M E M O R A N D U M
To: City of Palo Alto
Honorable Mayor Stone and Members of the City Council
Ed Shikada, City Manager
From: Townsend Public Affairs
Niccolo De Luca, Vice President
Carlin Shelby, Senior Associate
Date: October 8, 2024
Subject: November 2024 Ballot Initiatives
OVERVIEW
On Tuesday, November 5, 2024, millions across the nation will cast their ballot in the General Election. Not only will voters be weighing in on nationwide races such as the Presidential and Congressional elections, but Californians will also be voting on Legislative offices, statewide ballot measures, as well as local offices and measures.
In order for ballot initiatives, referendums, and constitutional amendments to qualify for the November 2024 ballot, measures had to collect sufficient signatures, or receive legislative approval, prior to June 27. Notably, the 2024 General Election ballot featured a number of last- minute changes, including intervention from the California Supreme Court to pull the Government Transparency and Taxpayer Protection Act from the ballot entirely, a series of deals with proponents of qualified ballot measures to remove them in exchange for legislative action, and the inclusion of two last-minute statewide bond proposals for climate and school facilities funding.
Following the race to ballot finalization, the official November 2024 ballot will include 10 statewide ballot measures, ranging from statewide bond proposals, local rent control authority, a Proposition 47 referendum, and a statewide minimum wage increase. Below is a summary of statewide voter initiatives, as well as additional information related to those items that may impact local public agencies.
STATEWIDE VOTER INITIATIVES: ALL INITIATIVES
Below is a comprehensive list of the 10 eligible initiatives that will be on the November 2024 ballot, in numerical order:
Proposition 2: Issues $10 billion in bonds to fund construction and modernization of public K-14 education facilities.
Proposition 3: Repeals Proposition 8 and establishes a right to marry.
Item 14
Attachment A - Townsend
Public Affairs November
2024 Ballot Initiatives
Memo
Item 14: Staff Report
Pg.
6 Packet Pg. 352 of 377
Proposition 4: Issues $10 billion in bonds to fund state and local parks, environmental protection projects, water infrastructure projects, energy projects, and flood protection projects.
Proposition 5: Lowers the vote threshold from 66.67% to 55% for local bond measures to fund housing projects and public infrastructure.
Proposition 6: Removes involuntary servitude as punishment for a crime from the state constitution.
Proposition 32: Increases minimum wage to $18.00 an hour.
Proposition 33: Repeals the Costa Hawkins Rental Housing Act.
Proposition 34: Requires health care providers to spend 98% of revenues from federal discount prescription drug program on direct patient care.
Proposition 35: Permanently authorizes a tax on managed care organizations to fund Medi-Cal programs.
Proposition 36: Increases drug crime and theft penalties and allows a new class of crime to be called treatment-mandated felony, which allows the offender the option to participate in drug and mental health treatment.
STATEWIDE VOTER INITIATIVES WITH LOCAL AGENCY IMPACTS
The following summaries correspond to initiatives that could have potential impacts on local public agencies. This list is not comprehensive of all measures that will appear on the statewide General Election ballot.
PROPOSITION 2: Kindergarten Through Grade 12 Schools and Local Community College Public Education Facilities Modernization, Repair, and Safety Bond Act of 2024 Origin: Legislature – AB 247
Summary: If passed, this initiative issues $10 billion in bonds to fund the construction and modernization of public education facilities, with the following breakdown:
•$4 billion for the modernization of school facilities, with at least 10% being reserved for small schools and $115 million for testing/remediation of lead in water •$3 billion for new construction of school facilities, with at least 10% being reserved for small school districts
•$1.5 billion for community college facilities
•$600 million for charter school facilities
•$600 million for career technical education programs
If approved, the new construction and modernization of K-12 school facilities will be carried out via the California Department of Education, based on facilities master plans that have been approved by local education agencies. Funding for community college facilities would be carried out through the existing capital outlay process overseen by the Community College Board of Governors and funded through the annual state budget process.
Item 14
Attachment A - Townsend
Public Affairs November
2024 Ballot Initiatives
Memo
Item 14: Staff Report
Pg.
7 Packet Pg. 353 of 377
Potential Local Agency Impacts: The construction and rehabilitation of public K-12 facilities are funded by a combination of state and local general obligation (GO) bonds, developer's fees and local assessments such as Mello-Roos community facilities districts. If approved by voters, the bond funds could work to lower developer fees and local assessments, thus decreasing the cost of building housing.
Support and Opposition: Supporters of Proposition 2 include the California Federation of Teachers, the Californian Labor Federation, the California Republican Party, the Californian Democratic Party, and the State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond, among others. The Yes on Proposition 2 Campaign has raised $5.7 million in campaign funds. Opponents include the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, with no official campaign PAC funding raised.
PROPOSITION 4: The Safe Drinking Water, Wildfire Prevention, Drought Preparedness, and Clean Air Bond Act of 2024
Origin: Legislature – SB 867
Summary: If passed, this initiative issues $10 billion in bonds to fund state and local parks, environmental protection projects, water infrastructure projects, energy projects, and flood protection projects. With a general breakdown as follows:
•$3.8 billion for safe drinking water, drought, flood, and water resilience programs •$1.5 billion for wildfire and forest resilience
•$450 million for extreme heat mitigation
•$1.2 billion for biodiversity programs
•$300 million for sustainable, climate-smart farms and working lands programs •$1.2 billion for coastal resilience programs
•$700 million for park creation and outdoor access
•$850 million for clean air programs
•<$20 million for administrative costs
•Up to 10% of funds within each funding pot must be allocated to severely disadvantaged communities
If approved, the funding would be distributed by a number of state agencies through various existing grant and funding programs. It is likely that the initial funding would be included as part of the FY 2025-26 state budget.
Potential Local Agency Impacts: Proposition 4 includes funding for numerous programs that local agencies are eligible to apply for, including, but not limited to, park and open space, water storage and conveyance, wildfire and forest resilience, and coastal programs. If passed by voters, these funds would supplement the state’s budget and provide additional insurance against potential budget deficit issues that could lead to spending reductions across climate-related accounts.
