWHJHQXLQHO\SUHFOXGHXQGHUJURXQGLQJ&URZQ&DVWOH9HUL]RQDUHIUHHWRFKRRVHDQDOWHUQDWH
VLWH7KHERWWRPOLQHKHUHLVWKDWWKHUHLVQRUHDVRQWRFRPSURPLVH3DOR$OWR¶VQHLJKERUKRRGVVLPSO\
EHFDXVHLWLVHDVLHUDQGOHVVH[SHQVLYHIRU&URZQ&DVWOH9HUL]RQWRLQVWDOOHTXLSPHQWRQXWLOLW\SROHV
7RJLYH\RXDQLGHDRIZKDWWKHDSSOLFDQWVFDQGRLIWKH\ZDQWWR,KDYHDWWDFKHGD D&URZQ
&DVWOH9HUL]RQSKRWRVLPXODWLRQRIRQHRIHLJKWYDXOWHGVLWHVWKH\SURSRVHGIRU3LHGPRQW WKHSKRWR
VLPXODWLRQLVWKHODUJHULPDJH DQGE DSKRWRJUDSKRIYDXOWHG9HUL]RQFHOOWRZHUHTXLSPHQWLQ6DQWD
&UX]
7KLUG :KLOH&URZQ&DVWOH9HUL]RQKDYHSURSRVHGWRLQVWDOOODUJHREWUXVLYHFHOOWRZHUHTXLSPHQWLQ
'RZQWRZQ1RUWKWKHDSSOLFDQWVLQIDFWKDYHPXFKVPDOOHUHTXLSPHQW&RQVLGHU 7KH\MXVW
VXEPLWWHGWRLQWHULP&LW\3ODQQLQJ'LUHFWRU-RQDWKDQ/DLWDVWUHHWOLJKWSROHPRXQWHGFHOOWRZHUGHVLJQ
LQZKLFKUDGLRVFDEOLQJandDQWHQQDDUHDOOHQFORVHGLQDVSDFHLQFKHVLQGLDPHWHUDQGIHHW
LQFKHVLQKHLJKW+HQFHLWVHHPVUHDVRQDEOHWRFRQFOXGHWKDW&URZQ&DVWOH9HUL]RQZRXOGQRWLQ
IDFWKDYHWRXVHWKHODUJHYDXOWVWKH\FODLPDUHUHTXLUHGWRXQGHUJURXQGUDGLRHTXLSPHQWJLYHQWKDW
VLJQLILFDQWO\VPDOOHUHTXLSPHQWLVDYDLODEOH
)RXUWK 7KH&DOLIRUQLD38&²DQGLQGHHGWKHHQWLUH6WDWHRI&DOLIRUQLD²LVUHWKLQNLQJWKHZLVGRPRI
DERYHJURXQGXWLOLWLHVLQWKHZDNHRIWKH&DPS7XEEVDQG:RROVH\ZLOGILUHVWRQDPHEXWD
IHZ,QGHHGRYHUORDGHGZLWKWHOHFRPHTXLSPHQWXWLOLWLHVSROHVZHUHGLUHFWO\LPSOLFDWHGLQODVW\HDU¶V
0DOLEX&DQ\RQILUHDQG9HUL]RQLVDGHIHQGDQWLQWKHDVVRFLDWHGODZVXLW,WPDNHVQRVHQVHWRGR
ZKDW&URZQ&DVWOH9HUL]RQZDQWDQGDGGKXQGUHGVRISRXQGVRIXJO\QRLV\DQGSRWHQWLDOO\
KD]DUGRXVFHOOWRZHUHTXLSPHQWWRXWLOLW\SROHV
$QDVLGHUHJDUGLQJQRLVH 9HUL]RQVD\VLWKDVQRSODQVWRLQVWDOOQRLV\EDFNXSEDWWHULHVRQLWVQHZ
FHOOWRZHUV%XWLWKDVQHYHUSURPLVHGQRWWRGRVRDQGLWKDVDORQJKLVWRU\RIUHWXUQLQJWRDGGWKLV
HTXLSPHQWRQFHDFHOOWRZHUVLWHKDVEHHQSHUPLWWHG
6RRQEHKDOIRI8QLWHG1HLJKERUV,DVN\RXSOHDVHFRQWLQXHWRSURWHFWDQGHQKDQFHWKHTXDOLW\RI
OLIHLQRXUEHDXWLIXOFLW\3OHDVHGLUHFW&URZQ&DVWOH9HUL]RQWRORFDWHDOODQFLOODU\FHOOWRZHU
HTXLSPHQWLQWKLVTXLQWHVVHQWLDO3DOR$OWRQHLJKERUKRRGXQGHUJURXQG
7KDQN\RXIRU\RXUFRQVLGHUDWLRQDQGIRU\RXUVHUYLFHWR3DOR$OWR
6LQFHUHO\
-HDQQH)OHPLQJ
-HDQQH)OHPLQJ3K'
-)OHPLQJ#0HWULFXVQHW
CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
February 4, 2019
The Honorable City Council
Palo Alto, California
Adoption of a Resolution Scheduling the City Council Summer Break
and Winter Closure for 2019
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the resolution (Attachment A) scheduling the City Council 2019
Summer Break and Winter Closure on dates determined by Council. Staff
recommends Winter Closure from Tuesday, December 17, 2019 to Sunday,
January 5, 2020.
