Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 2504-4479CITY OF PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL Monday, May 19, 2025 Council Chambers & Hybrid 4:30 PM     Agenda Item     11.FIRST READING: Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Section 18.42.110 (Wireless Communications Facilities) of Title 18 (Zoning) to Modify the Permit Process and Required Findings for Tier 2 and Tier 3 Wireless Communications Facilities to Require Architectural Review Board review and Repealing the Objective Aesthetic, Noise, and Related Standards for Wireless Communication Facilities in the Public Rights of Way. Staff Presentation, Public Comment City Council Staff Report From: City Manager Report Type: ACTION ITEMS Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: May 19, 2025 Report #:2504-4479 TITLE FIRST READING: Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Section 18.42.110 (Wireless Communications Facilities) of Title 18 (Zoning) to Modify the Permit Process and Required Findings for Tier 2 and Tier 3 Wireless Communications Facilities to Require Architectural Review Board review and Repealing the Objective Aesthetic, Noise, and Related Standards for Wireless Communication Facilities in the Public Rights of Way. RECOMMENDATION Adopt a Temporary Ordinance amending Section 18.42.110 (Wireless Communications Facilities) of Title 18 (Zoning) to require Architectural Review Board (ARB) review for Tier 2 and Tier 3 Wireless Communications Facilities in the public rights-of-way to and repeal the Objective Aesthetic, Noise, and Related Standards for Wireless Communication Facilities in the Public Rights-of-Way. BACKGROUND On October 21, 2024, City Council considered a Colleague’s Memo recommending the repeal the City’s objective-only aesthetic standards for wireless communication facilities (WCFs) in the public rights-of-way. The recommendation proposed reinstating subjective architectural review findings and requiring Tier 2 and 3 applications in the public rights-of-way undergo Architectural Review Board (ARB) public hearings before a decision is made by the Director of Planning and Development Services. The Council directed staff to prepare an ordinance incorporating these requested procedural revisions to the City’s WCF ordinance. The draft ordinance (Attachment A) would modify the WCF permit review process for Tier 2 and Tier 3 facilities in the public right-of-way, to repeal the Objective Aesthetic, Noise, and Related Standards for Wireless Communication Facilities in the Public Rights-of-Way (“Objective Standards for WCFs”) and to require review of such applications by the ARB. The draft ordinance is temporary and would be effective for a period of two years, during which time the Planning and Transportation Commission would need to review and recommendation permanent changes to WCF regulations. The draft ordinance was published as a consent item on December 16, 2024. The staff report, including additional background an analysis, is available online.1 At the December 16, 2024 meeting, Council received additional public comment letters from providers (Attachment D) and pulled the item from consent, to be discussed as an action item at a future meeting. ANALYSIS As described in more detail in the December 16, 2024 Council Report, staff continues to have the following concerns: •Compliance with Legal Timelines: Federal and State “shot clock” laws impose strict deadlines (60 to 150 days) for application processing. The added ARB hearings and potential City Council appeals could make compliance difficult, risking “deemed approved” outcomes if deadlines are missed. •Loss of Clarity and Consistency: Removing objective standards may reduce clarity for applicants, leading to inconsistent design expectations, lower application quality, and increased likelihood of appeals or litigation. •Increased Staff Workload and Resource Demands: The proposed changes will increase demands on Planning, Public Works, Utilities, Urban Forestry, and the City Attorney’s Office due to the need for interdepartmental review, ARB and Council meeting participation, and potential appeals. •Potential Impact on ARB and Council Agendas: Greater volume and complexity of public hearings may affect the City’s ability to process other priority projects, requiring more time on ARB and Council agendas. •Training Needs: ARB members will require training on federal and state WCF legal frameworks and on how to apply subjective architectural findings to wireless infrastructure. FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT The December 16 2024 Council report provides greater analysis, but in summary, the primary impact of the proposed changes lies in increased resource demands across multiple departments, including Planning, Public Works, Utilities, Urban Forestry, and the City Attorney’s Office. Staff will need to support ARB hearings, prepare for potential appeals, and manage stricter timelines, all of which require significant time and coordination. While application fees 1 December 16, 2024 Council Report: https://recordsportal.paloalto.gov/Weblink/DocView.aspx?id=83161 may offset direct costs, the additional staff workload, administrative support, and ARB training may be a substantial burden. STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ATTACHMENTS APPROVED BY: NOT YET APPROVED Attachment A 1 027120324 Ordinance No. ____ Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Chapter 18.42 (Standards for Special Uses) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code on a Temporary Basis to Modify the Procedure and Standards Governing the Review of Wireless Communications Facilities Applications; and repealing Resolution 9873 (Amending Objective Aesthetic, Noise, and Related Standards for Wireless Communication Facilities in the Public Rights of Way) The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: SECTION 1. Findings and Declarations. The City Council finds and declares as follows: A. The City Council has adopted a Wireless Communication Facilities (WCF) code to regulate the various health, welfare, and safety impacts presented by the proliferation of WCFs and to balance these impacts with the interests of consumers in receiving the benefits of wireless technologies. B. Federal and state law place significant limits on the City’s exercise of local control over WCF matters. On September 26, 2018, the Federal Communications Commission adopted a Declaratory Ruling and Third Report and Order (WT Docket No. 1779; WC Docket No. 1784; FCC 18-133), further limiting local control. C. On August 12, 2020, in a decision in the City of Portland v. FCC, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit invalidated certain elements of the FCC’s Order 18-133 restricting local aesthetic regulations of WCFs. Specifically, the Court struck down the requirements that local standards be “objective” and “no more burdensome” than those applied to similar types of infrastructure installations. Now, a city’s aesthetic regulations for small wireless facilities will not be preempted by federal law if they are: (1) reasonable (technically feasible and reasonably directed at remedying aesthetic harms) and (2) published in advance. D. As a result of the Portland decision, the City Council wishes to modify the WCF ordinance provisions relating to the permit review process for Tier 2 and Tier 3 Facilities in the public right-of-way, to repeal references to the Objective Aesthetic, Noise, and Related Standards and to require review of such applications by the Architectural Review Board (ARB) under the City’s architectural review findings. E. Section 18.80.090 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code authorizes the City Council to change or suspend operation of the Zoning Code for temporary periods without review by the Planning and Transportation Commission when in the determination of the council such suspension or change is necessary for the public health, safety or welfare. SECTION 2. Resolution 9873, Amending Objective Aesthetic, Noise, and Related Standards for Wireless Communication Facilities in the Public Rights of Way, adopted December 16, 2019, is hereby repealed. For the avoidance of doubt, by this action Council repeals all prior versions of these objective standards, including Resolution 9825 (April 19, 2019), Resolution 9847 (June 17, 2019), and Resolution 9855 (August 12, 2019). NOT YET APPROVED Attachment A 2 027120324 SECTION 3. Section 18.42.110 Wireless Communication Facilities is hereby amended to read as follows (additions in underline format and deletions in strikethrough format): 18.42.110 Wireless Communication Facilities (a) Purpose and Interpretation The purpose of this section is two-fold: (A) to implement within the jurisdictional boundaries of the city the applicable zoning, land use and other laws, rules, regulations and policies and procedures applicable to siting applications filed with the city by wireless communications facilities infrastructure owners and operators and wireless communications service providers, which seek to install or attach their facilities at locations in Palo Alto; and (B) to accommodate new wireless technologies and continued improvements to existing wireless communications facilities while minimizing their adverse visual and structural health and safety impacts. Consistent with that purpose, the provisions of this section are to be construed in a manner that is consistent with (1) the interest of consumers in receiving the benefits of the deployment of ultra-high-speed and -capacity broadband wireless communication facilities technology and innovations and the delivery of ultra-high-speed and -capacity broadband wireless communications facilities services, (2) the interest in safeguarding the environment, preserving historic properties, and addressing aesthetics and other local values, and (3) the interest in promoting the public health, safety and welfare in Palo Alto. Although this section implements and references provisions of preemptive state and federal law, nothing in this section shall be interpreted to create an independent source of the rights provided an applicant by such state or federal law. A wireless communications facility is permitted to be sited in Palo Alto subject to applicable requirements imposed by this chapter. These processes are intended to permit wireless communications facilities that blend with their existing surroundings and do not negatively impact the environment, historic properties, or public safety. The procedures prescribed by this section are tailored to the type of wireless communication facility that is sought. Building- mounted wireless communications facilities and collocation of facilities are preferred and encouraged, subject to all other provisions of this section. (b) Definitions The following abbreviations, phrases, terms and words shall have the meanings assigned in this section or, as appropriate, in Section 18.04.030 and Section 1.04.050 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, as may be amended from time to time, unless the context indicates otherwise. Words that are not defined in this section or other chapters or sections of the Palo Alto Municipal Code shall have the meanings as set forth in Chapter 6 of Title 47 of the United States Code, Part 1 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations, and, if not defined therein, their common and ordinary meaning. (1) "Antenna" means that part of a wireless communications facility designed to radiate or receive radio frequency signals or electromagnetic waves for the provision of personal wireless services, as defined in 42 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(C)(i). This definition does not include antennas designed for amateur or household use. NOT YET APPROVED Attachment A 3 027120324 (2) "Associated equipment" means any and all on-site equipment, including, without limitation, back-up generators and power supply units, cabinets, coaxial and fiber optic cables, connections, shelters, radio transceivers, regular power supply units, and wiring, to which a wireless antenna is attached in order to facilitate mobile broadband service and personal wireless service delivered on mobile broadband devices. (3) "Base Station" means the same as defined by the FCC at 47 C.F.R. § 1.6100(b), as it may be amended from time to time. For the purpose of convenience only, this definition is stated as follows: a structure or equipment at a fixed location that enables FCC-licensed or authorized wireless communications between user equipment and a communications network. The term does not encompass a tower as defined herein or any equipment associated with a tower. Base Station includes, without limitation: A. Equipment associated with wireless communications services such as private, broadcast, and public safety services, as well as unlicensed wireless services and fixed wireless services such as microwave backhaul. B. Radio transceivers, antennas, coaxial or fiber-optic cable, regular and backup power supplies, and comparable equipment, regardless of technological configuration (including Distributed Antenna Systems ("DAS") and small-cell networks). C. Any structure other than a tower that, at the time the relevant application is filed with the city under this section, supports or houses equipment described in paragraphs (i)-(ii) above and has been previously reviewed and approved by the city. (4) "Collocation" means the same as defined in valid regulations promulgated by the FCC, including 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.6002(g) or 1.6100(b), as those sections may be amended from time to time. For the purpose of convenience only, the definition provided in 47 C.F.R. § 1.6100(b), for eligible facilities requests, is stated as follows: the mounting or installation of transmission equipment on an eligible support structure for the purpose of transmitting and/or receiving radio frequency signals for communications purposes. (5) "Eligible Facilities Request" means the same as defined by the FCC at 47 C.F.R. § 1.6100(b), as it may be amended from time to time. For the purpose of convenience only, this definition is stated as follows: any request for modification of an existing tower or base station that, within the meaning of the Spectrum Act, does not substantially change the physical dimensions of that tower or base station, and involves (a) the collocation of new transmission equipment, (b) the removal of transmission equipment, or (c) the replacement of transmission equipment. (6) "Eligible Support Structure" means the same as defined by the FCC at 47 C.F.R. § 1.6100(b), as it may be amended from time to time. For the purpose of convenience only, this definition is stated as follows: any existing tower or base station that exists at the time the application is filed with the city. (7) "Existing" means the same as defined by the FCC at 47 C.F.R. § 1.6100(b), as it may be amended from time to time. For the purpose of convenience only, this definition is stated as follows: a constructed tower or base station is existing for purposes of an eligible facilities request if has been previously reviewed and approved under the applicable city zoning or siting NOT YET APPROVED Attachment A 4 027120324 process, or under another applicable state or local regulatory review process, provided that a tower that has not been reviewed and approved because it was not in a zoned area when it was built, but was lawfully constructed, is "Existing" for purposes of this definition. (8) "FCC" means the Federal Communications Commission or successor agency. (9) "Project" means a WCF to be located in Palo Alto for which a permit is required by the city. (10) "RF" means radio frequency on the radio spectrum. (11) "Spectrum Act" means Section 6409(a) of the Middle Class Tax Relief Act and Job Creation Act of 2012, 47 U.S.C. § 1455(a) (providing, in part, "… a State or local government may not deny, and shall approve, any Eligible Facilities Request for a modification of any existing wireless Tower or Base Station that does not substantially change the physical dimensions of such Tower or Base Station."). (12) "Small Wireless Facility" means the same as defined in any valid regulations adopted by the FCC. For purposes of convenience only, the definition provided at 47 C.F.R. Section 1.1312(e)(2) is stated here as follows: a facility that meets each of the following conditions: A. The structure on which antenna facilities are mounted: i. Is 50 feet or less in height, or ii. Is no more than 10 percent taller than other adjacent structures, or iii. Is not extended to a height of more than 10 percent above its preexisting height as a result of the collocation of new antenna facilities; and B. Each antenna (excluding associated antenna equipment) is no more than three cubic feet in volume; and C. All antenna equipment associated with the facility (excluding antennas) are cumulatively no more than 28 cubic feet in volume; and D. The facility does not require antenna structure registration under 47 C.F.R. Section 17; and E. The facility is not located on Tribal lands, as defined under 36 C.F.R. § 800.16(x); and F. The facility does not result in human exposure to radiofrequency radiation in excess of the applicable safety standards specified by the FCC. (13) "Substantially