Support and Opposition: Supporters of Proposition 4 include SEIU California, the California Democratic Party, California Professional Firefighters, the California Teachers Association, and the California Municipal Utilities Association, with $1.2 million raised in campaign funds.
Opponents include the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, the California Republican Party, and several Republican state legislators, with no campaign funds raised.
Item 14
Attachment A - Townsend
Public Affairs November
2024 Ballot Initiatives
Memo
Item 14: Staff Report
Pg.
8 Packet Pg. 354 of 377
PROPOSITION 5: Local Government Financing: Affordable Housing and Public Infrastructure: Voter Approval
Origin: Legislature – ACA 1, as Amended by ACA 10
Summary: This initiative reduces voter threshold requirements from 2/3 to 55% for general obligation bonds financing affordable housing, permanent supportive housing, or public infrastructure, and any associated ad valorem taxes needed to pay the interest and redemption charges on bonded indebtedness.
This measure defines public infrastructure to include facilities for the delivery of public services, including education, police, fire protection, parks, recreation, open space, emergency medical, public health, libraries, flood protection, streets or highways, public transit, railroad, airports, and seaports. Additionally, facilities or infrastructure that are energy-related, communications-related, water-related, or wastewater-related also would qualify to be considered at the lower vote threshold. This measure would cap the maximum amount of any ad valorem tax on real property at 1% of the property’s value.
Potential Local Agency Impacts: By reducing the voter threshold for the passage of local bond measures, Proposition 5 will make it easier for local agencies to raise bond revenues. Investment initiatives often fail to reach the legal requirement of a 2/3 vote, a threshold under which opponents’ votes count twice as much as those community members who support infrastructure investments. Current law authorizes school districts to pass bond measures at a 55% vote threshold. Proposition 5 would create voter threshold parity between school districts and cities, counties, and special districts. Notably, the provisions of Proposition 5 impact bond measures on the same ballot. If Proposition 5 receives a majority vote, the 55% threshold could be applied to major revenue measures such as the Bay Area Housing Finance Authority (BAHFA) $20 billion affordable housing bond, thus increasing its chance of passage.
Support and Opposition: Supporters of Proposition 5 include the California Democratic Party, the California State Building and Construction Trades Council, the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, California YIMBY, and the California Labor Federation, with $5 million in campaign funds raised.
Proposition 5 opponents include the California Chamber of Commerce, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, the California Republican Party, and Catalysts for Local Control, with $29.7 million in campaign funds raised.
PROPOSITION 32: Raises Minimum Wage
Origin: Citizen-led initiative
Summary: This constitutional amendment increases the state minimum wage to $18.00 per hour by 2026 for all employers, and thereafter adjusts the rate annually by increases to the cost of living.
Existing law requires annual increases to California’s minimum wage until it has reached $15.00 per hour for all businesses on January 1, 2023. This measure extends these annual increases ($1.00 per year) until minimum wage—currently, $15.00 per hour for businesses with 26 or more employees, and $14.00 per hour for smaller businesses—reaches $18.00 per hour. Thereafter, as existing law requires, the minimum wage will annually adjust for inflation. In periods of decreased economic activity, or General Fund deficit, the Governor may suspend the annual increase up to two times, thereby extending the timeline for reaching $18.00 per hour.
Item 14
Attachment A - Townsend
Public Affairs November
2024 Ballot Initiatives
Memo
Item 14: Staff Report
Pg.
9 Packet Pg. 355 of 377
Potential Local Agency Impacts: Unclear change in annual state and local tax revenues, likely between a loss of a couple billion dollars and a gain of a few hundred million dollars. An increase in annual state and local government costs is likely between half a billion dollars and a few billion dollars.
Support and Opposition: Supporters of Proposition 32 include the California Labor Federation, the Working Families Party California, the California Democratic Party, and the League of Women Voters of California, with over $609,000 in campaign funds raised. Opponents of Proposition 32 include the California Chamber of Commerce, the California Grocers Association, the California Republican Party, and the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, with $65,000 in campaign funds raised.
PROPOSITION 33: Expands Local Governments’ Authority to Enact Rent Control on Residential Property
Origin: Citizen-led initiative
Summary: This constitutional amendment repeals the Costa Hawkins Rental Housing Act.
Current state law (the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act of 1995) generally prevents cities and counties from limiting the initial rental rate that landlords may charge to new tenants in all types of housing, and from limiting rent increases for existing tenants in (1) residential properties that were first occupied after February 1, 1995; (2) single-family homes; and (3) condominiums. This initiative would repeal that state law and would prohibit the state from limiting the right of cities and counties to maintain, enact, or expand residential rent-control ordinances.
The measure repeals the limits on local rent control laws in Costa-Hawkins. Under the measure, cities and counties can regulate rents for any housing. They also can limit how much a landlord may increase rents when a new renter moves in. The measure itself does not make any changes to existing local rent control laws. Generally, cities and counties would have to take separate actions to change their local laws. However, in some cases, existing provisions in local rent control laws that are currently inoperative because they are prohibited by Costa-Hawkins could become operative without further action at the local level. The measure does not affect the requirement that rent control laws must allow landlords to receive a fair rate of return.
Further, the measure specifies that the state may not limit the right of cities and counties to maintain, enact, or expand rent control. However, the state still could set some minimum protections for renters, like the current statewide limit on rent increases.
Potential Local Agency Impacts: According to the Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO), the proposed initiative could have economic ramifications for state and local revenues, particularly affecting property taxes, sales taxes, and income taxes.
Regarding property taxes, there is an anticipated decrease over time due to a projected decline in rental property values. This decline would likely lead to reduced property tax payments by landlords. While property tax bills might reset at higher levels following property sales, any revenue gains from these adjustments are expected to be outweighed by overall revenue losses resulting from diminished property values.
Sales tax revenues could potentially increase if renters redirect their savings from reduced rents toward purchasing taxable goods. This change in consumer spending behavior has the potential to bolster sales tax revenues collected by state and local governments.
Item 14
Attachment A - Townsend
Public Affairs November
2024 Ballot Initiatives
Memo
Item 14: Staff Report
Pg.