BACKGROUND
Under Municipal Code Section 2.04.010(b), the City Council schedules its
annual vacation for the following calendar year, by resolution, no later than
the third meeting in February. During the vacation period, the Code states
that there shall be no regular meetings of the Council or its standing
committees. Under the Code, the Mayor or a majority of the Council may call
a special meeting during the scheduled vacation, if necessary.
Last year Council’s summer break started on June 26, 2018 and ended on
August 10, 2018. Council generally approves the annual budget at the
second of third meeting in June, and begins it summer break shortly
thereafter. In 2019, the July 4th holiday falls on Thursday. Please note that
Palo Alto Unified School District’s scheduled last school day before their
summer break is May 31, 2019. PAUSD is scheduled to resume classes on
August 13, 2019.
Additionally, the Council needs to set the winter closure. Staff proposes
December 17, 2019 through January 5, 2020.
Staff respectfully requests Council’s determination regarding the dates to be
set for the Council breaks, and adoption of the attached Resolution.
SUMMER BREAK
Tuesday, June 25, 2019 - Sunday, August 4, 2019
WINTER CLOSURE
Tuesday, December 17, 2019 – Sunday, January 5, 2020
Page 2
ATTACHMENTS:
• Attachment A: RESO 2018 Council Vacation (DOCX)
Department Head: Beth Minor, City Clerk
Page 3
NOT YET APPROVED
Resolution No.
Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Scheduling the
City Council Vacation and Winter Closure for Calendar Year 2019
R E C I T A L S
A. Pursuant to Section 2.04.010 of the Municipal Code, the City Council must
schedule its annual vacation for each calendar year no later than the third meeting in February.
B. The City Council desires to set its annual vacation for 2019.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto RESOLVES as follows:
SECTION 1. The City Council sets its summer vacation for calendar year 2019
from June 25, 2019 through August 4, 2019 and winter closure from December 17, 2019
through January 5, 2020.
SECTION 2. The Council finds that the adoption of this resolution does not meet
the definition of a project under Public Resources Code Section 21065, thus, no environmental
assessment under the California Environmental Quality Act is required.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
___________________________________ ____________________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________ ____________________________________
City Attorney City Manager
1
CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
February 4, 2019
The Honorable City Council
Palo Alto, California
Boards and Commissions Term End Dates for 2019 (Maddy Act)
The 2019 Maddy Act list is attached.
Government Code Section 54970-54974, the Maddy Act, requires that the City
prepare a list of all appointments which will expire in the upcoming year. The list
is posted on the agenda posting board in King Plaza, in front of City Hall, and also
in the posting board within the entry to the Council Chambers, where they will
remain throughout 2019.