Changes" means the same as defined by the FCC at 47 C.F.R. § 1.6100(b), as it may be amended from time to time. For the purpose of convenience only, this definition is stated as follows: in the context of an eligible support structure, a modification of an existing tower or base station where any of the following criteria is met: A. For a tower not located in the public rights-of-way: NOT YET APPROVED Attachment A 5 027120324 i. The height of the tower is increased by (I) more than ten (10) percent, or (II) by the height of one additional antenna array with separation from the nearest existing antenna not to exceed twenty (20) feet, whichever is greater; or ii. There is added an appurtenance to the body of the tower that would protrude from the edge of the tower by (I) more than twenty (20) feet, or (II) more than the width of the tower at the level of the appurtenance, whichever is greater. B. For a tower located in the public rights-of-way and for all base stations: i. The height of the tower or base station is increased by more than ten (10) percent or ten (10) feet, whichever is greater; or ii. There is added an appurtenance to the body of that structure that would protrude from the edge of that structure by more than six (6) feet; or iii. It involves the installation of ground cabinets that are more than ten (10) percent larger in height or overall volume than any other ground cabinets associated with the structure; or iv. It involves the installation of any new equipment cabinets on the ground if there is no pre-existing ground cabinet associated with that structure. C. For any eligible support structure: i. It involves the installation of more than the standard number of new equipment cabinets for the technology involved, but not to exceed four (4) cabinets; or ii. There is entailed in the proposed modification any excavation or deployment outside of the current site of the tower or base station; or iii. The proposed modification would cause the concealment/camouflage elements of the tower or base station to be defeated; or iv. The proposed modification would not comply with the conditions associated with the prior siting approval of construction or modification of the tower or base station, unless the non-compliance is due to an increase in height, increase in width, addition of cabinets, or new excavation that does not exceed the corresponding thresholds in this section. D. To measure changes in height for the purposes of this section, the baseline is: i. For deployments that are or will be separated horizontally, measured from the original support structure; ii. For all others, measured from the dimensions of the tower or base station, inclusive of originally approved appurtenances and any modifications that were approved by the city prior to February 22, 2012. E. To measure changes for the purposes of this section, the baseline is the dimensions that were approved by the city prior to February 22, 2012. NOT YET APPROVED Attachment A 6 027120324 (14) "Tower" means any structure built for the sole or primary purpose of supporting any FCC-licensed or -authorized antenna, including any structure that is constructed for wireless communications service. This term does not include a base station. (15) "Transmission Equipment" means the same as defined by the FCC at 47 C.F.R. § 1.6100(b), as it may be amended from time to time. For the purpose of convenience only, this definition is stated as follows: equipment that facilitates transmission of any FCC-licensed or authorized wireless communication service. (16) "Wireless Communications Facility" or "WCF" means any antenna, associated equipment, base station, small wireless facility, tower, and/or transmission equipment located in Palo Alto, but does not include: A. A facility that qualifies as an amateur station as defined by the FCC, 47 C.F.R. Part 97, or its successor regulation; B. An antenna facility that is subject to the FCC Over-The-Air-Receiving Devices rule, 47 C.F.R. Section 1.4000, or any successor regulation; C. Portable radios and devices including, but not limited to, hand-held, vehicular, or other portable receivers, transmitters or transceivers, cellular phones, CB radios, emergency services radio; D. Mobile services providing public information coverage of news events of a temporary nature; E. Telecommunications facilities owned and operated by any government agency or emergency medical care provider. (c) Types of WCF Permits Required (1) A Tier 1 WCF Permit shall be required for an eligible facilities request, as defined in this section. (2) A Tier 2 WCF Permit shall be required for: A. Any modification of an eligible support structure, including the collocation of new equipment, that substantially changes the physical dimensions of the eligible support structure on which it is mounted; or B. Any collocation of a small wireless facility; or C. Any collocation not eligible for a Tier 1 WCF Permit. (3) A Tier 3 WCF Permit shall be required for the siting of any WCF, including a small wireless facility, that is not a collocation subject to a Tier 1 or 2 WCF Permit. An application shall not require a Tier 3 WCF Permit solely because it proposes the replacement in-place of an existing streetlight or wood utility pole. (d) WCF Application Requirements All applications for a WCF Permit shall include the following items: NOT YET APPROVED Attachment A 7 027120324 (1) Any applicant for a WCF Permit shall participate in an intake meeting with the Planning and Community Environment Department when filing an application; (2) The applicant must specify in writing whether the applicant believes the application is for an eligible facilities request subject to the Spectrum Act, and if so, provide a detailed written explanation as to why the applicant believes that the application qualifies as an eligible facilities request; (3) The applicant shall complete the city's standard application form, as may be amended from time to time; (4) The applicant shall include a completed and signed application checklist available from the city, including all information required by the application checklist; (5) Payment of the fee prescribed by the Municipal Fee Schedule; (6) The application must be accompanied by all permit applications with all required application materials for each separate permit required by the city for the proposed WCF, including a building permit, an encroachment permit (if applicable) and an electrical permit (if applicable); (7) For Tier 2 and 3 WCF Permits, the applicant must host a community meeting at a time and location designed to maximize attendance by persons receiving notice under this subparagraph to provide outreach to the neighborhood around the project site. The applicant shall give notice of the community meeting to all residents and property owners within 600 feet of the project site at least 14 days in advance of the community meeting. Applicants are encouraged to host the meeting before submitting an application. Before an application may be approved, the applicant shall provide a proof of notice affidavit to the city that contains: A. Proof that the applicant noticed and hosted the community meeting no later than 15 days after filing the application; B. A summary of comments received at the community meeting and what, if any, changes were made to the application as a result of the meeting; (8) For Tier 3 WCF Permits, the plans shall include a scaled depiction of the maximum increase in the physical dimensions of the proposed project that would be feasible and permitted by the Spectrum Act, using the proposed project as a baseline; and (9) Satisfy other such requirements as may be, from time to time, required by the Planning and Community Environment Department Director ("Director"), as publically stated in the application checklist. (e) Permit Review ("Shot Clock") Time Periods. The city shall review and act upon application materials in a manner consistent with any timeframes provided in controlling state or federal law, including valid regulations and orders promulgated by the FCC. (f) Tier 1 WCF Permit Process and Findings (1) A Tier 1 WCF Permit shall be reviewed by the Director. The Director's decision shall be final and shall not be appealable; NOT YET APPROVED Attachment A 8 027120324 (2) The Director shall grant a Tier 1 WCF Permit provided that the Director finds that the applicant proposes an eligible facilities request; (3) The Director shall impose the following conditions on the grant of a Tier 1 WCF Permit: A. The proposed collocation or modification shall not defeat any existing concealment elements of the support structure; and B. The conditions of approval in Section 18.42.110(j). (g) Tier 2 WCF Permit Process and Findings (1) A Tier 2 WCF Permit shall be reviewed by the Director, who may, in his or her sole discretion, refer an application to the Architectural Review Board. For WCF installations in the public right of way, the Director shall refer applications to the Architectural Review Board for review. The Director's decision 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 set forth in Section 18.77.070(f). (2) The Director, or Council on appeal, shall grant a Tier 2 WCF Permit provided the proposed WCF complies with the conditions of approval in Section 18.42.110(j), and all objective standards adopted and amended from time to time by resolution of the City Council or the development standards in Section 18.42.110(i). If such objective standards are repealed, an application shall not be granted unless, in addition to the other requirements of this section, and all of the architectural review findings in Section 18.76.020(d) can be made. (3) The Director, or Council on appeal, shall deny a Tier 2 WCF Permit if the above findings cannot be made. (h) Tier 3 WCF Permit Process and Findings (1) A Tier 3 WCF Permit shall be reviewed by the Director, who may, in his or her sole discretion, refer an application to the Architectural Review Board and/or Planning and Transportation Commission. For WCF installations in the public right of way, the Director shall refer applications to the Architectural Review Board for review. The Director's decision 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 set forth in Section 18.77.070(f). (2) The Director or Council on appeal shall grant a Tier 3 WCF Permit provided the conditional use permit findings in Section 18.76.010(c) can be made, and the proposed WCF complies with the conditions of approval in Section 18.42.110(j), and all objective standards adopted and amended from time to time by resolution of the City Council or the development standards in Section 18.42.110(i)., and If the City Council repeals all objective standards, an application shall not be granted unless, in addition to the other requirements of this section, all of the architectural review findings in Section 18.76.020(d) can be made. (3) The Director, or Council on appeal, shall deny a Tier 3 WCF Permit if the above findings cannot be made. (i) Generally Applicable Development Standards NOT YET APPROVED Attachment A 9 027120324 Unless the City Council has adopted more specific standards, and except as otherwise provided in this section, a proposed WCF Project shall comply with the following standards: (1) Shall utilize the smallest antennae, radio, and associated equipment, as measured by volume, technically feasible to achieve a network objective; (2) Shall be screened from public view; (3) When attached to an existing structure, shall be shrouded or screened using materials or colors found on existing structure; (4) 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; (5) An antenna, base station, or tower 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, such as the use of a monopine design; (6) Shall not be attached on a historic structure/site, as designated by Chapter 16.49; (7) Except as otherwise permitted by the Spectrum Act, a building-mounted WCF may extend no more than fifteen (15) feet beyond the permitted height of the building in the zone district; (8) Except as otherwise permitted by the Spectrum Act, a tower or other stand-alone Tier 3 WCF Project shall not exceed beyond sixty-five (65) feet in height; and (9) A tower or other stand-alone Tier 3 WCF may encroach into the interior/street side and rear setback. (j) Conditions of Approval In addition to any other conditions of approval permitted under federal and state law and this Code that the Director deems appropriate or required under this Code, all WCF Projects approved under this chapter, whether approved by the Director, City Council, or deemed granted by operation of law, shall be subject to the following conditions of approval: (1) Permit conditions. The grant or approval of a WCF Tier 1 Permit shall be subject to the conditions of approval of the underlying permit, except as may be preempted by the Spectrum Act. (2) As-built plans. The applicant shall submit to the Director an as-built set of plans and photographs depicting the entire WCF as modified, including all transmission equipment and all utilities, within ninety (90) days after the completion of construction. (3) Applicant shall hire a radio engineer licensed by the State of California to measure the actual radio frequency emission of the WCF and determine if it meets FCC's 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. NOT YET APPROVED Attachment A 10 027120324 (4) 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. (5) 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. (6) Compliance with approved plans. The proposed Project shall be built in compliance with the approved plans on file with the Planning Division. (7) Subject to city uses. Any permit to install or utilize poles or conduit in the public rights- of-way is subject to the city’s prior right to use, maintain, expand, replace or remove from use such facilities in the reasonable exercise of its governmental or proprietary powers. Such permit is further subject to the city’s right to construction, maintain, and modify streets, sidewalks, and other improvements in the public rights-of-way. The city, in its sole discretion, may require removal or relocation of a permittee’s equipment, at permittee’s sole cost and expense, if necessary to accommodate a city use. (8) Replacement. Where feasible, as new technology becomes available, the applicant shall place above-ground equipment below ground and replace equipment remaining above-ground with smaller equipment, as determined by volume. The applicant shall obtain all necessary permits and approvals for such replacement. (9) Permit length. WCFs permits shall be valid for the time provided in Section 18.42.110(n), except that a permit shall automatically expire after twelve months from the date of approval if within such twelve month period, the applicant has not obtained all necessary permits to commence construction. The director may, without a hearing, extend such time for a maximum period of twelve additional months only, upon application filed with him or her before the expiration of the twelve-month limit. (k) Exceptions (1) The decision-making authority may grant exceptions to objective standards adopted by City Council resolution or any provision of this Section 18.42.110, upon finding that: A. The proposed WCF complies with the requirements of this Section 18.42.110 and any other requirements adopted by the City Council to the greatest extent feasible; and either B. As applied to a proposed WCF, the provision(s) from which exception is sought would deprive the applicant of rights guaranteed by federal law, state law, or both; or NOT YET APPROVED Attachment A 11 027120324 C. Denial of the application as proposed would violate federal law, state law, or both. (2) An applicant must request an exception at the time an application is initially submitted for a WCF permit under this Section 18.42.110. The request must include both the specific provision(s) from which exception is sought and the basis of the request, including all supporting evidence on which the applicant relies. Any request for exception after the City has deemed an application complete constitutes a material change to the proposed WCF and shall be considered a new application. (3) If the applicant seeks an exception from objective standards adopted by City Council resolution or generally applicable development standards, the Director may refer the application to the Architectural Review Board for recommendation on whether the application complies with such standards to the greatest extent feasible. (43) The applicant shall have the burden of proving that federal law, state law, or both compel the decision-making authority to grant the requested exception(s), using the evidentiary standards applicable to the law at issue. The Ccity shall have the right to hire independent consultants, at the applicant’s expense, to evaluate the issues raised by the exception request and to submit rebuttal evidence where applicable. (l) Removal of Abandoned Equipment A WCF (Tier 1, Tier 2, or Tier 3) or a component of that WCF that ceases 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 communications service provider until the abandoned WCF or its component is removed. (m) Revocation The Director 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 subdivisions (f), (g), and (h) of this section. (n) Expiration Except as otherwise provided in the permit or in a lease or license agreement with the City of Palo Alto, WCF permits shall be valid for a period of ten years from the date of approval. An applicant may seek extensions of an approved WCF permit in increments of no more than ten years and no sooner than twelve months prior to the expiration of the permit. The Director shall approve an extension request upon finding that that applicant has complied with all conditions of approval for the WCF permit and will comply with all other requirements applicable to WCFs at the time the extension is granted. Prior to issuing a decision on an extension request, the Director may seek additional studies and information to be prepared at the applicant’s expense. NOT YET APPROVED Attachment A 12 027120324 SECTION 4. Severability. If any provision, clause, sentence or paragraph of this ordinance, or the application to any person or circumstances, shall be held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the other provisions of this Ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application and, to this end, the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby declared to be severable. SECTION 5. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first date after the date of its adoption. SECTION 6. This ordinance shall be of no further force or effect as of [Insert date 24 months + 1 day after date of adoption], or unless repealed earlier by the Council. SECTION 7. CEQA. The City Council finds and determines that this Ordinance is not a project within the meaning of section 15378 of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) Guidelines because it has no potential for resulting in physical change in the environment, either directly or ultimately. In the event that this Ordinance is found to be a project under CEQA, it is subject to the CEQA exemption contained in CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty to have no possibility of a significant effect on the environment in that this Ordinance simply clarifies existing local regulations. INTRODUCED: PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSTENTIONS: ABSENT: ATTEST: APPROVED: ______________________________ ____________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: ____________________________ City Manager ______________________________ City Attorney or designee ____________________________ Director of Planning and Community Environment Attachment B 1 Standards for reviewing Wireless Communication Facilities (WCFs) in Palo Alto All projects: 1) Generally Applicable Development Standards, Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Section 18.42.110 (i) (i) Generally Applicable Development Standards Unless the City Council has adopted more specific standards, and except as otherwise provided in this section, a proposed WCF Project shall comply with the following standards: (1) Shall utilize the smallest antennae, radio, and associated equipment, as measured by volume, technically feasible to achieve a network objective; (2) Shall be screened from public view; (3) When attached to an existing structure, shall be shrouded or screened using materials or colors found on existing structure; (4) 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; (5) An antenna, base station, or tower 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, such as the use of a monopine design; (6) Shall not be attached on a historic structure/site, as designated by Chapter 16.49; (7) Except as otherwise permitted by the Spectrum Act, a building-mounted WCF may extend no more than fifteen (15) feet beyond the permitted height of the building in the zone district; (8) Except as otherwise permitted by the Spectrum Act, a tower or other stand- alone Tier 3 WCF Project shall not exceed beyond sixty-five (65) feet in height; and (9) A tower or other stand-alone Tier 3 WCF may encroach into the interior/street side and rear setback. 2) Conditions of Approval, PAMC Section 18.42.110 (j) (j) Conditions of Approval In addition to any other conditions of approval permitted under federal and state law and this Code that the Director deems appropriate or required under this Code, all WCF Projects approved under this chapter, whether approved by the Director or Attachment B 2 deemed granted by operation of law, shall be subject to the following conditions of approval: (1) Permit conditions. The grant or approval of a WCF Tier 1 Permit shall be subject to the conditions of approval of the underlying permit, except as may be preempted by the Spectrum Act. (2) As-built plans. The applicant shall submit to the Director an as-built set of plans and photographs depicting the entire WCF as modified, including all transmission equipment and all utilities, within ninety (90) days after the completion of construction. (3) Applicant shall hire a radio engineer licensed by the State of California to measure the actual radio frequency emission of the WCF and determine if it meets FCC's 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. (4) 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. (5) 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. (6) Compliance with approved plans. The proposed Project shall be built in compliance with the approved plans on file with the Planning Division. (7) Subject to city uses. Any permit to install or utilize poles or conduit in the public rights- of-way is subject to the city’s prior right to use, maintain, expand, replace or remove from use such facilities in the reasonable exercise of its governmental or proprietary powers. Such permit is further subject to the city’s right to construction, maintain, and modify streets, sidewalks, and other improvements in the public rights-of- way. The city, in its sole discretion, may require removal or relocation of a permittee’s equipment, at permittee’s sole cost and expense, if necessary to accommodate a city use. Attachment B 3 (8) Replacement. Where feasible, as new technology becomes available, the applicant shall place above-ground equipment below ground and replace equipment remaining above-ground with smaller equipment, as determined by volume. The applicant shall obtain all necessary permits and approvals for such replacement. (9) Permit length. WCFs permits shall be valid for the time provided in Section 18.42.110(n), except that a permit shall automatically expire after twelve months from the date of approval if within such twelve month period, the applicant has not obtained all necessary permits to commence construction. The director may, without a hearing, extend such time for a maximum period of twelve additional months only, upon application filed with him or her before the expiration of the twelve-month limit. Additional findings for Tier 2 and 3 Projects in the public rights-of-way, if Council’s objective standards are repealed: 3) Architectural Review findings, PAMC Section 18.76.020(d) 18.76.020 Architectural Review …(d) Findings Neither the director, nor the city council on appeal, shall grant architectural review approval, unless it is found that each of the following applicable findings is met: (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. (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, (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, (C) Is consistent with the context-based design criteria of the applicable zone district, (D) Provides harmonious transitions in scale, mass and character to adjacent land uses and land use designations, (E) Enhances living conditions on the site (if it includes residential uses) and in adjacent residential areas. Attachment B 4 (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 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.). (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. (6) The project incorporates design principles that achieve sustainability in areas related to energy efficiency, water conservation, building materials, landscaping, and site planning. For Tier 3 projects only 4) Conditional Use Permit findings, PAMC Section 18.76.010(c) 18.76.010 Conditional Use Permit (CUP) …(c) Findings Neither the director, nor the city council on appeal, shall grant a conditional use perrnit, unless it is found that the granting of the application will: (1) 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; (2) Be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of this title (Zoning). DocuSign Envelope ID: ECCACC0E-18AC-4D5E-9AEE-0C930810BD0A Attachment C Resolution No. 9873 Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Objective Aesthetic, Noise, and Related Standards for Wireless Communication Facilities in the Public Rights of Way The Council of the City of Palo Alto RESOLVES as follows: a. On April 15, 2019, the City Council adopted Resolution 9825, establishing objective aesthetic, b. On June 17, 2019, the City Council adopted Resolution 9847, amending the standards to delete c. On August 12, 2019, the City Council adopted Resolution 9855, amending the standards to d. The City Council wishes to consolidate the existing objective standards previously described in SECTION 2. Objective Standards for WCFs on Streetlight Poles and Wood Utility Poles in the Public Rights-of-Way Amended. The City Council hereby adopts the objective standards in Exhibit 1, attached to and incorporated into The City Council hereby adopts Exhibit 2 that illustrates the Residential Zone of Exclusion and Exhibit 3 SECTION 3. If any section, subsection, clause or phrase of this resolution or the attached standards is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion or sections of the resolution and exhibits. The Council hereby declares that it should have 1 DocuSign Envelope ID: ECCACC0E-18AC-4D5E-9AEE-0C930810BD0A Attachment C adopted the resolution and exhibits, and each section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof SECTION 4. Environmental Review. The Council finds that this resolution is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), pursuant to Section 15061 of the CEQA Guidelines, because it does not authorize the construction of Wireless Communication Facilities in any locations where such facilities are not already permitted; therefore it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the ordinance will have a significant effect on the environment. The resolution is further exempt under CEQA Guidelines sections 15301, 15302, 15303 and 15305 because it represents part of a comprehensive regulatory scheme governing minor alterations to existing facilities or small structures. INTRODUCED AND PASSED:December 16, 2019 AYES:CORMACK, DUBOIS, FILSETH, KNISS, KOU, TANAKA NOES: ABSENT: City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM:APPROVED: Deputy City Attorney City Manager Director of Planning and Development 2 DocuSign Envelope ID: ECCACC0E-18AC-4D5E-9AEE-0C930810BD0A Attachment C Exhibit 1 Objective Standards for Wireless Communication Facilities in the Public Rights of Way on Streetlight Poles and Wood Utility Poles A Wireless Communication Facility (WCF) proposed for the public right of way must comply with the 1The following standards apply to both streetlight poles and wood utility poles, unless WCF SITING STANDARDS Permitted Zoning Districts WCF placement is permitted in non-residential zoning districts. A WCF shall not be placed within 600 feet of a parcel containing a Residential Zone of Exclusion No WCF shall be placed within the public right of way in the area (this standard applies to WCF Exception between the street centerline and the central fifty percent (50%) requests to locate in residential of the immediately adjacent parcel’s front lot line. The central fifty 2. For 3 shall be based on the parcel’s lot depth4. Exhibit 2 illustrates Residential Roadways Any request for a WCF Exception involving placement of a WCF (this standard applies to WCF Exception within a residential zoning district shall prioritize WCF placement requests to locate in residential on the following roadway types (See Exhibit 3): Expressways Residential Arterials 1 The City may hire an independent consultant to evaluate WCF Exceptions at applicant’s expense. 2 Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.04.030(a)(93) 3 Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.04.030(a)(91)(E) 4 Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.04.030(a)(87) 3 DocuSign Envelope ID: ECCACC0E-18AC-4D5E-9AEE-0C930810BD0A Attachment C In each instance above, the priority shall be for placement of a An additional WCF Exception request must be made to place a Building or Structure Setback A WCF shall not be placed closer than 20 feet from any building A WCF shall not be placed less than 600 feet away from another Intersection Corners5 A WCF shall not be placed less than 20 feet away from any Scenic Routes6 A WCF shall not be placed along an identified scenic route. Historic Districts, Sites, and A WCF shall not be placed within a listed historic district, nor A WCF shall not be placed in a potential historic district, or WCF DESIGN STANDARDS Underground Design Radio equipment shall be placed in an underground vault. The Underground vaults shall be the minimum volume necessary to 5 Gateway intersections are identified on Map L-4 in the Comprehensive Plan. 6 Scenic routes are identified in Policy L-9.1 in the Comprehensive Plan. 4 DocuSign Envelope ID: ECCACC0E-18AC-4D5E-9AEE-0C930810BD0A Attachment C Top-Mounted Design Radio equipment and the associated antenna(s) shall be enclosed Minimal Sunshield Design Use of this design requires a WCF Exception Radio equipment shall be enclosed within one or two sunshields Sunshields shall be attached at least 12 feet above ground level Existing Signage Design Use of this design requires a WCF Exception Radio equipment shall be attached to a pole behind existing i) Radio equipment shall be placed within a shroud that does not The associated antenna(s) shall be placed in a shroud at the top of WCF Antenna and Shroud Antennas shall have the smallest size possible to achieve the Dimensions (Diameter / Height) coverage objective. The diameter of the antenna and shroud shall not exceed 15 inches For Streetlight Poles: The maximum WCF height shall not exceed 3 The associated “antenna skirt” shall taper to meet the pole above For Wood Utility Poles: In no circumstance shall the total height of 5 DocuSign Envelope ID: ECCACC0E-18AC-4D5E-9AEE-0C930810BD0A Attachment C The associated “antenna skirt” shall taper to meet the top of the WCF Design Quality Antennas and/or equipment at the top of the pole shall be covered All components external to the pole shall have an integral color or Equipment shall be oriented to face in either of the directions of WCF Equipment Adjustment For Streetlight Poles: Equipment that cannot propagate an For Wood Utility Poles: Equipment that cannot propagate an adequate signal within the Curb Clearances Any WCF attachments placed below 16 feet above ground level All WCF equipment shall maintain at least 3 feet from any curb cut. WCF Wires and Cabling For Streetlight Poles: All wires and cabling shall be routed entirely For Wood Utility Poles: All wires and cabling to equipment shall be 6 DocuSign Envelope ID: ECCACC0E-18AC-4D5E-9AEE-0C930810BD0A Attachment C Safety Signs Safety signs shall be the smallest size possible to accomplish its Power Disconnects For Streetlight Poles: Power disconnects shall be labeled and For Wood Utility Poles: Power disconnects shall be labeled and Ground Mounted Equipment Except as provided in these standards, no equipment cabinets may A WCF shall utilize an existing streetlight pole or wood utility pole WCF PERFORMANCE STANDARDS Pole Replacement For Streetlight Poles: An existing streetlight pole proposed for a 7 For Wood Utility Poles: An existing wood utility pole proposed for a 8 Landscaping Replacement Any existing landscaping removed or damaged by installation shall A WCF shall be placed where existing street tree foliage or new 7 Replacement streetlight poles must meet the currently applicable City standards for the pole, including foundation 8 Replacement wood utility poles must meet the currently applicable City standards for the pole, including width, 7 DocuSign Envelope ID: ECCACC0E-18AC-4D5E-9AEE-0C930810BD0A Attachment C Noise 9 Noise from a WCF shall comply with PAMC Chapter 9.10 and shall policies. City Marketing Banners WCF EXCEPTIONS WCF installations shall not require any changes in the City’s A WCF applicant may file an application(s) containing a request for one or more WCF Exceptions to the Each WCF Exception request must be made at the time an application is submitted and must include Failure to identify all required WCF Exceptions upon application submittal may result in application No WCF Exception may be granted that allows a WCF to be placed: 1) within 300 feet of a parcel containing a public school, 2) within 20 feet of a habitable residential building in a residential zoning district, 9 In residential areas with an average 24-hour noise level (Ldn) at or below 60 decibels (dB), noise generated by WCF dn to exceed 60dB or to increase by 5.0 dB or more, even if the resulting Ldn would dn above 60 dB, noise generated by WCF equipment shall not cause 8 DocuSign Envelope ID: ECCACC0E-18AC-4D5E-9AEE-0C930810BD0A Attachment C Residential Zone of Exclusion (RZOE) (this standard applies to WCF Exception requests to locate in residential districts) No WCF shall be placed within the public right of way in the area between the street centerline and the central fifty percent (50%) of the 6 T h e C i t y o f P a l o A l t o 50% of 70 ft lot width = 35 ftROAD CENTERLINE 64.9'64.9'139.1''100.1' 32.45 ft 32.45 ft 5 5 00 . . 