10 Packet Pg. 356 of 377
Income tax payments by landlords are also expected to fluctuate. Some landlords may experience decreases in their income tax payments due to reduced rental income from lower rents.
Conversely, landlords could see potential increases in income tax payments over time as they benefit from reduced expenses related to property acquisition, such as mortgage interest and property taxes. However, the net effect on state income tax revenues remains uncertain and will depend on various factors.
Overall, the measure is likely to result in a reduction in state and local revenues, with property taxes expected to be the most significantly affected. The extent of these revenue losses will depend on how communities respond to the measure, particularly in terms of expanding or implementing rent control laws. Additionally, local governments may face increased costs associated with administering new or expanded rent control policies, potentially funded through fees imposed on owners of rental housing.
Support and Opposition: Supporters of Proposition 33 include the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, the California Democratic Party, the California Nurses Association, UNITE HERE Local 11, and Consumer Watchdog, with $43.8 million in campaign funds raised. Proposition 33 opponents include the California Small Business Association, the California Council of Carpenters, California YIMBY, the California Chamber of Commerce, the California Republican Party, and several Democratic state legislators, with over $119 million in campaign funds raised.
PROPOSITION 36: Allows Felony Charges and Increases Sentences for Certain Drug and Theft Crimes
Origin: Citizen-led Initiative
Summary: If approved by voters, this constitutional amendment would increase penalties for certain drug crimes by increasing sentence lengths and level of crime. The proposition would add fentanyl to the list of drugs that would warrant a felony charge if an individual possesses one of the listed drugs and a loaded firearm. The punishment for this crime is up to four years in prison, whereas currently possessing fentanyl and a loaded firearm is punishable by up to one year in jail. This initiative would increase sentences based on the quantity of certain drugs sold illegally.
The measure would also require individuals who receive increased sentences because of this to serve their entire sentence in state prison, regardless of their criminal history.
The proposition would increase penalties for certain theft crimes. For crimes where money or property worth $950 or less is stolen, the initiative would make the crime punishable as a felony for individuals who have two or more prior theft-related convictions. The initiative would make the punishment up to three years in jail or prison, depending on the individual’s criminal history, an increase from the current six months. The initiative would also increase sentences based on the amount of property stolen.
Potential Local Agency Impacts: According to the LAO, the proposed measure is expected to have significant implications for county jail populations and community supervision. It includes provisions that would shift certain sentences from county jails to state prisons, reducing local jail populations. Conversely, it introduces changes that could extend jail time for lower-level theft crimes, potentially increasing the number of people under county supervision.
Moreover, the measure is anticipated to increase the number of individuals sentenced to prison, subsequently increasing the population under Post-Release Community Supervision (PRCS) upon their release. Overall, this could lead to a net annual increase of thousands in the county Item 14
Attachment A - Townsend
Public Affairs November
2024 Ballot Initiatives
Memo
Item 14: Staff Report
Pg.
11 Packet Pg. 357 of 377
correctional population. Financially, the growth in county correctional populations is projected to incur additional costs, albeit partially offset by reduced expenses as individuals are shifted to state prisons. This net increase in county correctional costs is estimated to be potentially tens of millions of dollars annually.
Additionally, the measure is expected to escalate local court-related workloads. This includes higher felony filings, which would increase demands on local prosecutors, public defenders, and other county departments involved in mandated treatment processes for felonies. The resulting rise in local court-related costs could also amount to tens of millions annually, depending on implementation specifics and the actual impact on case volumes.
The measure's impact on state savings derived from Proposition 47 could reduce funding available for mental health services, substance use programs, truancy prevention, and victim services. The full extent of these fiscal effects will depend on how the measure alters the estimated savings attributed to Proposition 47 and other potential effects on crime rates and criminal justice expenditures.
Support and Opposition: Supporters of Proposition 36 include Walmart, Target, Home Depot, the California District Attorneys Association, the California Correctional Peace Officers Association, the California Chamber of Commerce, and the California Republican Party, with $14.7 million in campaign funds raised. Proposition 36 opponents include Governor Gavin Newsom, Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas, Senate President Pro Tem Mike McGuire, ACLU of Northern California, and the California Democratic Party, with $3.7 million in campaign funds raised.
Item 14
Attachment A - Townsend
Public Affairs November
2024 Ballot Initiatives
Memo
Item 14: Staff Report
Pg.
12 Packet Pg. 358 of 377
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 Item 15
Item 15 Colleagues
Memo
Item 15: Staff Report
Pg.
1 Packet Pg. 359 of 377
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).
Item 15
Item 15 Colleagues
Memo
Item 15: Staff Report
Pg.
2 Packet Pg. 360 of 377
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.
Item 15
Item 15 Colleagues
Memo
Item 15: Staff Report
Pg.
3 Packet Pg. 361 of 377
BACKGROUND
On September 26, 2018, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) enacted the Declaratory Ruling and Third Report and Order, known as the “Small Cell Order,” directing that local regulation of Small Wireless Facilities in the public right-of-way must be published in advance and be “(1) reasonable, (2) no more burdensome than those applied to other types of infrastructure deployments, and (3) objective.”
In response to the Small Cell Order, on June 13, 2019, the City Council adopted Ordinance 5465, which provided that Tier 2 wireless communication facilities (WCFs) (e.g., adding new equipment to an existing small wireless facility (“collocation”)) and Tier 3 WCFs (e.g., new small wireless facilities) would be no longer be subject to site-specific review and approval by the Architectural Review Board (ARB) under Municipal Code Section 18.76.020, and instead would be required only to comply with objective standards to be established by resolution. To be clear, the shift to objective aesthetic standards didn’t simply dispense with subjective standards, it a) eliminated public hearings for proposed cell towers, and b) left the decision to approve a cell tower solely in the hands of the Director of Planning & Development.
On December 16, 2019, the City Council adopted Resolution 9873 amending and consolidating objective aesthetic, noise, and related standards for WCFs on streetlights and wood utility poles in the public rights of way.