ATTACHMENTS:
• Attachment A: Maddy Act 2019 (PDF)
Department Head: Beth Minor, City Clerk
LOCAL APPOINTMENTS LIST OF CITY OF PALO ALTO BOARD AND COMMISSION TERMS EXPIRING IN 2019
For additional information, contact: City Clerks Office, City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301
(650) 329-2571, http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/clerk
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, this document may be provided in other accessible
formats. For information contact: City of Palo Alto - ADA Coordinator
650/329-2550 (Voice) or email ada@cityofpaloalto.org
Last updated 01/23/2019
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD (ARB)
Three-year term No Residency Requirement
No terms expire in 2019
Eligibility Requirements: A board of five members, at least
three of whom shall be architects, landscape architects,
building designers or other design professionals.
Regular meetings are held at 8:30 a.m. on the first and third
Thursdays of each month. Terms are for three years and
commence on December 16. (PAMC 2.16 and 2.21)
HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD (HRB)
Three-year term No Residency Requirement
Commissioner Date of Appointment Present Term Expires David Bower 06/04/2007 12/15/2019
Brandon Corey 02/13/2017 12/15/2019
Deborah Shepherd 05/21/2018 12/15/2019
Eligibility Requirements: A board of seven members who
have demonstrated interest in and knowledge of history,
architecture or historic preservation. One member shall be
an owner/occupant of a Category 1 or 2 historic structure or
of a structure in an historic district; three members shall be
architects, landscape architects, building designers or other
design professionals and at least one member shall possess
academic education or practical experience in history or a
related field.
Regular meetings are held at 8:30 a.m. on the second and
fourth Thursdays of each month. Terms are for three years
and commence on December 16. (PAMC 2.16 and 16.49)
HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION (HRC)
Three-year term Residency Requirement
Commissioner Date of Appointment Present Term Expires
Deepali Brahmbhatt 06/01/2017 05/31/2019
Jill O’Nan 06/21/2010 05/31/2019
Eligibility Requirements: A commission of seven members
who are not Council Members, officers or employees of the
City and who are residents of the City of Palo Alto.
Regular meetings are held at 7:00 p.m. on the second
Thursday of each month. Terms are for three years and
commence on June 1. (PAMC 2.16 and 2.22)
LIBRARY ADVISORY COMMISSION (LAC)
Three-year term Residency Requirement
Commissioner Date of Appointment Present Term Expires
Sheena Chin 06/10/2013 05/31/2019
Robert Moss 02/01/2010 05/31/2019
Eligibility Requirements: Composed of five members who
shall be appointed by and shall serve at the pleasure of the
City Council, but who shall not be Council Members, officers
or employees of the City of Palo Alto. Each member of the
commission shall have a demonstrated interest in public
library matters.
Regular meetings are held at 7:00 p.m. on the fourth
Thursday of every other month. Terms are for three years
and commence on June 1. (PAMC 2.16 and 2.24)
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION (PRC)
Three-year term No Residency Requirement
Commissioner Date of Appointment Present Term Expires
Jeff LaMere 02/13/2017 12/15/2019
Ryan McCauley 02/13/2017 12/15/2019
Don McDougall 02/13/2017 12/15/2019
Keith Reckdahl 02/11/2013 12/15/2019
Eligibility Requirements: A commission composed of seven
members who shall be appointed by and shall serve at the
pleasure of the City Council, but who shall not be Council
Members, officers or employees of the City of Palo Alto.
Each member of the commission shall have a demonstrated
interest in parks, open space and recreation matters. All
members of the commission shall be residents of Palo Alto.
Regular meetings are held at 7:00 p.m. on the fourth Tuesday
of each month. Terms are for three years and commence on
December 16. (PAMC 2.16 and 2.25)
PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION (PTC)
Four-year term Residency Requirement
Commissioner Date of Appointment Present Term Expires
Asher Waldfogel 11/01/2015 12/15/2019
Eligibility Requirements: A commission of seven members
who are not Council Members, officers or employees of the
city and who are residents of the City of Palo Alto.
Regular meetings are held at 6:00 p.m. on the second and
last Wednesdays of each month. Terms are for four years
and commence on December 16. (PAMC 2.16, 2.20, and
19.04)
PUBLIC ART COMMISSION (PAC)
Three-year term
No Residency Requirement
No terms expire in 2019
Eligibility Requirements: A commission of seven members
who are not Council Members, officers or employees of the
City. Members shall be either members of the Architectural
Review Board or shall be professional visual artists,
professional visual arts educators, professional visual arts
scholars or visual arts collectors whose authorities and skills
are known and respected in the community and whenever
feasible, who have demonstrated interest in, and have
participated in, the arts program of the City of Palo Alto.