039 5 f t ft 69.55 ft 100.1'50% of 139.1 lot width '64.9'64.9' 100.1' 139.1'Legend ROAD CENTERLINE CURB LIP 144.2'PARCEL/PROPERTY LINE This map is a product of the 144.2' 0'53' rrivera, 2019-11-25 17:25:35 This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors. ©1989 to 2016 City of Palo Alto DocuSign Envelope ID: ECCACC0E-18AC-4D5E-9AEE-0C930810BD0A Attachment C 6 T h e C i t y o fP a l o A l t o Channing Ave 15 Legend Residential Zone Districts Non- Residential Zone Districts This map is a product of the Special Co Collector Residential Arterial Expressway City Jurisdictional Limits 0'2670' rrivera, 2019-11-25 13:00:40 This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors. ©1989 to 2016 City of Palo Alto December 16, 2024 [VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL] Members of the City Council City of Palo Alto Office of the City Clerk: City Hall, 7th Floor 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, California 95901-5273 [city.council@CityofPaloAlto.org] Re: Comments regarding Item 22 (Consent Calendar) on the December 16, 2024 City Council Agenda, Entitled “First Reading: Adoption of a Temporary Ordinance Amending Section 18.42.110 (Wireless Communications Facilities) of Title 18 (Zoning) to Require Architectural Review Board Review for Tier 2 and Tier 3 Wireless Communications Facilities in the Public Rights-of-Way and Repeal the Objective Aesthetic, Noise, and Related Standards for Wireless Communication Facilities in the Public Rights-of-Way.” Dear Mayor Stone, Vice Mayor Lauing, and Members of the City Council: I am writing regarding Item 22, which would modify the existing wireless communications facility ordinance to eliminate the City’s objective standards for wireless communications facilities in the public rights of way and require Architectural Review Board (“ARB”) approval for Tier 2 and Tier 3 wireless facilities. AT&T recommends that the City continue to maintain its objective standards until it has developed substitute processes that will ensure compliance with the “shot clock” deadlines and “reasonableness” and “published in advance” requirements set by the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”). AT&T requests the Council remove the item from the Consent Agenda, and send the item back to City staff with instructions that they work with the industry on developing a proposal that will comply with federal legal requirements. AT&T is concerned that eliminating all objective standards for wireless facilities in the public rights of way will make it impossible for the City to comply with the FCC’s “shot clock” deadlines. Small wireless facilities in the public rights of way have either a 60 day or 90 day “shot clock” deadline, and as the staff report notes, the City’s existing process makes it difficult to process permits for wireless communications facilities within these deadlines even with objective standards. Removing those objective standards and putting ARB in the middle of the process will ensure the City cannot comply with the federal law. AT&T respectfully suggests that this proposal is getting the “cart before the horse” – if the City wants to appeal its objective standards, it needs to streamline its review process first so it can ensure it can process applications for wireless communications facilities within the FCC shot clock deadlines. Even if the Council wants to eliminate the objective standards, it should not replace them with the standard ARB requirements in Municipal Code Section 18.76.020. The extremely broad and general requirements applicable to all ARB projects are too vague and general to be useful in reviewing small wireless facilities on poles in the public rights of way. When it eliminated the City Council City of Palo Alto December __, 2024 Page 2 objective standards, the Ninth Circuit kept in place the requirement that requirements be “reasonable” and “published in advance.” See City of Portland v. United States, 969 F.3d 1020, 1041-42 (9th Cir. 2020), cert. denied, 141 S.Ct. 2855 (Mem) (U.S. June 26, 2021). The ARB criteria in Section 18.76.020 do not include either of these concepts, and, as such, could lead the ARB to make decisions inconsistent with federal requirements. If the Council wants to rely on ARB review, it needs to at least include the “reasonable” and “published in advance” criteria from the City of Portland decision. AT&T thus recommends that the City Council send Item 22 back to City staff with instructions to develop a new proposal that is fully consistent with federal law. AT&T would be happy to work with the staff on any such future proposal. Sincerely, Ellen Kamei, Lead External Affairs MACKENZIE & ALBRITTON LLP 155 SANSOME STREET, SUITE 620 SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94104 TELEPHONE 415 / 288-4000 FACSIMILE 415 / 288-4010 December 16, 2024 VIA EMAIL City Council City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, California 94301 Re: Draft Temporary Ordinance to Repeal Objective Standards and Require Architectural Review Board Review of Wireless Facilities in the Right-of-Way City Council Consent Calendar Item 22, December 16, 2024 Dear Councilmembers: We write on behalf of Verizon Wireless regarding the draft ordinance that would repeal the current Objective Standards for small cell wireless facilities in the right-of-way, and instead require Architectural Review Board (“ARB”) review (the “Draft Ordinance”). The Draft Ordinance is inconsistent with Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) regulations and the City’s own municipal code (the “Code”). Eliminating the Objective Standards would increase burdens on planning staff, the ARB, and the Council, requiring them to apply the subjective architectural review criteria to small utility components placed on poles along the right-of-way. We request that the Council remove Item 22 from the consent calendar, decline adoption of the Draft Ordinance, and direct staff to work with industry to update the current Objective Standards. Verizon Wireless worked closely with the City to develop the Objective Standards, which were adopted in 2019 before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the FCC’s requirement that small cell standards be objective. On March 8, 2019, Verizon Wireless provided example designs for small cells on utility poles and streetlights to the ARB. At its March 21, 2019 meeting, the ARB provided feedback on potential small cell designs, which City staff incorporated into the Objective Standards. On April 15, 2019, the City Council adopted the Objective Standards along with an ordinance designating them as the applicable design criteria for wireless facilities in the right-of-way. The Objective Standards were amended later in 2019, and have since been the pertinent standards for approval of numerous small cells, which provide reliable wireless service to Palo Alto residential and commercial areas. The close collaboration with industry ensured that the Objective Standards were technically feasible and therefore “reasonable” as mandated by FCC regulations—a Palo Alto City Council December 16, 2024 Page 2 of 3 requirement that the Ninth Circuit upheld. See Infrastructure Order, 33 FCC Rcd. 9088, ¶¶ 86-88 (FCC 2018); see also City of Portland v. United States, 969 F.3d 1020, 1042 (9th Cir. 2020), cert. denied, 141 S.Ct. 2855 (Mem) (U.S. June 26, 2021). Feasible objective standards provide clear direction to applicants, staff, and decision-makers, and avoid legal challenges. In late 2021, Verizon Wireless recommended amendments to the Objective Standards to accommodate new wireless technology. Planning staff proposed a work program to update the standards at a November 15, 2021 City Council study session, but the initiative stalled. Verizon Wireless remains willing to collaborate with the City to update the Objective Standards. To repeal the Objective Standards would leave small cells in the right-of-way subject to the highly subjective findings for architectural review, such as “harmonious transitions in scale.” Code § 18.76.020(d). While those standards may be appropriate for typical commercial development, they are not tailored to communications utility infrastructure. For applications reviewed before 2019, the architectural review findings led the ARB to apply inappropriate and inconsistent design concepts to wireless facility equipment on utility poles and streetlights, frustrating applicants, City staff, and indeed the ARB members themselves. The Draft Ordinance would also require that right-of-way facilities satisfy the Code’s dated general wireless facilities standards, including vague requirements for “stealth” design and screening from public view. Code § 18.42.110(i). These various discretionary findings and standards could lead to denial of small cells that satisfy the FCC’s “reasonableness” standard, resulting in appeals to the City Council. According to the Council’s staff report, the Draft Ordinance would place additional burdens on planning staff workloads, due to the need to evaluate discretionary standards with no clear criteria, prepare ARB staff reports, and attend ARB meetings for each small cell application. As acknowledged in your staff report, the extended ARB review and appeal process will cause the City to miss the FCC’s “Shot Clock” deadline for final action on an application (e.g., 60 days for small cells on existing poles). In that case, an application would be deemed approved per state law. California Government Code § 65964.1. The City has bypassed Planning and Transportation Commission review by rushing the Draft Ordinance to first reading, citing City Code Section 18.80.090, which allows the Council to change zoning code provisions for a temporary period without Commission review. That specific provision was added to the Code by a 1993 ordinance intended to expedite permits for vendors serving the World Cup soccer games at Stanford the following year. See Ordinance 4181. The Draft Ordinance does not include adequate justification of the finding that it is necessary for the public health, safety, or welfare, nor can it satisfy that finding. The City has already permitted numerous small cells in the right-of-way, which pose no such impacts because the Code’s conditions of approval require compliance with the FCC’s radio frequency exposure guidelines as well as applicable building and safety regulations. Code § 18.42.110(j). Palo Alto City Council December 16, 2024 Page 3 of 3 Small cells provide enhanced wireless service for Palo Alto residents, visitors, workers, and emergency personnel with minimal impact. The City should continue to review applications for small cells in the right-of-way based on feasible standards that accommodate this unique technology. We urge you to remove Item 22 from the consent calendar, decline adoption of the Draft Ordinance, and instead direct staff to work with wireless industry representatives to update the Objective Standards. Very truly yours, Paul B. Albritton cc: Molly Stump, Esq. Jonathan Lait Planning and Transportation Commission MAY 19, 2025 www.paloalto.gov WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES 1 1 •October 21, 2024: Council adopted direction via Colleague's Memo •Objective: Repeal objective -only design standards for wireless facilities in the public right-of-way •Replace with discretionary review: Require Architectural Review Board (ARB) review and architectural findings for Tier 2 & Tier 3 WCFs Background & Council Direction 2 2 •December 16, 2024: Draft ordinance published on consent calendar •Pulled by three Councilmembers (Tanaka, Lythcott -Haims, Veenker) •Public comment/letters from Verizon Wireless and AT&T •May 19, 2025: Item returns as an action item for first reading and consideration PROCEDURAL TIMELINE 3 3 Carrier Letters (Dec 2024): Urged continued use of objective standards •Concerns •Risk of violating FCC “shot clock” deadlines (60 -150 days) •Lack of published, measurable criteria could lead to inconsistent decisions •Subjective process may increase litigation risk INDUSTRY COMMENT & CONCERNS 4 4 •Staff reviews Tier 2 and Tier 3 permits using objective standards •No ARB unless referred by Director or Council review unless appealed •Faster processing, consistent use of objective standards •Aligns with FCC guidance pre -Portland decision requiring objective standards •Post-Portland use of objective standards is still allowed CURRENT PERMIT PROCESS (STATUS QUO) 5 5 •Repeals all objective standards for WCFs in public right -of-way •Requires ARB review for Tier 2 & Tier 3 installations in the ROW •Applicants must satisfy architectural review findings (PAMC §18.76.020(d)) PROPOSED ORDINANCE – KEY CHANGES 6 6 STAFF CONCERNS WITH PROPOSED ORDINANCE •Legal Risk: Difficult to conduct ARB review and potential appeals within federal/state “shot clock” timeframe; applications potentially "deemed approved" •Loss of Clarity: Without objective standards, applicants face uncertainty and inconsistent design expectations •Increased Workload: More time and coordination required across departments (Planning, Public Works, Utilities, Urban Forestry, City Attorney) •ARB Capacity: Added hearings may delay review of other priority projects •Training Needs: ARB will require education on legal and technical aspects of limited local aesthetic-based wireless regulation 7 7 PUBLIC COMMENTS SUMMARY •Strong support for ordinance changes proposed in the Kou/Lauing Colleagues Memo •Common themes across public comments: •Restore ARB review and public hearings for wireless applications •Oppose siting cell towers 20 feet from homes •Prioritize locations away from homes, schools, and hospitals •Require independent, non-industry expert review of technical claims •Emphasize the need to move beyond outdated 2018 FCC standards •Concerns raised about radiation exposure risks and worker safety near antennas •Some commenters requesting additional cell coverage in Palo Alto 8 8 IMPLEMENTATION & NEXT STEPS •Ordinance becomes effective 31 days after adoption •Applies only to public right -of-way installations, Tier 2 and 3 •Two-year term: Temporary ordinance expires unless extended or replaced •Staff to prepare permanent update for Planning & Transportation Commission review 9 JONATHAN LAIT Director Jonathan.Lait@paloalto.gov 650-329-2679 From:Ken Hayes To:Council, City Subject:Agenda Item #11 Date:Monday, May 19, 2025 10:39:04 AM Attachments:image001[2].png 250519CityCouncilWireless.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Honorable Mayor Lauing and fellow council members, Please review the attached letter. Thank you, Ken Ken Hayes Principal, AIA Khayes@thehayesgroup.com 2657 Spring Street. Redwood City, CA 94063 350 Sansome, Suite 750, San Francisco, CA 94104 www.thehayesgroup.com P 650.365.0600x 115 C 415.203.2597 F 650.365.0670 The information contained in this message may be legally privileged and confidential. It is intended to be read only by the individual or entity to whom it is addressed or by their designee. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are on notice that any distribution of this message, in any form, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify the sender and/or The Hayes Group by telephone at (650) 650-365-0600 and delete or destroy any copy of this message. This message needs your attention This is their first email to you. Mark Safe Report Main Office: 2657 Spring Street, Redwood City, CA 94063 Phone 650.365.0600 SF Office: 350 Sansome Street, Suite 750, San Francisco, CA 94104 thehayesgroup.com May 19, 2025 Honorable Mayor Lauing and City Council Members City Of Palo Alto Office of the City Clerk: City Hall, 7th Floor 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Sent Via Email: City.Council@cityofpaloalto.org RE: May 19, 2025, COUNCIL MEETING ITEM #11 First Reading Adoption of Ordinance 18.42.110 Honorable Mayor Lauing and Council Members, I am writing to express my concern regarding the proposed modifications to the planning review requirements for Wireless Communications Facilities (WCF) which are being considered as Item #10. The proposed ordinance modifies PAMC 18.42.110, removing the review of WCF from the Planning Director’s sole review in accordance with Objective Design Standards when WCF are within the public right of way. An excerpt of the proposed language is below: For WCF installations in the public right of way, the Director shall refer applications to the Architectural Review Board for review. Delegating review to the Architectural Review Board for WCF in the public right of way will require more time, more city resources and potentially subject the city to violations of the Federal “shot clock” laws that impose strict deadlines on permit processing as detailed in the staff report. Historically, existing Objective Design Standards have been used for design review of WCF ‘s applications; however, those standards as published in the staff report, I am told, were never reviewed by the Architectural Review Board for compliance with the findings required for approval of a project. Main Office: 2657 Spring Street, Redwood City, CA 94063 Phone 650.365.0600 SF Office: 350 Sansome Street, Suite 750, San Francisco, CA 94104 thehayesgroup.com Therefore, I believe the Objective Design Standards should be reviewed by the ARB for compliance with their required findings. Once reviewed and forwarded to the Director for approval, the newly approved Objective Design Standards should be used for all applicable WCF applications in the public right of way except those applications that request exceptions to the Objective Design Standards. Applications that proposed exceptions to the Standards should be referred to the Architectural Review Board for review. This will allow most WCF applications that comply with the standards to move forward while those that request exceptions have the proper review to ensure that the communities policies, programs and goals are met. Sincerely, Ken Hayes, AIA Principal, Hayes Group Architects C-15562 From:Meredith Einaudi To:Council, City Cc:LydiaKou@gmail.com; Julie@julieforpaloalto.com; Lu, George; pat@patburt.org; Vicki@vickiforcouncil.com; Ed@edlauing.com; gstone22@gmail.com; Reckdahl, Keith Subject:Please approve the Kou/Lauing Colleagues Memo Date:Monday, May 19, 2025 12:01:10 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Mayor and Council members, Please approve the changes to the wireless ordinance that Mayor Lauing and then- councilmember Kou proposed in their fall 2024 Colleagues Memo entitled "Restoration of subjective aesthetic standards to Palo Alto's Wireless Communication Facilities Ordinance(WCF). 