Item 11 Public Comment — Palo Alto City Council, May 19, 2025

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 cautious of 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
[email protected]
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
Powered by Mimecast

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: [email protected] 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: [email protected]; [email protected]; Lu, George; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; 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 cautious of 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
Powered by Mimecast
From: Jennifer Landesmann
To: Council, City
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Reckdahl, Keith; [email protected]; Clerk, City; [email protected] 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 cautious of 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: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Lu, George; [email protected]; Reckdahl, Keith; [email protected]; 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: [email protected]
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 cautious of 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, 18 U.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: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; 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: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; 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 [email protected]. Learn why this is important
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: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; 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; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; 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.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
John Melnychuk
Palo Alto, CA 94306

From: J. Brugler
To: Council, City
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; 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: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Burt, Patrick; [email protected]; 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.

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
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 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 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 cautious of 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: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Lu, George; [email protected]; Reckdahl, Keith; [email protected]; Clerk, City; [email protected] 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 cautious of 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:

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
Powered by Mimecast
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: [email protected]; Reckdahl, Keith; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; 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 cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
i

Dear Mayor Lauing, Vice Mayor Veenker and Councilmembers Burt, Lu, Lythcott- Haims, Reckdahl, and Stone,

Please:

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 This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.

This is their first email to your company.

Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
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: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Lu, George; [email protected]; Reckdahl, Keith; [email protected]; Clerk, City; [email protected] 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 cautious of 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 [email protected]

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
Powered by Mimecast
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
[email protected]
Author of The House at 844 1/2 http://goo.gl/BauAk
From: Melinda McGee
To: Council, City
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Lu, George; [email protected]; Reckdahl, Keith; [email protected]; Clerk, City; [email protected] 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 cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Mayor Lauing, Vice Mayor Veenker and Councilmembers Burt, Lu, Lythcott- Haims, Reckdahl, and Stone,

An update is more than overdue.

Please:

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
Powered by Mimecast
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: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Reckdahl, Keith; [email protected]; 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 cautious of 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.

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.

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
Powered by Mimecast
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: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Reckdahl, Keith; [email protected]; Clerk, City; [email protected] 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 cautious of 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”.

Please:

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 This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.

This is their first mail to some recipients.

Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
from residents’ homes?

Thank you for your consideration.

Christopher Jette
From: Willy Lai
To: Council, City
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Reckdahl, Keith; [email protected]; Clerk, City; [email protected] 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 cautious of 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”.

Please:

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
Powered by Mimecast
Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Willy Lai
From: Angelica Heidi Brehm
To: Council, City
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Reckdahl, Keith; [email protected]; Clerk, City; [email protected] 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 cautious of 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”.

An update is more than overdue.

Please:

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
Powered by Mimecast
Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Angelica Heidi Brehm
255 Wilton Ave.

Palo Alto, CA 94306
From: Christine Selberg
To: Council, City
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Reckdahl, Keith; [email protected]; Clerk, City; [email protected] 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 cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
i

CC; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; georgeglugmail.com; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];

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.

An update is more than overdue.

Please:

This is their first email to your company.

Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
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.

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 cautious of 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: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Reckdahl, Keith; [email protected]; Clerk, City; [email protected] 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 cautious of 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
Powered by Mimecast
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; [email protected]
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; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Reckdahl, Keith; [email protected]; 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 cautious of 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”.

Please:

All of these changes are spelled out in the Resolution that is part of the Kou/Lauing Colleagues Memo.

Sincerely,
Shannon Rose McEntee
410 Sheridan Avenue
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.

Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast

From: Amrutha Kattamuri
To: Council, City
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Reckdahl, Keith; [email protected]; Clerk, City; [email protected] 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 cautious of 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”.

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
Powered by Mimecast
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; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Reckdahl, Keith; [email protected]; Clerk, City; [email protected]
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 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”.

Please:

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
Powered by Mimecast
From: Melissa Smith
To: Council, City
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Reckdahl, Keith; [email protected]; 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 cautious of 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”.

Please:

This is their first email to your company.

Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Melissa Smith
From: NTB
To: Council, City
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Reckdahl, Keith; [email protected]; 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 cautious of 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
Powered by Mimecast
From: kip husty
To: Council, City
Cc: Ed Lauing; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Reckdahl, Keith; [email protected]; Clerk, City; [email protected] 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 cautious of 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 cautious of 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

Palo Alto City CouncilMay 19, 2025

Palo Alto City Council
May 19, 2025