In recognition that the Small Cell Order was being challenged in a lawsuit brought by numerous municipalities against the FCC—a lawsuit City Council supported—Ordinance 5465 provides that in the event that “the City Council repeals all objective standards, an application [for a Tier 2 or 3 WCF] 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.” On August 12, 2020, the Ninth Circuit issued its decision in City of Portland v. Federal Communications Commission, 969 F.3d 1020, 1041-43, 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
The recommendation to restore prior subjective wireless standards and ARB findings and processes is a straightforward task. This can be accomplished by directing staff to amend the Wireless Communications Facility ordinance (PAMC section 18.42.110) in a manner consistent 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 Item 15
Item 15 Colleagues
Memo
Item 15: Staff Report
Pg.
4 Packet Pg. 362 of 377
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.
However, modifying the design standards and review process poses additional resource impacts. Potentially the most significant impact would be to the ARB and City Council agenda management. Switching from the current process, in which the Planning Director reviews a project’s compliance with the objective standards and subjective standards are applied to any requests for exceptions, to a fully discretionary review by the ARB will increase the amount of time it takes to process applications. Staff would need to anticipate potential appeals on every project and schedule final action hearings on the City Council’s agenda prior to the ARB review hearing, in order to meet the mandated shot clock requirements, some of which are more stringent than those mentioned in the memo. While the colleagues’ memo authors suggest an extension for application review or appeals can be granted if agreed upon by the parties, this approach cannot be mandated or relied upon for application processing. Applicants are unlikely to choose this approach when presently, state or federal law (or both) provides “deemed granted” approvals for all types of wireless project if the City fails to approve or deny it within the limited shot clock period. In short, wireless communications facility applications are expected to require time on the Council’s agenda to make final subjective determinations on any appeal from the ARB’s project decision. This would impact the Council’s ability to advance other Council priorities or discussions without flexibility for rescheduling to a later week for agendas that are busy or run late.
In addition, changing the design standards and review process will impact staff resources. Staff from Planning, Utilities, Public Works, Urban Forestry and the City Attorney’s Office already participate in the application review, and would also need to be available for ARB and City Council meetings. While staff can engage professional service agencies to respond to application processing and review, administrative and overhead staff support will be required to review work products, reports, and to schedule meetings. Initial training on the review process and legal framework for wireless project decisions would also be required for ARB members, for work currently performed and coordinated by Planning staff. Public meetings before the ARB would require attendance from all departments contributing to wireless project review. A wholly subjective process may impact the quality of applications received, since there will be less guidance for project applicants on the City’s standards for review. It would also increase the likelihood of applicant appeals or requests for judicial review if the City does not approve a project, which would require further legal services to defend.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: DRAFT Resolution Repealing Objective-Only Standards Item 15
Item 15 Colleagues
Memo
Item 15: Staff Report
Pg.
5 Packet Pg. 363 of 377
DRAFT Resolution Repealing Objective StandardsDRAFT
The Council of the Charter City of Palo Alto RESOLVES as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings and Declarations.
a. On September 26, 2018, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) enacted the Declaratory Ruling and Third Report and Order, known as the “Small Cell Order,” directing that local regulation of Small Wireless Facilities in the public right-of-way must be published in advance and be “(1) reasonable, (2) no more burdensome than those applied to other types of infrastructure deployments, and (3) objective.”
b. In response to the Small Cell Order, on June 13, 2019, the City Council adopted Ordinance 5465, which provided that Tier 2 wireless communication facilities (WCFs) (e.g., adding new equipment to an existing small wireless facility (“collocation”)) and Tier 3 WCFs (e.g., new small wireless facilities) would be no longer be subject to site-specific review and approval by the Architectural Review Board (ARB) under Municipal Code Section 18.76.020, and instead would be required only to comply with objective standards to be established by resolution. To be clear, the shift to objective aesthetic standards didn’t simply dispense with subjective standards, it a) eliminated public hearings for proposed cell towers, and b) left the decision to approve a cell tower solely in the hands of the Director of Planning & Development.
c. On December 16, 2019, the City Council adopted Resolution 9873 amending and consolidating objective aesthetic, noise, and related standards for WCFs on streetlights and wood utility poles in the public rights of way.
d. In recognition that the Small Cell Order was being challenged in a lawsuit brought by numerous municipalities against the FCC—a lawsuit City Council supported—Ordinance 5465 provides that in the event that “the City Council repeals all objective standards, an application [for a Tier 2 or 3 WCF] 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.”
e. On August 12, 2020, the Ninth Circuit issued its decision in City of Portland v. Federal Communications Commission, 969 F.3d 1020, 1041-43, 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.” f. The City Council now wishes to revoke the objective standards and subject Tier 2 and Tier 3 WCFs to review by the ARB.
SECTION 2. Repeal of Objective Standards
a. The City Council hereby repeals the “Objective Standards for Wireless Communication Facilities in the Public Rights of Way on Streetlight Poles and Wood Utility Poles” contained in Exhibits 1, 2 and 3 of Resolution 9873.
b. The City Council hereby directs that an application for a Tier 2 and Tier 3 WCF permit “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” by the ARB as provided in Municipal Code Section
18.42.110(g)(2) and (h)(2).
Item 15
Attachment A - DRAFT
Resolution Repealing
Objective-Only Standards
Item 15: Staff Report
Pg.
6 Packet Pg. 364 of 377
c. The City Council hereby directs Staff, in Staff’s review of Tier 2 and Tier 3 WCF applications, to apply the guidelines in place prior to the passage of Resolution 9873—specifically, the guidelines that were prepared jointly by the ARB, by the Department of Planning & Development, and by the Utility Department—until such time that Staff brings to Council for consideration a revised list of guidelines, and Council approves these guidelines.
d. In order to ensure and maintain the safety, property values and aesthetic qualities of Palo Alto streets and neighborhoods, the City Council hereby directs Staff, in Staff’s review of Tier 2 and Tier 3 WCF applications, to apply this additional guideline: Locating a WCF within 100 feet of a residential building or within 300 feet of a public school a) shall be least preferred; b) shall only be permitted when there is no other technically feasible location; and c) shall only be permitted if an expert, hired by the City and having no telecommunications industry or telecommunications industry-related clients for at least two years, has evaluated the WCF applicant’s assertions as to technical feasibility. The City Council hereby directs Staff that its priority in the siting of WCFs is to maximize the distance between these facilities and residences.
f. The City Council hereby directs Staff to provide the public with the text of any new or revised guidelines Staff wishes to propose to City Council at least thirty days before Staff brings these guidelines to City Council for consideration.