1.Restore the architectural review and public hearings for cell tower applications. 2.Remove the ordinance language that )Ok's siting unsightly and hazardous cell phone towers as close as 20 feet from a home. 3.Prioritize locating cell towers as far as possible from homes,schools and hospitals. 4.Require review by non-industry aligned experts on assertions made by cell tier applicants. Thank you for your consideration, Mrs. Meredith Einaudi, homeowner This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report From:Jennifer Landesmann To:Council, City Cc:Ed@edlauing.com; Vicki@vickiforcouncil.com; pat@patburt.org; georgeglu@gmail.com; Julie@julieforpaloalto.com; Reckdahl, Keith; gstone22@gmail.com; Clerk, City; LydiaKou@gmail.com Subject:Please approve the Kou/Lauing Colleagues Memo Date:Sunday, May 18, 2025 9:22:09 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor Lauing, Vice Mayor Veenker and Councilmembers Burt, Lu, Lythcott-Haims, Reckdahl, and Stone, Please restore Architectural Review Board review and public hearings for cell tower applications to prioritize locating cell towers as far as possible from homes and schools and thank you to Mayor Lauing and former Council member Lydia Kou for their colleagues' memo to help achieve this. I was surprised to learn that there is ordinance language that OKs locating cell towers 20 feet from a home. Please remove this ordinance and I also support the City having non-industry-aligned experts to check the assertions made by cell tower applicants. Thank you, Jennifer From:Fred Balin To:Council, City Cc:Ed@edlauing.com; Vicki@vickiforcouncil.com; pat@patburt.org; Lu, George; Julie@julieforpaloalto.com; Reckdahl, Keith; gstone22@gmail.com; Clerk, City; Lydia Kou Subject:#11 Wireless Communications Facilities Date:Sunday, May 18, 2025 8:10:48 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Council Members, I support the changes to the wireless ordinance proposed by Council Members Lauing and Kou last year and the long-term efforts of United Neighbors. Approved cell towers need to be located a suitable distance from homes and schools— 20 feet is at least an order or magnitude too close-- be properly shielded to muffle sound, and be aesthetically pleasing and/or unnoticeable. The closest one to my residence is over a 1,000 feet away. It works and I do not notice the tower. A long-time resident I supported over 10 years ago, was not so fortunate as a noisy tower was placed on an easement adjacent to his property, despite his huge effort for a better solution. The city could have done, and now should do, much, much better. Proposals need to be evaluated by an independent, “non-aligned” expert, approved by the city, and paid for by the applicant, as would, or should, be the case in an EIR. Staff’s summary, options, and recommendations should come to a public hearing and vetting at the ARB before coming to the council for final decision. Thank you for your consideration, Fred Balin College Terrace From:astrauss@greenfirelaw.com To:Council, City Cc:Clerk, City Subject:Support for Proposed Reinstatement of ARB Review (5/19 City Council Meeting Agenda Item #11) Date:Sunday, May 18, 2025 3:36:32 PM Attachments:Item 15 Public Comment.pdf Recommended Additions to Ordinance v2.pdf Item 15 Colleagues Memo.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Mayor Lauing, Vice Mayor Veenker and Members of the City Council: On behalf of United Neighbors of Palo Alto, I strongly urge the Council to adopt an ordinance reinstating Architectural Review Board (ARB) review of cell towers in the right of way, review that existed prior to 2019 and has been allowed again by the Ninth Circuit’s decision in 2020. In addition to subjecting cell tower applications in the right-of-way to ARB review and public hearings, the best way to protect residents from negative aesthetic impacts is to require applicants to select the location that is furthest set back from residences (100 feet where feasible) and also employ a consultant who does not work for the telecom industry to evaluate cell tower applicants’ claims of federal preemption, something that staff alone are not qualified to do. These proposed additions to the ordinance are shown in blue font on the attached PDF labeled “Recommended Additions to Ordinance.” Finally, I notice that the agenda packet does not include the Colleagues Memo that initiated this process, or the several public comments submitted to the Council in October 2024 when the Memo was considered. The Colleagues Memo and public comments are attached. I urge you to add the two new standards to the ordinance and to approve the reinstatement of ARB review and public hearings. Thank you, Ariel Strauss _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________ 510-900-9502 x 702 Greenfire Law, P.C. 2748 Adeline Street, Suite A Berkeley, CA 94703 PRIVILEGE AND CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This message needs your attention No employee in your company has ever replied to this person. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast This communication constitutes an electronic communication within the meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18U.S.C. Section 2510, and its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by the sender of this message. This transmission, and any attachments, may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Please contact me immediately by return e-mail or at 510-900-9502 x 2, and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner. From:Phyllis Klein To:Council, City Cc:GStone22@gmail.com; LydiaKou@gmail.com; Ed@edlauing.com; Julie@julieforpaloalto.com; Greg@gregtanaka.org; Vicki@vickiforcouncil.com; Clerk, City Subject:Please vote to Agendize Kou/Lauing Colleagues Memo for full consideration Date:Friday, October 18, 2024 10:18:58 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor Stone, Vice Mayor Lauing and Counci lmembers Burt, Kou, Lythcott-Haims, Veenker, and Tanaka, I am writing to ask you to vote this Monday night in favor of putting Councilmembers Kou and Lauing’s Colleagues Memo, a Memo titled “Restoration of subjective aesthetic standards to Palo Alto’s Wireless Communication Facilities (WCF) ordinance,” on a future Council agenda for full consideration and debate. The City’s wireless ordinance needs to be updated. For years Palo Alto has been complying with a restrictive, confusing and fundamentally unworkable 2018 FCC Order with respect to standards for cell towers, an Order that the Ninth Circuit overturned four years ago. Please note that both the Palo Alto Weekly and the Daily Post are covering Ms. Kou and Mr. Lauing’s Colleagues Memo, the Post on the front page of their October 14, 2024 edition. In other words, there is broad interest in the issues the Memo raises, and these issues deserve to be debated by Council. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Phyllis Klein From:Mary Dimit To:Council, City Cc:GStone22@gmail.com; Ed@EdLauing.com; LydiaKou@gmail.com; Julie@JulieforPaloAlto.com; Greg@GregTanaka.org; Vicki@VickiforCouncil.com; Clerk, City Subject:Vote Yes to add Kou & Lauing Colleagues Memo to a future City Council agenda for discussion Date:Thursday, October 17, 2024 3:00:26 AM Some people who received this message don't often get email from marydimit@sonic.net. Learn why this isimportant Dear Mayor Stone, Vice Mayor Lauing and Councilmembers Burt, Kou, Lythcott-Haims, Veenker, and Tanaka, I urge you to vote yes at Monday night’s (10/21/24) Council Meeting to put City Council members Kou & Lauing’s Colleagues Memo related to adding aesthetic standards to Palo Alto’s wireless ordinance on the agenda for a future City Council meeting so it can be discussed. This will hopefully result in revisions to our current wireless ordinance to consider aesthetic standards for cell towers. Thank you for your service to our community, Mary Dimit Palo Alto resident for over 30 years From:Melinda McGee To:Council, City Cc:GStone22@gmail.com; LydiaKou@gmail.com; Ed@EdLauing.com; Julie@JulieforPaloAlto.com; Greg@GregTanaka.org; Vicki@VickiforCouncil.com; Clerk, City Subject:Please vote to Agendize Kou/Lauing Colleagues Memo for full consideration Date:Wednesday, October 16, 2024 7:12:02 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. > Dear Mayor Stone, Vice Mayor Lauing and Councilmembers Burt, Kou, Lythcott-Haims, Veenker, and Tanaka, > > I am writing to ask you to vote this Monday night in favor of putting Councilmembers Kou and Lauing’s Colleagues Memo, a Memo titled “Restoration of subjective aesthetic standards to Palo Alto’s Wireless Communication Facilities (WCF) ordinance,” on a future Council agenda for full consideration and debate. > > The City’s wireless ordinance needs to be updated. For years Palo Alto has been complying with a restrictive, confusing and fundamentally unworkable 2018 FCC Order with respect to standards for cell towers, an Order that the Ninth Circuit overturned four years ago. > > Please note that both the Palo Alto Weekly and the Daily Post are covering Ms. Kou and Mr. Lauing’s Colleagues Memo, the Post on the front page of their October 14, 2024 edition. In other words, there is broad interest in the issues the Memo raises, and these issues deserve to be debated by Council. > > Thank you for your consideration. > > Sincerely, > Melinda McGee Palo Alto From:John Melnychuk To:Council, City Cc:Davis Spencer; McGee Melinda; Sampath Harini; Spinelli Giuseppe; LydiaKou@gmail.com; Ed@edlauing.com; Julie@julieforpaloalto.com; Greg@gregtanaka.org; Vicki@vickiforcouncil.com; Clerk, City Subject:Please vote to Agendize Kou/Lauing Colleagues Memo for full consideration. Date:Wednesday, October 16, 2024 1:29:16 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor Stone, Vice Mayor Lauing and Councilmembers Burt, Kou, Lythcott-Haims, Veenker, and Tanaka, I am writing to ask you to vote this Monday night in favor of putting Councilmembers Kou and Lauing’s Colleagues Memo, a Memo titled “Restoration of subjective aesthetic standards to Palo Alto’s Wireless Communication Facilities (WCF) ordinance,” on a future Council agenda for full consideration and debate. The City’s wireless ordinance needs to be updated. For years Palo Alto has been complying with a restrictive, confusing and fundamentally unworkable 2018 FCC Order with respect to standards for cell towers, an Order that the Ninth Circuit overturned four years ago. Please note that both the Palo Alto Weekly and the Daily Post are covering Ms. Kou and Mr. Lauing’s Colleagues Memo, the Post on the front page of their October 14, 2024 edition. In other words, there is broad interest in the issues the Memo raises, and these issues deserve to be debated by Council. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, John Melnychuk Palo Alto, CA 94306 From:J. Brugler To:Council, City Cc:GStone22@gmail.com; LydiaKou@gmail.com; Ed@edlauing.com; Julie@julieforpaloalto.com; Greg@gregtanaka.org; Vicki@vickiforcouncil.com; Clerk, City Subject:Please vote to agendize Kou/Lauing memo, for full consideration Date:Wednesday, October 16, 2024 10:26:50 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor Stone and City Council members, Please vote this Monday night in favor of putting "Restoration of subjective aesthetics standards to Palo Alto's wireless communication facilities", (WCF), on a future council agenda for consideration and debate. From the articles both in the Palo Alto Weekly and the Daily Post, you can see that there is a broad interest in the issues that the Memo raises. These issues deserve to be debated by counsel. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Gayle Brugler. From:Francesca Kautz To:Council, City Cc:GStone22@gmail.com; LydiaKou@gmail.com; Ed@edlauing.com; Julie@julieforpaloalto.com; Greg@gregtanaka.org; Burt, Patrick; Vicki@vickiforcouncil.com; Clerk, City Subject:Please vote to Agendize Kou/Lauing Colleagues Memo for full consideration. Date:Tuesday, October 15, 2024 6:32:51 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor Stone, Vice Mayor Lauing and Councilmembers Burt, Kou, Lythcott-Haims, Veenker, and Tanaka, I am writing to ask you to vote this Monday night in favor of putting Councilmembers Kou and Lauing’s Colleagues Memo, a Memo titled “Restoration of subjective aesthetic standards to Palo Alto’s Wireless Communication Facilities (WCF) ordinance,” on a future Council agenda for full consideration and debate. The City’s wireless ordinance needs to be updated. For years Palo Alto has been complying with a restrictive, confusing and fundamentally unworkable 2018 FCC Order with respect to standards for cell towers, an Order that the Ninth Circuit overturned four years ago. Please note that both the Palo Alto Weekly and the Daily Post are covering Ms. Kou and Mr. Lauing’s Colleagues Memo, the Post on the front page of their October 14, 2024 edition. In other words, there is broad interest in the issues the Memo raises, and these issues deserve to be debated by Council. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Francesca and David Kautz NOT YET APPROVED Attachment A 9 027120324 Unless the City Council has adopted more specific standards, and except as otherwise provided in this section, a proposed WCF Project shall comply with the following standards: (1) Shall utilize the smallest antennae, radio, and associated equipment, as measured by volume, technically feasible to achieve a network objective; (2) Shall be screened from public view; (3) When attached to an existing structure, shall be shrouded or screened using materials or colors found on existing structure; (4) 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; (5) An antenna, base station, or tower 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, such as the use of a monopine design; (6) Shall not be attached on a historic structure/site, as designated by Chapter 16.49; (7) Except as otherwise permitted by the Spectrum Act, a building-mounted WCF may extend no more than fifteen (15) feet beyond the permitted height of the building in the zone district; (8) Except as otherwise permitted by the Spectrum Act, a tower or other stand-alone Tier 3 WCF Project shall not exceed beyond sixty-five (65) feet in height; and (9) A tower or other stand-alone Tier 3 WCF may encroach into the interior/street side and rear setback. (j) Conditions of Approval In addition to any other conditions of approval permitted under federal and state law and this Code that the Director deems appropriate or required under this Code, all WCF Projects approved under this chapter, whether approved by the Director, City Council, or deemed granted by operation of law, shall be subject to the following conditions of approval: (1) Permit conditions. The grant or approval of a WCF Tier 1 Permit shall be subject to the conditions of approval of the underlying permit, except as may be preempted by the Spectrum Act. (2) As-built plans. The applicant shall submit to the Director an as-built set of plans and photographs depicting the entire WCF as modified, including all transmission equipment and all utilities, within ninety (90) days after the completion of construction. (3) Applicant shall hire a radio engineer licensed by the State of California to measure the actual radio frequency emission of the WCF and determine if it meets FCC's 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. (10) Shall, to the extent technically feasible, be set back one hundred (100) feet from any structure approved for residential use. In the event that it is not technically feasible to set back the facility one hundred (100) feet or more, the alternative that is furthest from all structures approved for residential use shall