Regular meetings are held at 7:00 p.m. on the third Thursday
of each month. Terms are for three years and commence on
June 1. (PAMC 2.16, 2.18 and 2.26)
STORM WATER MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE (SWMOC)
Four-year term Each Committee Member Must at all Times
be Either a Palo Alto Resident, an Employee of a Palo Alto Business, or own Property Within the City of Palo Alto
Commissioner Date of Appointment Present Term Expires
David Bower 09/11/2017 05/31/2019
Marilyn Keller 09/11/2017 05/31/2019
Richard Whaley 09/11/2017 05/31/2019
The Committee shall consist of seven members who are
selected and appointed by the City Council for a term of four
years. Committee members shall serve without
compensation. Each Committee member shall be a resident
of Palo Alto, an employee of a business located in Palo Alto
or an owner of real property within the City. No member shall
be a council member, officer or employee of the City.
The committee shall meet at least once a year to review the
proposed operating and capital budgets of the Storm Water
Management Fund for the next fiscal year.
UTILITIES ADVISORY COMMISSION (UAC)
Three-year term Residency Requirement for six Members
Commissioner Date of Appointment Present Term Expires
A.C. Johnston 05/31/2016 05/31/2019
Judith Schwartz 05/04/2015 05/31/2019
Terry Trumbull 05/31/2016 05/31/2019
Eligibility Requirements: A commission of seven members
who are not Council Members, officers or employees of the
City. Each member shall be a utility customer or the
authorized representative of a utility customer. Six members
of the commission shall at all times be residents of the City.
Regular meetings are held at 7:00 p.m. on the first
Wednesday of each month. Terms are for three years and
commence on June 1. (PAMC 2.16 and 2.23)
City of Palo Alto (ID # 10007)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Informational Report Meeting Date: 2/4/2019
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: First Quarter Financial Report
Title: First Quarter FY 2019 Financial Report
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Administrative Services
This is an information only report and no Council action is required.
Background
The purpose of this report is to provide the Council with information on the financial condition
of the City’s General Fund and Enterprise Funds as of the end of the first (1st) quarter of fiscal
year (FY) 2019 (September 30, 2018).
Discussion
The FY 2019 1st quarter ended on September 30, 2018 and this report summarizes the actual
financial activity of the General and Enterprise Funds for the three-month period and compares
those amounts to the same period of the prior year and to the FY 2019 Adjusted Budget.
Attachment A provides a breakdown of revenues by source and expenses by function, with
separate columns for Adopted Budget and Adjusted Budget. The Adjusted Budget column
includes prior year commitments that were carried forward into this fiscal year and
amendments to the FY 2019 Adopted Budget through September 30. Encumbrances and actual
expenses for the three-month period are also reported.
General Fund revenues (excluding operating transfers and other sources) for the 1st quarter FY
2019 total $23.9 million, which is 7 percent lower than the same period prior year, and
comprises 12 percent of the current year Adjusted Budget. Cash receipts declined in sales tax,
transient occupancy, permits & licenses and documentary transfer taxes over prior year’s 1st
quarter. These lower levels are not indicative of the annual expected receipts in FY 2019, they
merely reflect a timing difference.
General Fund expenses for 1st quarter are 2 percent higher than prior year, and are tracking at
23 percent of Adjusted Budget which is similar to the prior year trend.
City of Palo Alto Page 2
Following is a detailed discussion of the most significant revenue and expense items.
Revenue Highlights for 1st Quarter FY 2019
Following is a table which highlights the City’s major revenue sources for the 1st Quarter,
compared to 1st Quarter of the prior year. Each quarter’s revenue is expressed as a percentage
of the Adjusted Budget for each year.