SECTION 3. Savings.
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 City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted the resolution and exhibits, and each section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid.
SECTION 4. Environmental Review.
The City 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 WCFs 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.
Item 15
Attachment A - DRAFT
Resolution Repealing
Objective-Only Standards
Item 15: Staff Report
Pg.
7 Packet Pg. 365 of 377
City Council
Staff Report
From: City Manager
Report Type: INFORMATION REPORTS
Lead Department: Utilities
Meeting Date: October 21, 2024
Report #:2408-3364
TITLE
Informational Report on the Annual Review of the City’s Renewable Procurement Plan, Renewable Portfolio Standard Compliance, and Carbon Neutral Electric Supplies for 2023; CEQA Status – Not a Project
RECOMMENDATION
No action is necessary in response to this staff report.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Like all electric utilities in California, Palo Alto is subject to the state’s Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) mandate of 60% by 2030. The City has also adopted a Carbon Neutral Plan, which led to the achievement of a carbon neutral electric supply portfolio starting in 2013 (and which was updated by Council in August 2020). In 2011, in compliance with state RPS regulations, the Council also formally adopted an RPS Procurement Plan and an RPS Enforcement Program that recognize certain elements of the state’s RPS law applicable to publicly-owned utilities. The RPS Enforcement Program requires the City Manager, or their designee, the Utilities Director, to conduct an annual review of the Electric Utility’s compliance with the procurement targets set forth in the City’s RPS Procurement Plan.
This staff report satisfies the reporting requirements of the City’s RPS Enforcement Program, while also providing an update on the City’s compliance with the Carbon Neutral Plan. The City continues to meet both its RPS and Carbon Neutral Plan objectives—even after selling 223,000 MWh of renewable energy in 2023.
BACKGROUND
The City currently has two independent procurement targets related to renewable and carbon neutral electricity:
•RPS Procurement Plan (60% by 2030): The City’s official renewable electricity goal is contained in the RPS Procurement Plan that the City was required to adopt under Section 399.30(a) of California’s Public Utilities Code. This was adopted in December 2011 ( Staff Item 16
Item 16 Staff Report
Item 16: Staff Report
Pg.
1 Packet Pg. 366 of 377
Report 22251, Resolutions 92142 and 92153) and updated in November 2013 (Staff Report 41684, Resolution 9381 5), December 2018 ( Staff Report 9761 6, Resolution 9802 7), and December 2020 ( Staff Report 11650 8, Resolution 9929 9). The last update to the RPS Procurement Plan brought it into alignment with the state’s 60% RPS requirement (SB 100), which was signed into law in 2018. The RPS Procurement Plan and RPS Enforcement Program complement each other: the Procurement Plan establishes official procurement targets, while the Enforcement Program specifies the reporting and monitoring that is required of the Utilities Director while working to achieve those targets.
The procurement requirement in the current version of the City’s RPS Procurement Plan is that the City acquire renewable electricity supplies equal to 60% of retail sales by 2030, which is in line with the state’s current RPS mandate. The RPS Procurement Plan also contains an escalating set of targets for six interim Compliance Periods (2011-2013, 2014- 2016, 2017-2020, 2021-2024, 2025-2027, and 2028-2030), as well as subsequent 3-year compliance periods beginning in 2031.
•Carbon Neutral Plan (100% Carbon Neutral Electricity): The Carbon Neutral Plan was adopted in March 2013 ( Staff Report 3550 10, Resolution 932211) and updated in August 2020 ( Staff Report 11556 12, Resolution 9913 13), and requires that the City procure a carbon neutral electric supply portfolio starting in calendar year (CY) 2013. In general, this 1 Staff Report 2225: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/from-archive/agendas-minutes- reports/reports/city-manager-reports-cmrs/2011/final-staff-report-id-2225-renewable-energy-procurement- enforcement-prog-12-12-11.pdf
2 Resolution 9214: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/city-clerk/resolutions/reso-9214.pdf 3 Resolution 9215: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/city-clerk/resolutions/reso-9215.pdf 4 Staff Report 4168: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/agendas-minutes-reports/reports/city- manager-reports-cmrs/year-archive/2013/final-staff-report-id-4168_rps-procurement-plan-update.pdf 5 Resolution 9381: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/city-clerk/resolutions/reso-9381.pdf 6 Staff Report 9761: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/agendas-minutes-reports/reports/city- manager-reports-cmrs/year-archive/2018/final-staff-report-id9761_approval-of-the-2018-electric-integrated- resource-plan-and-related-documents.pdf
7 Resolution 9802: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/city-clerk/resolutions/reso- 9802.pdf?t=40498.07
8 Staff Report 11650: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/agendas-minutes- reports/reports/city-manager-reports-cmrs/year-archive/2020-2/id-11650.pdf?t=41063.12 9 Resolution 9929: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/city-clerk/resolutions/resolutions-1909- to-present/2020/reso-9929.pdf
10 Staff Report 3550: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/agendas-minutes- reports/reports/city-manager-reports-cmrs/year-archive/2013/final-staff-report-id-3550_electric-supply-portfolio- carbon-neutral-plan.pdf
11 Resolution 9322: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/city-clerk/resolutions/reso-9322- 33835.pdf
12 Staff Report 11556: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/agendas-minutes- reports/reports/city-manager-reports-cmrs/year-archive/2020-2/id-11566.pdf 13 Resolution 9913: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/city-clerk/resolutions/reso- 9913.pdf?t=40151.26
Item 16
Item 16 Staff Report
Item 16: Staff Report
Pg.
2 Packet Pg. 367 of 377
goal is expected to be achieved primarily through purchases made under the City’s long- term renewable power purchase agreements (PPAs) and output from its hydroelectric resources. However, when the City Council approved an update to the Carbon Neutral Plan in August 2020, they also approved a new procurement strategy whereby the City does not keep all of the output of its long-term, in-state PPAs, but instead exchanges that output for less expensive out-of-state renewable generation (with the net proceeds used to fund local decarbonization programs).