be required. NOT YET APPROVED Attachment A 11 027120324 C. Denial of the application as proposed would violate federal law, state law, or both. (2) An applicant must request an exception at the time an application is initially submitted for a WCF permit under this Section 18.42.110. The request must include both the specific provision(s) from which exception is sought and the basis of the request, including all supporting evidence on which the applicant relies. Any request for exception after the City has deemed an application complete constitutes a material change to the proposed WCF and shall be considered a new application. (3) If the applicant seeks an exception from objective standards adopted by City Council resolution or generally applicable development standards, the Director may refer the application to the Architectural Review Board for recommendation on whether the application complies with such standards to the greatest extent feasible. (43) The applicant shall have the burden of proving that federal law, state law, or both compel the decision-making authority to grant the requested exception(s), using the evidentiary standards applicable to the law at issue. The Ccity shall have the right to hire independent consultants, at the applicant’s expense, to evaluate the issues raised by the exception request and to submit rebuttal evidence where applicable. (l) Removal of Abandoned Equipment A WCF (Tier 1, Tier 2, or Tier 3) or a component of that WCF that ceases 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 communications service provider until the abandoned WCF or its component is removed. (m) Revocation The Director 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 subdivisions (f), (g), and (h) of this section. (n) Expiration Except as otherwise provided in the permit or in a lease or license agreement with the City of Palo Alto, WCF permits shall be valid for a period of ten years from the date of approval. An applicant may seek extensions of an approved WCF permit in increments of no more than ten years and no sooner than twelve months prior to the expiration of the permit. The Director shall approve an extension request upon finding that that applicant has complied with all conditions of approval for the WCF permit and will comply with all other requirements applicable to WCFs at the time the extension is granted. Prior to issuing a decision on an extension request, the Director may seek additional studies and information to be prepared at the applicant’s expense. ``` Any consultant shall not have worked for a wireless telecommunications company or WCF applicant or operator in the previous five (5) years. CITY COUNCIL Colleagues Memo Sponsors: Council Member Lydia Kou and Vice-Mayor Lauing Meeting Date: October 21, 2024 Report #: 2410-3600 TITLE Colleagues Memo - Restoration of subjective aesthetic standards to Palo Alto’s Wireless Communication Facilities (WCF) ordinance. RECOMMENDATION Repeal objective-only aesthetic standards for the siting and design of cell towers (WCFs) and restore subjective aesthetic standards, public hearings, and Architectural Review Board review. Support for Recommendation 1. The only reason that the City imposed “objective” standards was because the FCC forced it in new rules issued in 2018. PTC and others did not think this was the right path. In fact, Palo Alto’s ordinance anticipated that the Council could quickly repeal the “objective” standards once it regained the authority to do so, because over 100 cities and the League of California Cities had already sued the FCC by the time that Palo Alto enacted the new ordinance in 2019. (PACC § 18.42.110(g)(h).) Here is what the Ninth Circuit said in August, 2020, when it struck down the FCC’s restriction: We conclude that the FCC's requirement that all aesthetic regulations be “objective” is arbitrary and capricious. At the very least, the agency must explain the harm that it is addressing, and the extent to which it intends to limit regulations meant to serve traditional zoning objectives of preventing deployments that are unsightly or out of neighborhood character. . . The requirement that local aesthetic regulations be “objective” is neither adequately defined nor its purpose adequately explained. City of Portland v. United States, 969 F.3d 1020, 1042 (9th Cir. 2020). Before there were “objective-only” standards, there was a thoughtful list of subjective standards, a list that had been prepared collaboratively by multiple City departments and by the ARB. The City can seamlessly return to these standards now. 2. Careful and comprehensive review of wireless facilities is particularly necessary because federal law allows small cell sites that are not entirely hidden to be increased in height and girth by ten feet not withstanding zoning limits. (47 CFR § 1.6100(b)(7)(i).) This means that even if a site complies with “objective” standards on the day it is approved, it can be altered in ways that will not be compliant in the future. No other permit operates this way. 3. Currently, because of the narrow scope of “objective” aesthetic review, issues with the site of a proposed cell tower are not even eligible to be considered. Having a robust and demanding discretionary application review process pushes applicants to self-regulate and submit the best option in the first place, so there will be less need for appeals. 4. Staff has concern with shot clock compliance. But in practice, the 60-90 day shot clocks are extended frequently - often because the applicant needs more time to get its own application organized and complete internal engineering or planning related to trenching and fiberoptic backhaul for installation. Moreover, so long as the City makes a Director-level decision before the shot clock period ends, it will have complied with the FCC regulations. (47 CFR § 1.6003(a).) The impact of the shot clocks expiring after a decision is made will only be to cut off any subsequent right to appeal if the applicant does not agree to an extension. In many instances, due to the importance of cooperation from the City and the collaborative framework created by the Master License Agreement, cell tower applicants will likely enter into shot clock tolling agreements to stop the clock, even if it means allowing an appeal (sometimes that appeal will be for their own benefit). Recently, for example, AT&T agreed to extend the shot clock to allow a resident in Santa Cruz County to appeal because the County requested this extension so that their process can play out as intended in their ordinance. Voluntary shot clock tolling also goes both ways. If the City is approaching the end of the shot clock and does not have the information needed to approve the application, the City will deny the application to avoid blowing the shot clock. In those instances, the applicant needs the City’s approval to extend the shot clock. As the regulations say, a tolling agreement to stop the shot clock requires “a written agreement between the applicant and the siting authority [i.e, the City].” (47 C.F.R. § 1.6003(d).) Caselaw confirms that denying an incomplete application, without offering the applicant further opportunity to remedy it, is lawful. (ExteNet Sys. v. City of Cambridge, 481 F. Supp. 3d 41, 51 (D. Mass. 2020).) It is also important to keep in mind that while shot clocks were tightened by the FCC small cell order from 2018, the concept was not new. Since 2009, a 90-day FCC shot clock was in place for colocations. (FCC, Petition for Declaratory Ruling to Clarify Provisions of Section 332(c)(7)(B), 24 FCC Rcd 13994 (November 18, 2009),) so the City has had experience operating the discretionary process under similar time pressure. 5. Other cities have “small cell” cell tower ROW approval processes that include multiple levels of review, each with a publicly-noticed hearing (e.g.Carmel-by-the-Sea, Malibu, Martinez, Mill Valley, Pinole, San Francisco). 6. Presently, unless there is an appeal to City Council, there is no opportunity at all for a public hearing because the Planning Director’s decisions are made in private. (Note that the cell tower applicant may hold a “community meeting”, but this is a one-sided show by the applicant. It is no substitute for real public participation, including input to city officials. (PACC § 18.42.110(d)(7)). ) 7. The inclusion of the ARB in the review process should not significantly increase the workload of Planning staff. It somewhat increases the load on the ARB, but this is something they want to take on. Moreover, applicants generally use consistent designs, so it should not be that burdensome for the ARB to review an application. The main question for them is how facilities can be camouflaged and best positioned to minimize esthetic impacts. In particular, the ARB is best qualified to prioritize siting and design goals. Right now, there is no prioritization going on. Staff evaluates cell tower applications solely on the basis of how few “exceptions” to objective standards they require, without taking into account what the exceptions are that are being sought. Hence, proximity to a residence, which is what residents care most about, is deemed no more important than, for example, the color of the paint used on the pole. 8. So far, the City has only approved one standard design for cell towers, a design for a tower located on a decorative metal lamp pole. As things stand now, the “objective” standards are not actually consistently objective, because applicants frequently request and obtain exceptions based on their own claims of necessity. (PACC § 18.42.110(k); Design Standards, p.8.) Since non-objective (that is, subjective) decisions and tradeoffs are being made all the time anyway, the question is, who should make them: The Planning Director or the ARB? The ARB is best qualified to do this. 9. More robust review is also important because cities, such as San Mateo, are finding that small cell applicants are not in fact compliant with permit conditions and are then resistant to remedying these deficiencies when they are discovered. 10. Staff acknowledge that they lack the expertise to assess the accuracy of any transmission- related assertions that applicants use to justify exceptions to the City’s standards. The City should hire a technical expert that does not work for the telecom industry to quickly make sure applications are complete so that the shot clocks can be halted within the 10 days after receipt of the application, and also to advise on what is or is not technically feasible. This cost will, by law, be passed on to applicants. There are a few engineering firms that solely represent municipalities, such as Center for Municipal Solutions (http://www.telecomsol.com/www2/node/20), which review all applications submitted to some of its city clients. BACKGROUND 1 ruling that the Small Cell Order’s requirement that local regulations must “be no more burdensome” and “objective” exceeded the FCC’s authority and “must be vacated.” (A link to the Ninth Circuit’s ruling is attached below.) FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT 1 On Petitions for Review of Orders of the Federal Communications Commission, Publication; https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/city-clerk/misc/18-72689.pdf with this colleagues’ memo. This process requires an ordinance amendment that would be reviewed by the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) which would forward a recommendation to the City Council for action. Alternatively, for a more expedient process, the City Council could bypass the PTC in accordance with PAMC section 18.80.090 and amend the WCF ordinance on a temporary basis, e.g. two years, with the additional direction to refer a permanent amendment to the PTC. ATTACHMENTS From:amy kacher To:Council, City Subject:Cell tower and ARB review Date:Sunday, May 18, 2025 12:34:30 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i City Council, I am writing to request you to restore ARB review/public hearings for cell tower applications, prioritize locating cell towers as far as possible from homes and require review of applicants’ assertions with respect to technical feasibility by a non- industry-aligned expert. I feel strongly about this issue. My sister and parents live in San Mateo where there was a disagreement with their city regarding towers. Their process uncovered a lot of corruption and mismanagement about the cell towers. Some were placed immediately outside of people’s homes. It is critical that we have transparent processes and proceed with extremely clear parameters. I ask that the distance from homes and schools be set with clear parameters of minimum 100 feet. I also ask for clear transparency for every single permit application and approval process step. I ask that we move slowly and reimplement ARB public review/hearings. Thank you Amy hey, we are all just people This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast From:John Melnychuk To:Council, City Cc:Ed@edlauing.com; Vicki@vickiforcouncil.com; pat@patburt.org; Lu, George; Julie@julieforpaloalto.com; Reckdahl, Keith; gstone22@gmail.com; Clerk, City; LydiaKou@gmail.com Subject:Please approve the Kou/Lauing Colleagues Memo related to wireless ordinance Date:Sunday, May 18, 2025 5:33:16 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. ! Dear Mayor Lauing, Vice Mayor Veenker and Councilmembers Burt, Lu, Lythcott- Haims, Reckdahl, and Stone, Please vote to approve the changes to the wireless ordinance that Mayor Lauing and then-Councilmember Kou proposed in their Fall, 2024, Colleagues Memo, a Memo cum draft Resolution titled “Restoration of subjective aesthetic standards to Palo Alto’s Wireless Communication Facilities (WCF) ordinance”. The City’s wireless ordinance is egregiously out of date. In particular, Palo Alto continues to adhere to a 2018 FCC Order regarding standards for cell tower design and siting—standards that were thrown out by the Ninth Circuit almost five years ago. An update is more than overdue. Please: Restore Architectural Review Board review and public hearings for cell tower applications; Remove the ordinance language that OKs locating unsightly, hazardous cell towers 20 feet from a home; Prioritize locating cell towers as far as possible from homes and schools; and Require review by non-industry-aligned experts of the “technical feasibility” assertions made by cell tower applicants. All of these changes are spelled out in the Resolution that is part of the Kou/Lauing Colleagues Memo. Approving them is more urgent than ever. AT&T has begun modifying its Palo Alto cell towers so that they now emit so much radiation they need to be shut down if any worker (e.g., a Palo Alto Utilities employee, an AT&T worker) is going to be within 21 feet of the antennas for any length of time, no matter how short. This message could be suspicious The sender's email address couldn't be verified. This is a personal email address. This is their first mail to some recipients. Mark Safe Report How can it make sense for a cell tower like this to be operating 24 hours a day, seven days a week, only a few feet further than that from residents’ homes? Thank you for your consideration. John Melnychuk 3707 Lindero Drive Palo Alto, CA 94306 From:Carl"s Gmail To:Council, City Cc:gstone22@gmail.com; Reckdahl, Keith; Julie@julieforpaloalto.com; georgeglu@gmail.com; pat@patburt.org; Vicki@vickiforcouncil.com; Ed@edlauing.com; LydiaKou@gmail.com; Carl Cimilluca Subject:Please approve the Kou/Lauing Colleagues Memo Date:Sunday, May 18, 2025 12:33:47 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i   Dear Mayor Lauing, Vice Mayor Veenker and Councilmembers Burt, Lu, Lythcott- Haims, Reckdahl, and Stone, Please vote to approve the changes to the wireless ordinance that Mayor Lauing and then-Councilmember Kou proposed in their Fall, 2024, Colleagues Memo, a Memo cum draft Resolution titled “Restoration of subjective aesthetic standards to Palo Alto’s Wireless Communication Facilities (WCF) ordinance”. The City’s wireless ordinance is egregiously out of date. In particular, Palo Alto continues to adhere to a 2018 FCC Order regarding standards for cell tower design and siting—standards that were thrown out by the Ninth Circuit almost five years ago. An update is more than overdue. Please: Restore Architectural Review Board review and public hearings for cell tower applications; Remove the ordinance language that OKs locating unsightly, hazardous cell towers 20 feet from a home; Prioritize locating cell towers as far as possible from homes and schools; and Require review by non-industry-aligned experts of the “technical feasibility” assertions made by cell tower applicants. All of these changes are spelled out in the Resolution that is part of the Kou/Lauing This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report modifying its Palo Alto cell towers so that they now emit so much radiation they need to be shut down if any worker (e.g., a Palo Alto Utilities employee, an AT&T worker) is going to be within 21 feet of the antennas for any length of time, no matter how short. How can it make sense for a cell tower like this to be operating 24 hours a day, seven days a week, only a few feet further than that from residents’ homes? Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Carl & Mary Cimilluca 2176 Webster St Palo Alto CA 94301 From:Jim Robinson To:Council, City Cc:Ed@edlauing.com; Vicki@vickiforcouncil.com; pat@patburt.org; Lu, George; Julie@julieforpaloalto.com; Reckdahl, Keith; gstone22@gmail.com; Clerk, City; LydiaKou@gmail.com Subject:Please approve the Kou/Lauing Colleagues Memo Date:Saturday, May 17, 2025 4:24:04 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i I believe in safety first. I don't want to find out 5 years from now that 5g towers endanger life, and it's too late to stop the damages they have caused. Let's err on the side of caution. Thanks, James (Jim) S Robinson, H 650.328.1228 C 808.683.8538 Jimrobinson52@gmail.com 170 Southwood Drive, Palo Alto, Ca 94301. This message needs your attention No employee in your company has ever replied to this person. This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report From:Elizabeth Lee To:Council, City Subject:Cell towers Date:Saturday, May 17, 2025 2:00:52 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear City Council, please keep cell towers at least 100 feet from all homes. Thanks! Elizabeth Lee, LMFT 650 346-4071 liz@funghi.com Author of The House at 844 1/2 http://goo.gl/BauAk From:Melinda McGee To:Council, City Cc:Ed@edlauing.com; Vicki@vickiforcouncil.com; pat@patburt.org; Lu, George; Julie@julieforpaloalto.com; Reckdahl, Keith; gstone22@gmail.com; Clerk, City; LydiaKou@gmail.com Subject:Please approve the Kou/Lauing Colleagues Memo related to wireless ordinance Date:Friday, May 16, 2025 9:34:08 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Mayor Lauing, Vice Mayor Veenker and Councilmembers Burt, Lu, Lythcott- Haims, Reckdahl, and Stone, Please vote to approve the changes to the wireless ordinance that Mayor Lauing and then-Councilmember Kou proposed in their Fall, 2024, Colleagues Memo, a Memo cum draft Resolution titled “Restoration of subjective aesthetic standards to Palo Alto’s Wireless Communication Facilities (WCF) ordinance”. The City’s wireless ordinance is egregiously out of date. In particular, Palo Alto continues to adhere to a 2018 FCC Order regarding standards for cell tower design and siting—standards that were thrown out by the Ninth Circuit almost five years ago. An update is more than overdue. Please: Restore Architectural Review Board review and public hearings for cell tower applications; Remove the ordinance language that OKs locating unsightly, hazardous cell towers 20 feet from a home; Prioritize locating cell towers as far as possible from homes and schools; and Require review by non-industry-aligned experts of the “technical feasibility” assertions made by cell tower applicants. All of these changes are spelled out in the Resolution that is part of the Kou/Lauing Colleagues Memo. Approving them is more urgent than ever. AT&T has begun modifying its Palo Alto cell towers so that they now emit so much radiation they need to be shut down if any worker (e.g., a Palo Alto Utilities employee, an AT&T worker) is going to be within 21 feet of the antennas for any length of time, no matter how short. How can it make sense for a cell tower like this to be operating 24 hours a day, seven This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first mail to some recipients. Mark Safe Report days a week, only a few feet further than that from residents’ homes? Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Melinda McGee 3707 Lindero Dr. Palo Alto, CA 94306 650-704-6236 From:Tina Chow To:Council, City Cc:Ed@edlauing.com; Vicki@vickiforcouncil.com; pat@patburt.org; georgeglu@gmail.com; Julie@julieforpaloalto.com; Reckdahl, Keith; gstone22@gmail.com; Clerk, City; Lydia Kou Subject:approve the Colleagues Memo to update the wireless ordinance Date:Thursday, May 15, 2025 10:02:49 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Mayor Lauing, Vice Mayor Veenker, and Councilmembers Burt, Lu, Lythcott- Haims, Reckdahl, and Stone, Palo Alto's wireless ordinance is terribly out of date. Palo Alto continues to adhere to a 2018 FCC Order regarding standards for cell tower design and siting which were thrown out by the Ninth Circuit almost five years ago. An update is more than overdue. Please vote to approve the changes to the wireless ordinance that Mayor Lauing and then-Councilmember Kou proposed in their Fall, 2024, Colleagues Memo, a Memo cum draft Resolution titled “Restoration of subjective aesthetic standards to Palo Alto’s Wireless Communication Facilities (WCF) ordinance”. We request that you: Remove the ordinance language that allows locating unsightly, hazardous cell towers 20 feet from a home; Prioritize locating cell towers as far as possible from homes and schools; and Restore Architectural Review Board review and public hearings for cell tower applications; Require review by non-industry-aligned experts of the “technical feasibility” assertions made by cell tower applicants. All of these changes are spelled out in the Resolution that is part of the Kou/Lauing Colleagues Memo. Approving them is more urgent than ever. AT&T has begun modifying its Palo Alto cell towers so that they now emit so much radiation they need to be shut down if any worker (e.g., a Palo Alto Utilities employee, an AT&T worker) is going to be within 21 feet of the antennas for any length of time, no matter how short. How can it make sense for a cell tower like this to be operating 24 hours a day, seven This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first mail to some recipients. Mark Safe Report days a week, only a few feet further than that from residents’ homes? Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Tina Chow From:christopher jette To:Council, City Cc:Ed@edlauing.com; Vicki@vickiforcouncil.com; pat@patburt.org; georgeglu@gmail.com; Julie@julieforpaloalto.com; Reckdahl, Keith; gstone22@gmail.com; Clerk, City; LydiaKou@gmail.com Subject:Please approve the Kou/Lauing Colleagues Memo Date:Wednesday, May 14, 2025 8:57:52 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Mayor Lauing, Vice Mayor Veenker and Councilmembers Burt, Lu, Lythcott-Haims, Reckdahl, and Stone, Please vote to approve the changes to the wireless ordinance that Mayor Lauing and then- Councilmember Kou proposed in their Fall, 2024, Colleagues Memo, a Memo cum draft Resolution titled “Restoration of subjective aesthetic standards to Palo Alto’s Wireless Communication Facilities (WCF) ordinance”. The City’s wireless ordinance is egregiously out of date. In particular, Palo Alto continues to adhere to a 2018 FCC Order regarding standards for cell tower design and siting—standards that were thrown out by the Ninth Circuit almost five years ago. An update is more than overdue. Please: Restore Architectural Review Board review and public hearings for cell tower applications; Remove the ordinance language that OKs locating unsightly, hazardous cell towers 20 feet from a home; Prioritize locating cell towers as far as possible from homes and schools; and Require review by non-industry-aligned experts of the “technical feasibility” assertions made by cell tower applicants. These changes are spelled out in the Resolution that is part of the Kou/Lauing Colleagues Memo. Approving them is more urgent than ever. AT&T has begun modifying its Palo Alto cell towers so that they now emit so much radiation they need to be shut down if any worker (e.g., a Palo Alto Utilities employee, an AT&T worker) is going to be within 21 feet of the antennas for any length of time, no matter how short. How can it make sense for a cell tower This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first mail to some recipients. Mark Safe Report from residents’ homes? Thank you for your consideration. Christopher Jette From:Willy Lai To:Council, City Cc:Ed@EdLauing.com; Vicki@VickiforCouncil.com; pat@patburt.org; georgeglu@gmail.com; Julie@JulieforPaloAlto.com; Reckdahl, Keith; gstone22@gmail.com; Clerk, City; LydiaKou@gmail.com Subject:Please approve the Kou/Lauing Colleagues Memo Date:Wednesday, May 14, 2025 8:29:24 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Mayor Lauing, Vice Mayor Veenker and Councilmembers Burt, Lu, Lythcott-Haims, Reckdahl, and Stone, Please vote to approve the changes to the wireless ordinance that Mayor Lauing and then- Councilmember Kou proposed in their Fall, 2024, Colleagues Memo, a Memo cum draft Resolution titled “Restoration of subjective aesthetic standards to Palo Alto’s Wireless Communication Facilities (WCF) ordinance”. The City’s wireless ordinance is egregiously out of date. In particular, Palo Alto continues to adhere to a 2018 FCC Order regarding standards for cell tower design and siting—standards that were thrown out by the Ninth Circuit almost five years ago. An update is more than overdue. Please: Restore Architectural Review Board review and public hearings for cell tower applications; Remove the ordinance language that OKs locating unsightly, hazardous cell towers 20 feet from a home; Prioritize locating cell towers as far as possible from homes and schools; and Require review by non-industry-aligned experts of the “technical feasibility” assertions made by cell tower applicants. All of these changes are spelled out in the Resolution that is part of the Kou/Lauing Colleagues Memo. Approving them is more urgent than ever. AT&T has begun modifying its Palo Alto cell towers so that they now emit so much radiation they need to be shut down if any worker (e.g., a Palo Alto Utilities employee, an AT&T worker) is going to be within 21 feet of the antennas for any length of time, no matter how short. How can it make sense for a cell tower like this to be operating 24 hours a day, seven days a week, only a few feet further than that from residents’ homes? This message needs your attention No employee in your company has ever replied to this person. This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Willy Lai From:Angelica Heidi Brehm To:Council, City Cc:Ed@edlauing.com; Vicki@vickiforcouncil.com; pat@patburt.org; georgeglu@gmail.com; Julie@julieforpaloalto.com; Reckdahl, Keith; gstone22@gmail.com; Clerk, City; LydiaKou@gmail.com Subject:Please approve the Kou/Lauing Colleagues Memo Date:Wednesday, May 14, 2025 2:43:40 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Mayor Lauing, Vice Mayor Veenker and Councilmembers Burt, Lu, Lythcott- Haims, Reckdahl, and Stone, Please vote to approve the changes to the wireless ordinance that Mayor Lauing and then-Councilmember Kou proposed in their Fall, 2024, Colleagues Memo, a Memo cum draft Resolution titled “Restoration of subjective aesthetic standards to Palo Alto’s Wireless Communication Facilities (WCF) ordinance”. The City’s wireless ordinance is egregiously out of date. In particular, Palo Alto continues to adhere to a 2018 FCC Order regarding standards for cell tower design and siting—standards that were thrown out by the Ninth Circuit almost five years ago. An update is more than overdue. Please: Restore Architectural Review Board review and public hearings for cell tower applications; Remove the ordinance language that OKs locating unsightly, hazardous cell towers 20 feet from a home; Prioritize locating cell towers as far as possible from homes and schools; and Require review by non-industry-aligned experts of the “technical feasibility” assertions made by cell tower applicants. All of these changes are spelled out in the Resolution that is part of the Kou/Lauing Colleagues Memo. Approving them is more urgent than ever. AT&T has begun modifying its Palo Alto cell towers so that they now emit so much radiation they need to be shut down if any worker (e.g., a Palo Alto Utilities employee, an AT&T worker) is going to be within 21 feet of the antennas for any length of time, no matter how short. How can it make sense for a cell tower like this to be operating 24 hours a day, seven days a week, only a few feet further than that from residents’ homes? This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Angelica Heidi Brehm 255 Wilton Ave. Palo Alto, CA 94306 From:Christine Selberg To:Council, City Cc:Ed@edlauing.com; Vicki@vickiforcouncil.com; pat@patburt.org; Julie@julieforpaloalto.com; georgeglu@gmail.com; Reckdahl, Keith; gstone22@gmail.com; Clerk, City; LydiaKou@gmail.com Subject:City Council meeting 5/19/25--- Cell Towers Date:Tuesday, May 13, 2025 1:37:35 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i CC; Ed@EdLauing.com; Vicki@VickiforCouncil.com; pat@patburt.org; georgeglugmail.com; Julie@JulieforPaloAlto.com; Reckdahl@yahoo.com; GStone22@gmail.com; City.Clerk@cityofpaloAlto.org; LydiaKou@gmail.com; Subject: Please approve the Kou/Lauing Colleagues Memo Dear Mayor Lauing, Vice Mayor Veenker and Councilmembers Burt, Lu, Lythcott- Haims, Reckdahl, and Stone, I am unable to attend this meeting, but have attended meetings on this issue in the past. I am assigning the minutes that I’m allowed during the meeting “public comment” to Jeanne, or the lawyer representing the neighborhood group. Please vote to approve the changes to the wireless ordinance that Mayor Lauing and then-Councilmember Kou proposed in their Fall, 2024, Colleagues Memo, a Memo cum draft Resolution titled “Restoration of subjective aesthetic standards to Palo Alto’s Wireless Communication Facilities (WCF) ordinance”. The City’s wireless ordinance is egregiously out of date. In particular, Palo Alto continues to adhere to a 2018 FCC Order regarding standards for cell tower design and siting—standards that were thrown out by the Ninth Circuit almost five years ago. An update is more than overdue. Please: Restore Architectural Review Board review and public hearings for cell tower applications; Remove the ordinance language that OKs locating unsightly, hazardous cell towers 20 feet from a home; This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report Prioritize locating cell towers as far as possible from homes and schools; and Require review by non-industry-aligned experts of the “technical feasibility” assertions made by cell tower applicants. All of these changes are spelled out in the Resolution that is part of the Kou/Lauing Colleagues Memo. Approving them is more urgent than ever. AT&T has begun modifying its Palo Alto cell towers so that they now emit so much radiation they need to be shut down if any worker (e.g., a Palo Alto Utilities employee, an AT&T worker) is going to be within 21 feet of the antennas for any length of time, no matter how short. How can it make sense for a cell tower like this to be operating 24 hours a day, seven days a week, only a few feet further than that from residents’ homes? Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Christine Selberg 281 Everett Ave. Palo Alto, 94301 From:James VanHorne To:Council, City Cc:Clerk, City Subject:Subject: Please approve the Kou/Lauing Memo Date:Tuesday, May 13, 2025 10:25:02 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Please vote to approve the changes to the Wireless ordinance that Mayor Lauing and Lydia Kou proposed in their Mayor Lauing and Lydia Kou proposed in their Fall, 2024 Colleagues Memo titled "Restoration of subjective aesthetic standards to Palo Alto's Wireless Communication Facilities ordinance." The City's wireless ordinance is very, very out of date. It continues to adhere to a 2018 FCC order regarding standards for cell tower design and siting. Standards that were thrown out by the 9th Circuit nearly five years ago. An update is much overdue. Please restore Architectural Review Board review and public hearing for cell tower applications; Remove the ordinance language that permits locating unsightly hazardous cell towers 20 feet from a home; prioritize locating cell towers as far as possible from homes and schools; and require review by non-industry aligned experts on technical feasibility assertions. Approving these changes is urgent, as AT&T is modifying cell towers emitting far too much radiation, dangerous to nearby residents and their own employees. Thank you for your consideration. James C. Van Horne, Palo Alto resident since 1965.. From:Jennifer Schmidt To:Council, City Cc:Ed@edlauing.com; Vicki@vickiforcouncil.com; pat@patburt.org; georgeglu@gmail.com; Julie@julieforpaloalto.com; Reckdahl, Keith; gstone22@gmail.com; Clerk, City; LydiaKou@gmail.com Subject:Approve the Kou/Lauing Colleagues Memo Date:Tuesday, May 13, 2025 9:54:59 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Mayor Lauing, Vice Mayor Veenker and Councilmembers Burt, Lu, Lythcott-Haims, Reckdahl, and Stone, I'm asking for you to embrace the precautionary principle and not allow cell towers to be installed close to our homes and subject Palo Alto residents to 24 hours of potentially harmful emissions. Would you personally want an installation within 20 feet of you or your family? You have the power! Please keep the residents of safe by voting to approve the changes to the wireless ordinance that Mayor Lauing and then-Councilmember Kou proposed in their Fall, 2024, Colleagues Memo, a Memo cum draft Resolution titled “Restoration of subjective aesthetic standards to Palo Alto’s Wireless Communication Facilities (WCF) ordinance”. Palo Alto continues to adhere to a 2018 FCC Order regarding standards for cell tower design and siting—standards that were thrown out by the Ninth Circuit almost five years ago. Please vote for these revisions: Restore Architectural Review Board review and public hearings for cell tower