% change FY 2019 %FY 2018 %
Property Tax N/M 45,332$ 0%42,327$ 0%
Sales Tax -6%31,247 6%30,208 6%
Charges for Services 32%28,419 17%25,125 13%
Transient Occupancy Tax -27%25,049 12%24,143 16%
Utility User Tax 0%16,092 21%15,367 21%
Permits and Licenses -44%8,545 22%8,432 39%
Documentary Transfer Tax -6%7,434 19%6,930 20%
All Other Revenue Sources -2%32,535 24%33,544 24%
Total Revenue -7%194,653$ 12%186,076$ 16%
City of Palo Alto
General Fund Revenue
FY 2019 1st Quarter
(000's)
1st Quarter Actuals Adjusted Budget
FY 2019 FY 2018
107$ 89$
1,800 1,917
4,827 3,647
2,920 4,024
3,336 3,322
1,882 3,352
1,376 1,471
7,654 7,816
23,902$ 25,638$
Property tax revenue in the 1st quarter of the fiscal year is typically only a nominal amount as
property tax receipts are paid by the County beginning in the month of November and then
again beginning in March. FY 2018 actual property tax revenue was $42.8 million. The FY 2019
budgeted amount is $45.3 million, 5.8 percent higher than the prior year’s actual revenue.
Sales tax revenue for the 1st quarter has decreased $117,000, or 6 percent, from the same
period last year. This doesn’t reflect actual economic performance this is discussed further in
the next paragraph. The outlook is the FY 2019 budget of $31.2 million will be met or exceeded.
In FY 2018, the newly established department of California Department of Tax and Fee
Administration (CDTFA) took over the responsibility of administrating the collection and
distribution of sales and use tax. CDTFA introduced new technology and collection and
distribution processes which, unfortunately, had issues leading to delays in processing and
distributing sales tax receipts. In addition, changes in the distribution methodology lead to
timing differences in FY 2019 Q1 compared to the prior year’s receipt.
City of Palo Alto Page 3
Charges for services revenue is up $1.2 million, or 32 percent, from the same quarter last year.
This increase is due to a combination of the following items:
• Paramedic service fees increased $156,000 over the same period last year due to
increased paramedic fees.
• Plan check fees for the quarter increased by $237,000, or 19% from prior year’s 1st
quarter. 1st quarter revenue of $1.5 million represents 26 percent of the annual
budgeted amount
• Golf course related fees increased $693,000 from the prior year 1st quarter due to
opening in May 2018. Actual revenue for the 1st quarter of $771,000 represents 21
percent of the full year budgeted amount of $3.7million.
Transient occupancy tax (TOT) revenue cash receipts for the 1st quarter decreased $1.1 million
or 27 percent due to timing of collections. During this period, average daily room rates and
occupancy were $277 per day and 84.3 percent which is 4.5 percent and 3.2 percent higher
over the prior year, respectively. Based on the current trend, the expectation is that actual
receipts may exceed the adopted budget of $25.1 million. This revenue stream will continue to
be monitored and adjustments will be brought forward as appropriate.
Documentary transfer tax cash receipts total $1.4 million, or 19 percent of the FY 2019
budgeted amount, and are $0.1 million lower than prior year receipts for the same period. This
revenue source is volatile since it is highly dependent on sales volume and the mix of
commercial and residential sales.
Permits and licenses revenue is down primarily due to a decrease in new construction permit
revenue mainly for the $1.4 million permits issued to Channing House and Leland Stanford Jr.
University Board of Trustee from the same period last year.
Expense Highlights for 1st Quarter FY 2019
Following is a table which highlights the City’s expenses by function for the 1st quarter,
compared to 1st quarter of the prior year. Each quarter’s expense is expressed as a percentage
of the Adjusted Budget for each year.
City of Palo Alto Page 4
City of Palo Alto
General Fund Expenses
FY 2019 1st Quarter
(000's)
FY 2019 FY 2018 % change FY 2019 %FY 2018 %
inc (dec)
Police 10,201$ 9,564$ 7%42,843$ 24%42,774$ 22%
Fire 7,636 7,981 -4%32,047 24%32,627 24%
Community Services 7,144 7,107 1%29,699 24%28,967 25%
Public Works 3,978 3,892 2%19,004 21%19,079 20%
Development Services 2,804 2,338 20%13,098 21%13,194 18%
Library 2,295 2,130 8%9,836 23%9,771 22%
Administrative Services 1,887 1,733 9%8,038 23%8,253 21%
Planning and Community Env 1,617 1,831 -12%10,670 15%10,938 17%
All Other Departments 5,248 5,274 0%20,655 25%24,997 21%
Total Expenses 42,810$ 41,850$ 2%185,890$ 23%190,600$ 22%
1st Quarter Actuals Adjusted Budget
Total expenses for the 1st quarter of the fiscal year are up 2 percent from the same quarter last
year, but in total they are right in line at 23 percent of full-year budgeted amounts.