ANALYSIS
The City continues to meet its objectives under the RPS Procurement Plan and the Carbon Neutral Plan and achieved an RPS level of 39.3% in 2023. This value is slightly short of the state’s 41.25% RPS procurement “soft target” for the year; however, the City remains compliant with the state RPS procurement mandate, which is evaluated over a multi-year horizon (2021-2024 in this case).
The City also has more than enough RPS supplies under contract to far exceed the state’s soft target levels in the last year of the four-year compliance period—and beyond. Below is a summary of CPAU’s progress toward satisfying its renewable energy and carbon neutral procurement targets.
RPS Procurement Plan Compliance
In CY 2023, the City initially received 519,843 MWh of renewable energy through its long-term contracts for wind, solar, landfill gas, and small hydro resources (which represents 62.3% of the City’s total retail sales for that period). Additionally, the City received 486,132 MWh of large hydroelectric generation (representing 58.3% of the City’s total retail sales), which is not classified as eligible renewable generation by the state. Based on the Council’s decision in August 2020 to pursue the “REC Exchange Program” ( Staff Report 11556 14, Resolution 991315) the City sold 223,362 MWh of in-state renewable energy supplies, yielding $9.03 million in sales revenue, while purchasing 200,000 MWh of out-of-state renewable energy 16, at a cost of $1.19 million.
Figure 1 below depicts the City’s load and supply resources for CY 2023, before and after the REC Exchanges described above. Accounting for these transactions, the City’s net renewable energy supplies totaled 496,232 MWh, which represents 59.5% of the City’s total retail sales for 2023.
However, under the state’s RPS regulations the majority of the out-of-state renewable energy purchases were not able to be applied to the City’s RPS requirement, hence the City’s official RPS level was only 39.3%.
14 Staff Report 11556: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/agendas-minutes- reports/reports/city-manager-reports-cmrs/year-archive/2020-2/id-11566.pdf 15 Resolution 9913: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/city-clerk/resolutions/reso- 9913.pdf?t=40151.26
16 Not including 30,000 MWh of RECs purchased on behalf of PaloAltoGreen customers.
Item 16
Item 16 Staff Report
Item 16: Staff Report
Pg.
3 Packet Pg. 368 of 377
Figure 1: CY 2023 Electric Load and Supply Resources, With and Without REC Exchange Transactions
For CY 2024 to date, the City has contracted to sell about 160,000 MWh of in-state renewable generation and has purchased about 133,000 MWh of out-of-state renewable generation. Figure 2 below depicts the City’s projected load and supply resources for CY 2024, before and after the REC Exchanges described above. Once these transactions are accounted for, they are projected to yield a total of about $10.9 million in net revenue, and an official RPS level of 44% (equal to the state’s RPS soft target for 202417).
17 Note that even if the City were to fall short of the 44% RPS soft target in 2024 it would still be able to comply with its overall RPS obligation for the 2021-2024 compliance period, due to its accumulation of surplus RECs (or “Excess Procurement”) from prior years.
Item 16
Item 16 Staff Report
Item 16: Staff Report
Pg.
4 Packet Pg. 369 of 377
Figure 2: Projected CY 2024 Electric Load and Supply Resources, With and Without REC Exchange Transactions
In accordance with the state’s RPS Program requirements, CPAU’s Procurement Plan is intended to yield a renewable electric supply portfolio that balances environmental goals with system reliability while maintaining low and stable retail electric rates. The state RPS program requires retail electricity suppliers like CPAU to procure progressively larger renewable electricity supplies across a series of separate multi-year Compliance Periods. CPAU’s procurement targets, as well as its actual/projected procurement volumes and RPS levels, for the first three Compliance Periods are summarized in Table 1 below.
Table 1: RPS Compliance Period Procurement Targets and Actual Procurement RPS
Compliance
Period
Years Retail Sales
(MWh)
Procurement
Target (MWh)
Actual/Projected
Procurement
(MWh)
% of Retail
Sales
1 2011-2013 2,837,773 567,555 607,740 21.4%
2 2014-2016 2,801,056 605,949 826,855 29.5%
3 2017-2020 3,487,686 1,043,426 1,619,303 46.4%
4 2021-2024 3,302,501 1,318,639 1,318,639 39.9%
TOTALS 12,429,016 3,535,570 4,372,537 35.2%
Item 16
Item 16 Staff Report
Item 16: Staff Report
Pg.
5 Packet Pg. 370 of 377
Carbon Neutral Plan
In CY 2023, CPAU achieved its goal, set forth in the Carbon Neutral Plan, of an electric supply portfolio with zero net greenhouse (GHG) emissions for the 11 th consecutive year. Carbon neutrality was achieved in CY 2023 through existing hydro and renewable generation (wind, solar, and landfill gas). As discussed above, due to the Council’s adoption of the REC Exchange Program in August 2020, the City sold 223,362 MWh of in-state renewable energy supplies, yielding $9.03 million in sales revenue, while purchasing 200,000 MWh of out-of-state renewable energy, at a cost of $1.19 million. Accounting for these transactions, the City’s net renewable energy supplies totaled 496,232 MWh, which represents 59.5% of the City’s total retail sales for 2023. The remainder of the City’s needs were supplied by large hydroelectric resources.
When the City Council approved an update to the Carbon Neutral Plan in August 2020, the primary change was to adopt an hourly carbon accounting methodology as the basis for determining whether the City has met its carbon neutrality objective. Using an annual accounting approach, the City had an overall surplus of 98,106 MWh of carbon neutral generation compared to its load (equal to 11.4% total load) in 2023, and thus substantially exceeded the carbon neutrality standard. Meanwhile, under the hourly carbon accounting approach, 18 the City’s electric supply portfolio also exceeded the carbon neutrality standard, being responsible for a net negative amount of GHG emissions: -1,617 metric tons of CO2 equivalent. See Figure 3 below for a depiction of the City’s monthly total net CO2 emissions for 2023, as well as the monthly average emissions intensity for the California electric grid. 18 The City’s hourly carbon accounting methodology entails calculating the City’s net surplus or deficit carbon neutral supply position relative to its load in every hour of the year. The grid average electricity emissions intensity for each hour is then applied to each of these hourly surpluses or deficits to yield a net emissions contribution (or reduction) that the City’s electric supply portfolio is responsible for in that hour. These hourly emissions totals are then summed across the entire year to yield the City’s annual emissions total for the year.