applications; This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report Remove the ordinance language that OKs locating unsightly, hazardous cell towers 20 feet from a home; Prioritize locating cell towers as far as possible from homes and schools; and Require review by non-industry-aligned experts of the “technical feasibility” assertions made by cell tower applicants. All of these changes are spelled out in the Resolution that is part of the Kou/Lauing Colleagues Memo. Approving them is more urgent than ever. AT&T has begun modifying its Palo Alto cell towers so that they now emit so much radiation they need to be shut down if any worker (e.g., a Palo Alto Utilities employee, an AT&T worker) is going to be within 21 feet of the antennas for any length of time, no matter how short. How can it make sense for a cell tower like this to be operating 24 hours a day, seven days a week, only a few feet further than that from residents’ homes? We must prioritize health and safety! Thank you for your consideration and support, Jennifer Schmidt Barron Park Resident From:Mary Dimit To:Council, City; Council, City Cc:Lauing, Ed; Veenker, Vicki; Stone, Greer; Burt, Patrick; Reckdahl, Keith; Lu, George; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Clerk, City; LydiaKou@gmail.com Subject:Approval Requested of Item 11 on May 19th Agenda: Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Wireless Communications Facilities Date:Tuesday, May 13, 2025 4:08:50 AM Greetings, City of Palo Alto Councilmembers, Please vote yes to approve the changes to the wireless communications ordinance proposed by Mayor Lauing & former Councilmember Kou last year in a Colleagues Memo titled “Restoration of subjective aesthetic standards to Palo Alto’s Wireless Communication Facilities (WCF) ordinance.” This Colleagues Memo* proposes important amendments needed to update Palo Alto’s wireless ordinance, such as: restoring public hearings and Architectural Review Board review for cell tower applications eliminating the current ordinance’s provision that allows noisy, hazardous cell towers located as close as 20 feet to homes locating cell towers as far as possible from homes, including multi-family, and schools; and requiring review by non-industry-aligned experts about any technical ??? made by cell tower applicants. Approval is even more important as I understand that AT&T has begun modifying their cell towers in our city so that they now emit enough radiation they need to be shut down if any worker (e.g., a Palo Alto Utilities employee, an AT&T worker) is going to be within 21 feet of the antennas at any time. These cell towers cannot be operating all day, every day so close to residents’ homes! *Item 11. FIRST READING: Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Section 18.42.110 (Wireless Communications Facilities) of Title 18 (Zoning)… Appreciative of your work for us Palo Alto residents, Mary Dimit & Mark Sauer From:Shannon Rose To:Council, City Cc:Ed Lauing; Vicki@vickiforcouncil.com; pat@patburt.org; georgeglu@gmail.com; Julie@julieforpaloalto.com; Reckdahl, Keith; gstone22@gmail.com; Clerk, City; Lydia Kou Subject:Please Approve the Kou/Lauing Colleagues Memo Date:Monday, May 12, 2025 9:54:39 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Mayor Lauing, Vice Mayor Veenker and Councilmembers Burt, Lu, Lythcott-Haims, Reckdahl, and Stone: Please vote to approve the changes to the wireless ordinance that Mayor Lauing and then- Councilmember Kou proposed in their Fall, 2024, Colleagues Memo, a Memo cum draft Resolution titled “Restoration of subjective aesthetic standards to Palo Alto’s Wireless Communication Facilities (WCF) ordinance”. The City’s wireless ordinance is egregiously out of date. In particular, Palo Alto continues to adhere to a 2018 FCC Order regarding standards for cell tower design and siting—standards that were thrown out by the Ninth Circuit almost five years ago. An update is more than overdue. Please: Restore Architectural Review Board review and public hearings for cell tower applications; Remove the ordinance language that OKs locating unsightly, hazardous cell towers 20 feet from a home; Prioritize locating cell towers as far as possible from homes and schools; and Require review by non-industry-aligned experts of the “technical feasibility” assertions made by cell tower applicants. All of these changes are spelled out in the Resolution that is part of the Kou/Lauing Colleagues Memo. Approving them is more urgent than ever. AT&T has begun modifying its Palo Alto cell towers so that they now emit so much radiation they need to be shut down if any worker (e.g., a Palo Alto Utilities employee, an AT&T worker) is going to be within 21 feet of the antennas for any length of time, no matter how short. How can it make sense for a cell tower like this to be operating 24 hours a day, seven days a week, only a few feet further than that from residents’ homes? Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Shannon Rose McEntee 410 Sheridan Avenue This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report From:Amrutha Kattamuri To:Council, City Cc:Ed@EdLauing.com; Vicki@VickiforCouncil.com; pat@patburt.org; georgeglu@gmail.com; Julie@JulieforPaloAlto.com; Reckdahl, Keith; gstone22@gmail.com; Clerk, City; LydiaKou@gmail.com Subject:Please approve the Kou/Lauing Colleagues Memo Date:Monday, May 12, 2025 8:31:18 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Mayor Lauing, Vice Mayor Veenker and Councilmembers Burt, Lu, Lythcott-Haims, Reckdahl, and Stone, Please vote to approve the changes to the wireless ordinance that Mayor Lauing and then- Councilmember Kou proposed in their Fall, 2024, Colleagues Memo, a Memo cum draft Resolution titled “Restoration of subjective aesthetic standards to Palo Alto’s Wireless Communication Facilities (WCF) ordinance”. The City’s wireless ordinance is egregiously out of date. In particular, Palo Alto continues to adhere to a 2018 FCC Order regarding standards for cell tower design and siting—standards that were thrown out by the Ninth Circuit almost five years ago. An update is more than overdue. Please: · Restore Architectural Review Board review and public hearings for cell tower applications; · Remove the ordinance language that OKs locating unsightly, hazardous cell towers 20 feet from a home; · Prioritize locating cell towers as far as possible from homes and schools; and · Require review by non-industry-aligned experts of the “technical feasibility” assertions made by cell tower applicants. All of these changes are spelled out in the Resolution that is part of the Kou/Lauing Colleagues Memo. Approving them is more urgent than ever. AT&T has begun modifying its Palo Alto cell towers so that they now emit so much radiation they need to be shut down if any worker (e.g., a Palo Alto Utilities employee, an AT&T worker) is going to be within 21 feet of the antennas for any length of time, no matter how short. How can it make sense for a cell tower like this to be operating 24 hours a day, seven days a This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report week, only a few feet further than that from residents’ homes? Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Amrutha Kattamuri From:Rita Vrhel To:Council, City; Ed@EdLauing.com; Vicki@VickiforCouncil.com; pat@patburt.org; georgeglu@gmail.com; Julie@JulieforPaloAlto.com; Reckdahl, Keith; gstone22@gmail.com; Clerk, City; LydiaKou@gmail.com Subject:Cell tower/ Kou/Lauing Colleges Memo Date:Monday, May 12, 2025 7:35:51 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments andclicking on links. ! Dear Mayor Lauing, Vice Mayor Veenker and Councilmembers Burt, Lu, Lythcott-Haims, Reckdahl, and Stone, Please vote to approve the changes to the wireless ordinance that Mayor Lauing and then-Councilmember Kou proposed in their Fall, 2024, Colleagues Memo, a Memo cum draft Resolution titled “Restoration of subjective aesthetic standards to Palo Alto’s Wireless Communication Facilities (WCF) ordinance”. The City’s wireless ordinance is egregiously out of date. In particular, Palo Alto continues to adhere to a 2018 FCC Order regarding standards for cell tower design and siting—standards that were thrown out by the Ninth Circuit almost five years ago. An update is more than overdue. Please: Restore Architectural Review Board review and public hearings for cell tower applications; Remove the ordinance language that OKs locating unsightly, hazardous cell towers 20 feet from a home; Prioritize locating cell towers as far as possible from homes and schools; and Require review by non-industry-aligned experts of the “technical feasibility” assertions made by cell tower applicants. All of these changes are spelled out in the Resolution that is part of the Kou/Lauing Colleagues Memo. Approving them is more urgent than ever. AT&T has begun modifying its Palo Alto cell towers so that they now emit so much radiation they need to be shut down if any worker (e.g., a Palo Alto Utilities employee, an AT&T worker) is going to be within 21 feet of the antennas for any length of time, no matter how short. How can it make sense for a cell tower like this to be operating 24 hours a day, seven days a week, only a few feet further than that from residents’ homes? There is no good reason this is a decision made by one person. This resolution and the design/placement of cell towers effect all residents in Palo Alto. This has been discussed for years. Now is the time to lock in good design and standardization. Thank you. Rita C. Vrhel Phone: 650-325-2298 This message could be suspicious The sender's email address couldn't be verified. This is a personal email address. This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report From:Melissa Smith To:Council, City Cc:Ed@edlauing.com; Vicki@vickiforcouncil.com; pat@patburt.org; georgeglu@gmail.com; Julie@julieforpaloalto.com; Reckdahl, Keith; gstone22@gmail.com; Clerk, City; Lydia Kou Subject:Please approve the Kou/Lauing Colleagues Memo Date:Monday, May 12, 2025 7:14:59 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Mayor Lauing, Vice Mayor Veenker and Councilmembers Burt, Lu, Lythcott- Haims, Reckdahl, and Stone, Please vote to approve the changes to the wireless ordinance that Mayor Lauing and then-Councilmember Kou proposed in their Fall, 2024, Colleagues Memo, a Memo cum draft Resolution titled “Restoration of subjective aesthetic standards to Palo Alto’s Wireless Communication Facilities (WCF) ordinance”. The City’s wireless ordinance is egregiously out of date. In particular, Palo Alto continues to adhere to a 2018 FCC Order regarding standards for cell tower design and siting—standards that were thrown out by the Ninth Circuit almost five years ago. An update is more than overdue. Please: Restore Architectural Review Board review and public hearings for cell tower applications; Remove the ordinance language that OKs locating unsightly, hazardous cell towers 20 feet from a home; Prioritize locating cell towers as far as possible from homes and schools; and Require review by non-industry-aligned experts of the “technical feasibility” assertions made by cell tower applicants. All of these changes are spelled out in the Resolution that is part of the Kou/Lauing Colleagues Memo. Approving them is more urgent than ever. AT&T has begun modifying its Palo Alto cell towers so that they now emit so much radiation they need to be shut down if any worker (e.g., a Palo Alto Utilities employee, an AT&T worker) is going to be within 21 feet of the antennas for any length of time, no matter how short. How can it make sense for a cell tower like this to be operating 24 hours a day, seven days a week, only a few feet further than that from residents’ homes? This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Melissa Smith From:NTB To:Council, City Cc:Ed@edlauing.com; Vicki@vickiforcouncil.com; pat@patburt.org; georgeglu@gmail.com; Julie@julieforpaloalto.com; Reckdahl, Keith; gstone22@gmail.com; Clerk, City; Lydia Kou Subject:Please give the Kou/Lauing Colleagues Memo your full support Date:Monday, May 12, 2025 6:49:51 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Mayor Lauing, Vice Mayor Veenker, Councilmembers Burt, Lu, Lithcott-Haims, Reckdahl, and Stone, Can you imagine living next to a pole that displays a warning sign stating the emissions from the equipment on the pole exceed FCC safety guidelines!!!!.....and if work needs to be done within 21 feet, then the power needs to be turned off?!!!! How would you feel about your children romping anywhere near this pole.....at home or in a school playground???? Or imagine having such a pole parked next to your family home, affecting the health and wellbeing of all your family members?All these scenarios are simply unthinkable. Please give the Kou/Lauing Colleagues Memo your full support. It is truly critical that these poles be properly placed and monitored. Sincerely, Nina Bell This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report From:kip husty To:Council, City Cc:Ed Lauing; Vicki@VickiforCouncil.com; pat@patburt.org; georgeglu@gmail.com; Julie@JulieforPaloAlto.com; Reckdahl, Keith; gstone22@gmail.com; Clerk, City; LydiaKou@gmail.com Subject:Please approve the Kou/Lauing Colleagues Memo Date:Monday, May 12, 2025 6:43:21 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Councilmembers, Mayor Lauing and Vice Mayor Veenker, I am writing to gain your vote to adopt the changes to Palo Alto's wireless ordinance that Mayor Lauing and then councilmember Lydia Kou proposed in the Fall of 2024, in their Colleagues Memo, a Memo cum draft Resolution titled “Restoration of subjective aesthetic standards to Palo Alto’s Wireless Communication Facilities (WCF) ordinance”. For me, this is a bare minimum needed, but a necessary one to achieve the ideal of city policies that put the common good ahead of individual interests (in this case, profits). I leave aside health concerns that cell towers pose due to the unnatural intensity of high frequency Electro Magnetic Frequencies. These are concerns that should be addressed and, because of the court rulings by the Ninth Circuit Federal Court that make possible for the city to act upon the aesthetic and safety concerns included in Lauing and Kou's memorandum, they can be addressed in the future (and are partially and indirectly addressed in their proposals). Right now I think the proposals that would: Restore Architectural Review Board review and public hearings for cell tower applications; Remove the ordinance language that OKs locating unsightly, hazardous cell towers 20 feet from a home; Prioritize locating cell towers as far as possible from homes and schools; and Require review by non-industry-aligned experts of the “technical feasibility” assertions made by cell tower applicants are uncontroversial and should be included in an adequate cell tower ordinance that seeks the betterment and protection of the city and its people. Unlike previous years upon which the present ordinance rests, we legally can change the ordinance to reflect community concerns that have been brought forth to the council for years. We not only can, but we should. The high levels of radiation emitted by the towers makes the changes proposed by Lauing and Kou in their memorandum urgently needed. Health and property are at risk if we do not act decisively. I urge that you place the safety, health and common good of the people ahead of profits or corporate convenience. Thank you for your consideration, kip husty From:Richard Simoni To:Council, City Subject:Support the Kou/Lauing Memo: Update Palo Alto’s Wireless Ordinance Date:Monday, May 12, 2025 5:37:37 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Mayor Lauing, Vice Mayor Veenker, and Councilmembers Burt, Lu, Lythcott-Haims, Reckdahl, and Stone, I’m writing as a concerned Palo Alto resident to strongly urge you to adopt the changes proposed in the Kou/Lauing Colleagues Memo regarding the city’s wireless ordinance. Our current ordinance relies on outdated FCC standards from 2018—standards that the Ninth Circuit overturned nearly five years ago. It's time for Palo Alto to modernize its approach and prioritize the safety, aesthetics, and well-being of its residents. Specifically, I ask that you: 1. Restore public hearings and Architectural Review Board oversight for cell tower applications. 2. Eliminate the provision that allows cell towers to be placed just 20 feet from homes. 3. Require that new towers be located as far as possible from residences and schools. 4. Mandate independent technical reviews of claims made by wireless applicants, rather than accepting their assertions at face value. The need for these reforms is urgent. Carriers like AT&T have started modifying existing towers to such an extent that they now require shutdowns when workers are within 21 feet of the antennas. Yet, these same towers are being allowed to operate continuously just beyond that buffer, mere feet from family homes. This is neither reasonable nor safe. I urge you to approve the Resolution attached to the Kou/Lauing Memo and bring Palo Alto’s policies in line with current legal standards and community expectations. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, This message needs your attention This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast Richard Simoni 4188 King Arthur Ct, Palo Alto