Police and Fire comprises 42 percent of total General Fund expenditures for the 1st quarter,
which is comparable to the prior year. Following is a table which highlights some Police and
Fire salaries and overtime for the 1st quarter.
City of Palo Alto Page 5
Public Safety
Salaries and Overtime Expense
FY 2019 1st Quarter YTD
(000's)
FY 2019 FY 2018 % change FY 2019 %FY 2018 %
Inc (Dec)
Police - Salaries 4,378$ 4,089$ 7%19,272$ 23%18,827$ 22%
Police - Overtime 674 585 15%1,777 38%1,700 34%
Total Police 5,052 4,674 8%21,049 24%20,527 23%
Fire - Salaries 2,966 3,077 -4%14,356 21%13,914 22%
Fire - Overtime 918 972 -6%1,912 48%1,571 62%
Total Fire 3,884 4,049 -4%16,268 24%15,485 26%
Total Public Safety
Salaries & Overtime 8,936$ 8,723$ 2%37,317$ 24%36,012$ 24%
1st Quarter YTD Actuals Adjusted Budget
Police overtime is 15 percent higher from prior year due to overtime in the dispatch center
because of staff vacancies, more special events held in the city, and more cases handled in the
investigation unit. On a combined basis, salaries and overtime are at 24% of budget through
the 1st quarter of the fiscal year. The Department’s overtime analysis is included in Attachment
B.
Fire overtime is 6 percent lower than FY 2018 primarily due to fewer crews out on strike teams
for the first quarter in FY 2019. On a combined basis, salaries and overtime are 24% of the
budget through the 1st quarter of the fiscal year. The Department’s overtime analysis is
included in Attachment B.
New labor contracts were recently approved for all public safety groups however, actual activity
associated with these contracts is only reflected in the Police Department. Fire Department
implications will not reflect in actual activity until the second quarter of the fiscal year due to
the implementation timing of the labor contract.
General Fund Budget Stabilization Reserve (BSR) Balance
As reported to the Finance Committee on December 4, FY 2018 ended with a surplus of $11.5
million when compared to the FY 2019 Adopted Budget and a BSR balance of $52.8 million.
However, over 90 percent of the surplus is already approved to be used. After deducting the
2019 General Adopted Budget and subsequent budget amendments to the reserve through
City of Palo Alto Page 6
Council approved actions, the BSR balance is $42.3 million which is 20.1% of FY2019
expenditures and operating transfers adopted budget. The Finance Committee approved a
recommended $2.0 million reduction in the BSR to transfer funds from the BSR to the
Infrastructure Reserve; this would bring the BSR to $40.3 million or approximately 19 percent of
the FY 2019 Adopted Budget expenses. A more updated status of the BSR can be found in the
FY 2019 Mid-Year Budget Review, this report only reflects activities through the first quarter of
FY 2019.
Enterprise Funds
Following is a summary of change in net position for each of the Enterprise Funds for the three
months ended September 30, 2018, including a comparison of results from the same period last
year.
City of Palo Alto
Enterprise Funds Change in Net Position
FY 2019 1st Quarter
1st Qtr 1st Qtr Increase
FY 2019 FY 2018 (Decrease)% Change
Water 7,918$ 8,044$ (126)$ -(2%)
Electric 8,742 4,427 4,315 97%
Fiber Optic 370 431 (61)-(14%)
Gas 248 56 192 343%
Wastewater collection 687 184 503 273%
Wastewater treatment 1,415 682 733 107%
Refuse 3,814 3,457 357 10%
Storm Drainage 697 712 (15)-2%
Airport 213 103 110 107%
Total Change in Net Position 24,104$ 18,096$ 6,008$ 33%
Electric Fund 1st quarter improved $4.3 million from prior year due to lower Utility purchase
costs. Costs were lower than expected, mainly due to credits stemming from outages during
the Carr fire and other credits offset base resource costs. In addition, Western Area Power
Administration (WAPA) ceased restoration fund bills in Q1 of FY19. WAPA restoration fund is
one of the funding sources for the Central Valley Projects (CVP). The CVP restoration costs
were lower than anticipated due to over-collection from power customers and increases in
displacement program benefits.