Item 16
Item 16 Staff Report
Item 16: Staff Report
Pg.
6 Packet Pg. 371 of 377
Figure 3: CY 2022 Monthly Net Electric Supply Emissions and CAISO Emissions Intensity For CY 2024, above average hydro conditions are expected to result in about 58% of the City’s electric supply needs being supplied by hydroelectric resources (compared to a long-term annual average of about 45%), with the remainder coming from non-hydro renewable energy resources.
FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT
This is an informational report that has no fiscal or resource impact to the Utilities Department or the City. As noted above, the implementation of the REC Exchange Program resulted in net revenue of $7.84 million for CY 2023.
STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
This is an informational report only and no stakeholder engagement is necessary.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This report is for informational purposes only with no action required by the Council. The Council’s review of this report does not meet the definition of a “project” pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21065, thus California Environmental Quality Act review is not required.
APPROVED BY:
Dean Batchelor, Director of Utilities
Staff: James Stack, PhD, Senior Resource Planner
Item 16
Item 16 Staff Report
Item 16: Staff Report
Pg.
7 Packet Pg. 372 of 377
City Council
Staff Report
Report Type: INFORMATION REPORTS
Lead Department: Administrative Services
Meeting Date: October 21, 2024
Report #:2410-3599
TITLE
City of Palo Alto Monthly Investment Activity Report for September 2024 (Unaudited)
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Monthly Investment Activity Report - September 2024 APPROVED BY:
Lauren Lai
Item 17
Item 17 Staff Report
Item 17: Staff Report
Pg.
1 Packet Pg. 373 of 377
CITY OF PALO ALTO
MONTHLY INVESTMENT ACTIVITY REPORT
September 2024 (Unaudited)
TO: Honorable City Council
Report Posted at the City’s Website: www.cityofpaloalto.org/ investmentreporting Above Link on Council Agenda of October 21, 2024 ______________________________________________________________________ The City’s Investment Policy1 (Policy) and California Government Code Section 53607 requires that a report of transactions (investments, reinvestment, sold, and exchanged securities) be made available to the Council on a monthly basis.
The attached list of transactions (Attachment A) also includes, though not required by the Policy or the government code, security maturities and cash movement activity in the City’s two liquid operating cash pool accounts (Local Agency Investment Fund or LAIF and Fidelity accounts). Liquid cash are available on a daily basis but are invested by the two entities in a range of securities (e.g., treasuries, federal agencies, commercial paper, corporate bonds, time deposits, loans, and certificate of deposits/bank notes).
This reporting requirement is separate and distinct from the quarterly investment report submitted under California Government Code Section 53646 that includes portfolio composition, a detailed list of all securities, performance compared to the Policy, overall compliance with the Policy, and the City’s ability to meet expenditure requirements over the next six months.
Prepared by:
_______________________
Tarun Narayan
Mgr. Treasury, Debt &
Investments
________________
Date
Approved by:
_______________________
Christine Paras
Asst. Director ASD
_________________
Date
______________________
Lauren Lai
Chief Financial Officer
_________________
Date
1 https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/administrative‐services/investment‐policies/adopted‐investment‐policy‐1‐39‐asd.pdf Docusign Envelope ID: 4EE164D6-F6A3-4DB8-9FB3-24C0B14D3B0E 10/3/2024
10/4/2024
10/7/2024
Item 17
Attachment A - Monthly
Investment Activity
Report - September 2024
Item 17: Staff Report
Pg.
2 Packet Pg. 374 of 377
City of Palo Alto
Activity Report
City of Palo Alto
Administration Svcs. Dept.
250 Hamilton Ave., 4th Floor
Palo Alto, CA 94301
(650)329-2362
Sorted By Safekeeper
September 1, 2024 - September 30, 2024
Current
Rate
Transaction
Date Balance
Beginning
Balance
Ending
Par Value
Percent
of Portfolio
Par Value
CUSIP Investment # Issuer
Purchases or
Deposits
Redemptions or
Withdrawals
Safekeeper: Union Bank of California
Negotiable Certificates of Deposits
First Farmers Bank & Trust2076 NCD 0.001.750 09/04/2024 245,000.00320165JK0 Capital One Bank USA NA2089 NCD 0.001.900 09/05/2024 245,000.0014042TCP0 Sallie Mae Bank2102 NCD 0.001.900 09/18/2024 245,000.007954504D4 Flagstar Bank FSB2414 NCD 0.000.400 09/30/2024 249,000.0033847E4E4 984,000.0012,870,000.00 11,886,000.00Subtotal and Balance 0.00 Corporate Medium Term Bonds
15,500,000.00 15,500,000.00Subtotal and Balance
Federal Agency Bonds
Tennessee Valley Authority1519 0.002.875 09/16/2024 750,000.00880591ER9 750,000.00155,908,000.00 155,158,000.00Subtotal and Balance 0.00 Treasury Securities (Notes)
3,000,000.00 3,000,000.00Subtotal and Balance
Municipal Bonds
San Mateo Cnty Comm. College D2521 MUN 0.000.500 09/02/2024 2,000,000.00799038NP5 Rancho Santiago Comm College D2522 MUN 0.000.634 09/02/2024 450,000.00752147HH4 San Mateo Cnty Comm. College D2523 MUN 0.000.500 09/02/2024 1,500,000.00799038NP5 3,950,000.00107,562,833.13 103,612,833.13Subtotal and Balance 0.00 Supranationals (World Bank) Bonds
26,500,000.00 26,500,000.00Subtotal and Balance
0.00 5,684,000.00321,340,833.13 315,656,833.1353.040%Safekeeper Subtotal Safekeeper: U.S. Bank
Negotiable Certificates of Deposits
First Technology Federal Credi2845 NCD 0.005.350 09/24/2024 249,000.0033715LET3 Customers Bank2848 NCD 0.005.300 09/23/2024 249,000.0023204HNL8 Comerica Bank Texas2856 NCD 0.005.250 09/30/2024 249,000.00200339FB0 Portfolio CPA
AP
Run Date: 10/02/2024 - 23:37 DA (PRF_DA) 7.3.11
Report Ver. 7.3.11
Attachment A
Docusign Envelope ID: 4EE164D6-F6A3-4DB8-9FB3-24C0B14D3B0E Item 17
Attachment A - Monthly Investment
Activity Report - September 2024
Item 17: Staff Report
Pg.
