MAY 19, 2025 www.paloalto.gov
WIRELESS
COMMUNICATIONS
FACILITIES
1 1
• October 21, 2024: Council adopted
direction via Colleague's Memo
• Objective: Repeal objective-only design
standards for wireless facilities in the
public right-of-way
• Replace with discretionary review:
Require Architectural Review Board
(ARB) review and architectural findings
for Tier 2 & Tier 3 WCFs
Background & Council Direction
2 2
• December 16, 2024: Draft ordinance published on consent calendar • Pulled by three Councilmembers (Tanaka, Lythcott-Haims, Veenker) • Public comment/letters from Verizon Wireless and AT&T • May 19, 2025: Item returns as an action item for first reading and consideration
PROCEDURAL TIMELINE
3 3
Carrier Letters (Dec 2024): Urged continued use of objective standards • Concerns
• Risk of violating FCC “shot clock” deadlines (60-150 days) • Lack of published, measurable criteria could lead to inconsistent decisions • Subjective process may increase litigation risk
INDUSTRY COMMENT & CONCERNS
4 4
• Staff reviews Tier 2 and Tier 3 permits using objective standards • No ARB unless referred by Director or Council review unless appealed • Faster processing, consistent use of objective standards • Aligns with FCC guidance pre-Portland decision requiring objective standards • Post-Portland use of objective standards is still allowed
CURRENT PERMIT PROCESS (STATUS QUO)
5 5
• Repeals all objective standards for WCFs in public right-of-way • Requires ARB review for Tier 2 & Tier 3 installations in the ROW • Applicants must satisfy architectural review findings (PAMC §18.76.020(d))
PROPOSED ORDINANCE – KEY CHANGES
6 6
STAFF CONCERNS WITH PROPOSED ORDINANCE
• Legal Risk: Difficult to conduct ARB review and potential appeals within federal/state “shot clock” timeframe; applications potentially "deemed approved" • Loss of Clarity: Without objective standards, applicants face uncertainty and inconsistent design expectations
• Increased Workload: More time and coordination required across departments (Planning, Public Works, Utilities, Urban Forestry, City Attorney) • ARB Capacity: Added hearings may delay review of other priority projects • Training Needs: ARB will require education on legal and technical aspects of limited local aesthetic-based wireless regulation
7 7
PUBLIC COMMENTS SUMMARY
• Strong support for ordinance changes proposed in the Kou/Lauing Colleagues Memo
• Common themes across public comments:
• Restore ARB review and public hearings for wireless applications • Oppose siting cell towers20 feet from homes
• Prioritize locations away from homes, schools, and hospitals • Require independent, non-industry expert review of technical claims
• Emphasize the need to move beyond outdated 2018 FCC standards • Concerns raised about radiation exposure risks and worker safety near antennas
• Some commenters requesting additional cell coverage in Palo Alto 8 8
IMPLEMENTATION & NEXT STEPS
• Ordinance becomes effective 31 days after adoption
• Applies only to public right-of-way installations, Tier 2 and 3 • Two-year term: Temporary ordinance expires unless
extended or replaced
• Staff to prepare permanent update for Planning &
Transportation Commission review
9 JONATHAN LAIT
Director
[email protected]
650-329-2679