Wastewater Collection Fund increased $0.5 million from prior year due to an 11% rate increase
effective July 1, 2018.
City of Palo Alto Page 7
Wastewater Treatment Fund increased $0.7 million from prior year due to higher sewage
treatment costs, operating and capital costs resulting to higher partner’s billing.
Pension Update
Following is a table which shows the employee count in each of the Miscellaneous and Safety
Plans as of December 2018. As of that date, 46% of the City’s full-time employees were
enrolled in Tier 2 and 3 plans, compared to 41% as of December 2017.
Dec 2018 Dec 2017 Dec 2018 Dec 2017
Tier 1 4 4 Tier 1 59 62
Tier 2 2 2 Tier 2 7 6
Tier 3 4 4 Tier 3 25 15
Sub-total 10 10 Sub-total 91 83
Tier 1 98 104 Tier 1 3 4
Tier 2 44 48 Tier 2 0 0
Tier 3 53 49 Tier 3 0 0
Sub-total 195 201 Sub-total 3 4
Tier 1 267 298 Tier 1 4 4
Tier 2 61 65 Tier 2 0 0
Tier 3 215 180 Tier 3 0 0
Sub-total 543 543 Sub-total 4 4
Tier 1 43 42 Tier 1 40 45 *
Tier 2 1 1 Tier 2 5 4
Tier 3 2 2 Tier 3 25 23
Sub-total 46 45 Sub-total 70 72
Tier 1 6 6
Tier 2 1 1
Tier 3 0 0
Sub-total 7 7
Tier 1 1 0
Tier 2 0 0
Tier 3 1 0
Sub-total 2 0
Total Tier 1 412 448 Total Tier 1 113 121
Tier 2 108 116 Tier 2 13 11
Tier 3 274 235 Tier 3 50 38
Grand Total Misc Plans 794 799 Grand Total Safety Plans 176 170
%Tier 1 52%56%%Tier 1 64%71%
Tier 2 14%15%Tier 2 7%6%
Tier 3 35%29%Tier 3 28%22%
Tier 1 2.7% @ 55 Tier 1 3% @ 50
Tier 2 2% @ 60 Tier 2 3% @ 55
Tier 3 2% @ 62 Tier 3 2.7% @ 57
*Excludes Hourly Employees
Miscellaneous Plans Safety Plans
Fire Chiefs
Association
Employee Group
IAFFCity Council and
Council
Appointed
Employee Group
Management and
Professional
# of Employees # of Employees
Police
Management
Association
Police
Management
Fire Management
PAPOA
Service
Employees
International
Utilities
Management
City of Palo Alto Page 8
Attachments:
• Attachment A: General Fund First Quarter Financial Report
• Attachment B: Public Safety Overtime Analysis for Q1 FY2017-2019
1/24/20198:16 AM
ATTACHMENT A
CITY OF PALO ALTO
GENERAL FUND FIRST QUARTER FINANCIAL REPORT
FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 2019
(in thousands)
BUDGET ACTUALS (as of 09/30/2018)
Adopted Adjusted Pre % of Adj
Categories Budget Budget Encumbr Encumbr Actual Budget*
Revenues & Other Sources
Sales Tax 31,246 31,247 - - 1,800 6%
Property Tax 45,332 45,332 - - 107 0%
Transient Occupancy Tax 25,049 25,049 - - 2,920 12%
Documentary Transfer Tax 7,434 7,434 - - 1,376 19%
Utility Users Tax 16,092 16,092 - - 3,336 21%
Motor Vehicle Tax, Penalties & Fines 2,032 2,032 - - 495 24%
Charges for Services 28,419 28,419 - - 4,827 17%
Permits & Licenses 8,545 8,545 - - 1,882 22%
Return on Investment 1,166 1,166 - - 423 36%
Rental Income 15,734 15,734 - - 3,936 25%
From Other Agencies 2,943 2,943 - - 87 3%
Charges To Other Funds 10,093 10,093 - - 2,620 26%
Other Revenues 567 567 - - 93 16%
Total Revenues 194,652 194,653 - - 23,902 12%