3 Packet Pg. 375 of 377
Current
Rate
Transaction
Date Balance
Beginning
Balance
Ending
Par Value
Percent
of Portfolio
Par Value
September 1, 2024 - September 30, 2024
Activity Report
City of Palo Alto
CUSIP Investment # Issuer
Purchases or
Deposits
Redemptions or
Withdrawals
Safekeeper: U.S. Bank
Negotiable Certificates of Deposits
Elements Financial FCU2915 NCD 0.005.350 09/20/2024 249,000.0028619WAH6 Y-12 Federal Credit Union Bank2929 NCD 0.005.250 09/29/2024 249,000.0098426AAC1 BankFirst Norfolk3028 NCD 249,000.003.600 09/30/2024 0.0006644QAF8 Exchange State Bank3029 NCD 249,000.004.600 09/19/2024 0.00301485AN8 Webster Five Cents Savings3030 NCD 250,000.004.550 09/19/2024 0.0094789PCJ1 Peoples Bank - Pratt KS3031 NCD 249,000.004.550 09/23/2024 0.00710649AD6 Community Choice Credit Union3032 NCD 249,000.004.000 09/30/2024 0.0020368QAD8 Cornerstone Community FCU3033 NCD 249,000.004.250 09/30/2024 0.0021923MAA9 1,245,000.0030,129,000.00 30,379,000.00Subtotal and Balance 1,495,000.00 Corporate Medium Term Bonds
Apple, Inc.3027 MTN 1,000,000.002.200 09/19/2024 0.00037833DP2
0.0012,530,000.00 13,530,000.00Subtotal and Balance 1,000,000.00 Federal Agency Bonds
Federal Farm Credit Bank .2789 Call 0.005.900 09/12/2024 1,500,000.003133EN5S5 Federal Farm Credit Bank .2865 Call 0.005.840 09/12/2024 1,000,000.003133EPFB6 Federal Farm Credit Bank .2880 Call 0.005.840 09/12/2024 1,000,000.003133EPFB6 Federal Farm Credit Bank .2935 Call 0.005.850 09/27/2024 1,000,000.003133EPX75 Federal Home Loan Bank2963 Call 0.006.000 09/14/2024 1,500,000.003130AYV45 Federal Home Loan Bank3017 Call 0.006.000 09/13/2024 1,500,000.003130B0DM8 Federal Home Loan Bank3025 Call 1,000,000.005.250 09/25/2024 0.003130B2RP2 7,500,000.0030,172,336.52 23,672,336.52Subtotal and Balance 1,000,000.00 Treasury Securities (Notes)
U.S. Treasury2701 TB 0.004.250 09/30/2024 1,000,000.0091282CFN6 1,000,000.002,500,000.00 1,500,000.00Subtotal and Balance 0.00 Municipal Bonds
San Francisco Cmnty Facs Dist2571 MUN 0.003.108 09/02/2024 300,000.0079772ECF4 City of Los Angeles2800 MUN 0.002.840 09/02/2024 310,000.00544351KT5 610,000.00132,905,908.30 132,295,908.30Subtotal and Balance 0.00 Supranationals (World Bank) Bonds
Intl Bk Recon & Development2735 IBRD 0.004.500 09/30/2024 2,000,000.0045906M3K5 Intl Bk Recon & Development2744 IBRD 0.004.500 09/30/2024 1,500,000.0045906M3K5 Inter-American Dev. Bank3026 IADB 1,000,000.003.900 09/19/2024 0.0045818WFV3 Portfolio CPA
AP
Run Date: 10/02/2024 - 23:37 DA (PRF_DA) 7.3.11
Report Ver. 7.3.11
Docusign Envelope ID: 4EE164D6-F6A3-4DB8-9FB3-24C0B14D3B0E Item 17
Attachment A - Monthly Investment
Activity Report - September 2024
Item 17: Staff Report
Pg.
4 Packet Pg. 376 of 377
Current
Rate
Transaction
Date Balance
Beginning
Balance
Ending
Par Value
Percent
of Portfolio
Par Value
September 1, 2024 - September 30, 2024
Activity Report
City of Palo Alto
CUSIP Investment # Issuer
Purchases or
Deposits
Redemptions or
Withdrawals
Safekeeper: U.S. Bank
Supranationals (World Bank) Bonds
Intl Bk Recon & Development3034 IBRD 1,000,000.004.625 09/24/2024 0.00459058KW2 3,500,000.0023,500,000.00 22,000,000.00Subtotal and Balance 2,000,000.00 5,495,000.00 13,855,000.00231,737,244.82 223,377,244.8237.534%Safekeeper Subtotal Safekeeper: Not applicable - Cash/Managed Pool Accounts LAIF & Fidelity Cash Accounts
Fidelity Investments158 46,084.564.810 0.00SYS158
Local Agency Investment Fund159 33,900,000.004.570 5,900,000.00SYS159 5,900,000.0028,046,378.79 56,092,463.35Subtotal and Balance 33,946,084.56 33,946,084.56 5,900,000.0028,046,378.79 56,092,463.359.425%Safekeeper Subtotal 581,124,456.74 595,126,541.30Total 25,439,000.0039,441,084.56100.000% Portfolio CPA
AP
Run Date: 10/02/2024 - 23:37 DA (PRF_DA) 7.3.11
Report Ver. 7.3.11
Docusign Envelope ID: 4EE164D6-F6A3-4DB8-9FB3-24C0B14D3B0E Item 17
Attachment A - Monthly Investment
Activity Report - September 2024
Item 17: Staff Report
Pg.
5 Packet Pg. 377 of 377