Operating Transfers-In 19,772 19,772 - - 4,943 25%
Encumbrances and Reappropriation 6,045 - - - -
Contribution from Budget Stabilization Reserve - - - - - -
Total Sources of Funds 214,424 220,470 - - 28,845 13%
Expenditures & Other Uses
City Attorney 3,264 3,580 23 295 634 27%
City Auditor 1,258 1,296 31 283 24%
City Clerk 1,282 1,317 194 264 35%
City Council 488 501 75 96 34%
City Manager 4,386 4,771 495 871 29%
Administrative Services 7,963 8,038 34 102 1,887 25%
Community Services 28,914 29,699 228 5,791 7,144 44%
Development Services 12,561 13,098 176 1,946 2,804 38%
Fire 31,825 32,047 15 609 7,636 26%
Library 9,664 9,836 25 495 2,295 29%
Office of Emergency Services 1,515 1,678 1 272 219 29%
Human Resources 3,591 3,756 10 162 809 26%
Planning and Community Environment 8,791 10,670 119 1,766 1,617 33%
Police 41,945 42,843 470 930 10,201 27%
Public Works 18,462 19,004 240 3,891 3,978 43%
Non-Departmental 3,823 3,756 2,072 55%
Total Expenditures 179,732 185,890 1,341 17,054 42,810 33%
Operating Transfers-Out 5,726 5,726 - - 2,350 41%
Transfer to Infrastructure 25,172 25,172 - - 6,253 25%
Total Use of Funds 210,630 216,788 1,341 17,054 51,413 32%
Attachment B
Q1
2017 2018 2019
POLICE DEPARTMENT
Overtime Expense
Adopted Budget $1,500,000 $1,700,000 $1,776,500
Modified Budget 1,500,000 1,700,000 1,776,500
Net Overtime Cost - see below 424,873 347,677 185,358
Variance to Budget 1,075,127 1,352,323 1,591,142
Overtime Net Cost
Actual Expense $2,010,204 $2,286,527 $673,885
Less Reimbursements
Stanford Communications 66,741 75,275 22,431
Utilities Communications Reimbursement 34,416 38,227 11,267
Local Agencies (A)12,079 11,431 3,819
Police Service Fees 69,396 73,600 21,715
Total Reimbursements 182,632 198,533 59,231
Less Department Vacancies 1,402,699 1,740,318 429,296
Net Overtime Cost $424,873 $347,677 $185,358
Department Vacancies (number of days)5,211 5,777 1,541
Workers' Compensation Cases 8 5 3
Department Disabilities (number of days)219 120 53
FIRE DEPARTMENT
Overtime Expense
Original Budget $1,413,714 $1,396,436 $1,911,761
Modified Budget (B)1,632,714 1,571,436 1,911,761
Net Overtime Cost - see below 2,300,994 2,675,517 876,311
Variance to Budget ($668,280)(1,104,081) $1,035,450
Overtime Net Cost
Actual Expense $3,571,729 $3,839,426 $917,987
Less Reimbursements
Cal-Fire/FEMA (Strike Teams)55,549 489,062 -
Total Reimbursements 55,549 489,062 -
Less Department Vacancies 1,215,185 674,847 41,676
Net Overtime Cost $2,300,994 $2,675,517 $876,311
Department Vacancies (number of days)4,983 5,293 90
Workers' Compensation Cases 4 8 4
Department Disabilities (number of days)732 223 150
NOTES:
(A)Includes Animal Services contract with Los Altos and Los Altos Hills.
(B)FY 2018 includes Strike Team Reimbursement of $175,000 recommended in the FY 2018 Mid-Year Review.
Public Safety Departments
Overtime Analysis for Fiscal Years 2017 through 2019
1/15/2019