Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2017-12-07 Architectural Review Board Agenda Packet
_______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to two minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Architectural Review Board Regular Meeting Agenda: December 7, 2017 Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 8:30 AM Call to Order / Roll Call Oral Communications The public may speak to any item not on the agenda. Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,2 Agenda Changes, Additions, and Deletions The Chair or Board majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management. City Official Reports 1. Transmittal of the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, and Administrative Staff-Level Architectural Review Approvals Action Items Public Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Ten (10) minutes, plus ten (10) minutes rebuttal. All others: Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,3 2. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 250 Hamilton Avenue [17PLN-00169]: Consideration of a Tier 3 Wireless Communication Facility Permit Application for the Deployment of Small Cell Wireless Communication Equipment on Utility Poles in the Public Right of Way. This Application Proposes 15 Small Cell Node Locations Within the Mid-Town, Palo Verde, St. Claire Gardens, and South of Mid-Town Neighborhoods. The Approximate Location of Each of the Nodes is Available Online at: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/62257. Environmental Assessment: Pending. Zoning District: Various. For More Information Contact Project Planner Rebecca Atkinson at rebecca.atkinson@cityofpaloalto.org. 3. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 180 Hamilton Avenue (17PLN-00171): Consideration of a Minor Architectural Review to Allow for Exterior Improvements to an Existing Hotel. The Proposed Changes Include: Replacing the Ground Floor Store Fronts Along the Hamilton Avenue and Emerson Street Entries, Replacing the Existing Awning at the Emerson Street Entry, New Façade, Finishes on the First Floor and Part of the Second Floor, and Sidewalk Improvements. Environmental Assessment: _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to two minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Guideline Section 15301 (Existing Facilities). Zoning District: CD-C(GF)(P) (Downtown Commercial). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Samuel Gutierrez at samuel.gutierrez@cityofpaloalto.org. 4. Discussion Regarding the Annual ARB Report to Council 5. Election of Chair and Vice-Chair for the Architectural Review Board Study Session Public Comment is Permitted. Five (5) minutes per speaker.1,3 Approval of Minutes Public Comment is Permitted. Five (5) minutes per speaker.1,3 6. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for November 2, 2017. Subcommittee Items 7. 300 Homer Avenue [15PLN-00290]: Subcommittee Review of a Previously Approved Project That was Conditioned to Return With Project Changes Related to Courtyard Pavement Details, Risers to the Courtyard, Railing Details at the Front Entrance, Trellis Details, Comprehensive Landscape Plan, and Lighting Plan With Photometric Data. Environmental Assessment: Exempt From the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in Accordance With Guideline Section 15301 (Existing Facilities). Zoning District: PF (Public Facilities). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Adam Petersen at apetersen@m-group.us Board Member Questions, Comments or Announcements Adjournment _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to two minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Palo Alto Architectural Review Board Boardmember Biographies, Present and Archived Agendas and Reports are available online: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/boards/architectural/default.asp. The ARB Boardmembers are: Chair Alex Lew Vice Chair Kyu Kim Boardmember Peter Baltay Boardmember Wynne Furth Boardmember Robert Gooyer Get Informed and Be Engaged! View online: http://midpenmedia.org/category/government/city-of-palo-alto or on Channel 26. Show up and speak. Public comment is encouraged. Please complete a speaker request card located on the table at the entrance to the Council Chambers and deliver it to the Board Secretary prior to discussion of the item. Write to us. Email the ARB at: arb@cityofpaloalto.org. Letters can be delivered to the Planning & Community Environment Department, 5th floor, City Hall, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301. Comments received by Noon two Wednesdays preceding the meeting date will be included in the agenda packet. Comments received afterward through 3:00 PM the day before the meeting will be presented to the Board at the dais. Material related to an item on this agenda submitted to the ARB after distribution of the agenda packet is available for public inspection at the address above. Americans with Disability Act (ADA) It is the policy of the City of Palo Alto to offer its public programs, services and meetings in a manner that is readily accessible to all. Persons with disabilities who require materials in an appropriate alternative format or who require auxiliary aids to access City meetings, programs, or services may contact the City’s ADA Coordinator at (650) 329-2550 (voice) or by emailing ada@cityofpaloalto.org. Requests for assistance or accommodations must be submitted at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting, program, or service. Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 8691) Report Type: City Official Reports Meeting Date: 12/7/2017 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: City Official Report Title: Transmittal of the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, and Administrative Staff-Level Architectural Review Approvals From: Hillary Gitelman Recommendation Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) review and comment as appropriate. Background The attached documents are provided for informational purposes. The Board may review and comment as it deems appropriate. If individual Boardmembers anticipate being absent from a future meeting, it is requested that be brought to staff’s attention when considering this item. The first attachment provides a meeting and attendance schedule for the current calendar year. Also included are the subcommittee assignments, which rotate throughout the year. The second attachment transmits administrative staff-level Architectural Review approvals since the Board’s last meeting. Any party, including the applicant, may request a hearing by the ARB on the proposed director's decision by filing a written request with the planning division. There shall be no fee required for requesting such a hearing. However, pursuant to 18.77.070(b)(5) any project relating to the installation of cabinets containing communications service equipment or facilities, pursuant to any service subject to Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 2.11, Chapter 12.04, Chapter 12.08, Chapter 12.09, Chapter 12.10, or Chapter 12.13 is not eligible for a request for hearing by any party, including the applicant. No action is required by the ARB for this item. Attachments: 1 Packet Pg. 4 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 Attachment A: Staff Approvals (DOCX) Attachment B: ARB Meeting Schedule Assignments (DOCX) Attachment C: Tentative Agenda (DOCX) 1 Packet Pg. 5 Architectural Review Board Staff Approvals Project Description: ARB staff level review to allow for the installation of one new illuminated wall sign. Applicant: David Ford Address: 219 University Avenue, 17PLN-00401 Approval Date: November 29, 2017 Request for hearing deadline: December 13, 2017 Project Description: ARB staff level review to allow for the installation of two new non- illuminated wall signs. Applicant: Pam Brandin Address: 2500 El Camino Real, 17PLN-00378 Approval Date: November 29, 2017 Request for hearing deadline: December 13, 2017 1.a Packet Pg. 6 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t A : S t a f f A p p r o v a l s ( 8 6 9 1 : C i t y O f f i c i a l R e p o r t ) 2017 Schedule Architectural Review Board Meeting Schedule & Assignments Meeting Dates Time Location Status Planned Absences 1/5/2017 8:30 AM Council Chambers Canceled 1/19/2017 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 2/2/2017 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 2/16/2017 /17 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular Peter Baltay 3/2/2017 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 3/16/2017 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 4/6/2017 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 4/20/2017 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 5/4/2017 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 5/18/2017 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular Baltay/Kim 6/1/2017 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 6/15/2017 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular Robert Gooyer 7/6/2017 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular Peter Baltay 7/20/2017 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 8/3/2017 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular Wynne Furth 8/17/2017 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 9/7/2017 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular Robert Gooyer 9/21/2017 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular Wynne Furth 10/5/2017 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 10/19/2017 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 11/2/2017 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 11/16/2017 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 12/7/2017 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 12/21/2017 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 2017 Subcommittee Assignments January February March April May June (Gooyer/ Baltay) (Gooyer/ Baltay) (Gooyer/ Baltay) (Baltay/ Kim) (Baltay/ Kim) (Baltay/ Kim) July August September October November December (Kim/ Furth) (Kim/ Furth) (Kim/ Furth) (Furth/ Lew) (Furth/ Lew) (Furth/ Lew) 1.b Packet Pg. 7 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : A R B M e e t i n g S c h e d u l e A s s i g n m e n t s ( 8 6 9 1 : C i t y O f f i c i a l R e p o r t ) Architectural Review Board 2017 Tentative Future Agenda The Following Items are Tentative and Subject to Change: Meeting Dates Topics December 21 2370 Watson Court- Master Sign Program 4256 El Camino Real- Prelim. 5 story hotel 380 Cambridge- 3 story commercial building 1.c Packet Pg. 8 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t C : T e n t a t i v e A g e n d a ( 8 6 9 1 : C i t y O f f i c i a l R e p o r t ) Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 8310) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 12/7/2017 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: Tier 3 WCF - Vinculums/Verizon - Cluster 1 (1st Formal) Title: PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 250 Hamilton Avenue [17PLN-00169]: Consideration of a Tier 3 Wireless Communication Facility Permit Application for the Deployment of Small Cell Wireless Communication Equipment on Utility Poles in the Public Right of Way. This Application Proposes 15 Small Cell Node Locations Within the Mid-Town, Palo Verde, St. Claire Gardens, and South of Mid-Town Neighborhoods. The Approximate Location of Each of the Nodes is Available Online at: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/62 257. Environmental Assessment: Pending. Zoning District: Various. For More Information Contact Project Planner Rebecca Atkinson at rebecca.atkinson@cityofpaloalto.org. From: Hillary Gitelman Recommendation It is recommended that the Architectural Review Board (ARB) take the following action(s): 1. Conduct a public hearing and provide comments to the applicant 2. Continue the public hearing to January 18, 2018 Report Summary This report provides background information to support the first formal ARB meeting on Verizon’s first “Cluster” of 15 wireless communication facilities (WCF), ‘small cell nodes’ to be installed on wood utility poles in Palo Alto (application file 17PLN-00169). The 15 nodes are located in Midtown, Palo Verde, St. Claire Gardens, and South of Midtown neighborhoods. Two additional Vinculums/Verizon applications are on file with the City and more Vinculums/Verizon clusters are anticipated to be filed in the coming months, which are shown on the image below. More WCF-related information and links to project status can be found here: 2 Packet Pg. 9 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/wireless_communication_facilities/default.asp. Interested parties may also sign up for updates at the aforementioned website. Background Project Information Owner: City of Palo Alto (Owner of Utility Poles in the Right-of-Way) Architect: Vinculums on behalf of GTE Mobilnet dba Verizon Wireless Representative: Mary Diesch (Vinculums) and Jennifer Haas (Verizon) Legal Counsel: Paul Albritton, Mackenzie & Albritton LLP Property Information Address: 15 Various Utility Poles in the Right-of-Way Neighborhood: Generally, Mid-Town, South of Mid-Town, St. Claire Gardens, and Palo Verde Neighborhoods Lot Dimensions & Area: Not Applicable Housing Inventory Site: Not Applicable Located w/in a Plume: Not Applicable Protected/Heritage Trees: Yes Historic Resource(s): No Existing Improvement(s): 15 Various Utility Poles in the Right-of-Way Existing Land Use(s): Residential Adjacent Land Uses & Zoning: Various, R-1 Single Family Residential District, Special Residential Building Site R-1 Subdistrict (7,000) and (8,000), RM-15 and RM-30 Medium Density Multiple-Family Residence District Location Map: File #17PLN-00169 – Also please see Attachment A. 2 Packet Pg. 10 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 Source: Vinculums/Verizon Project Plans, September 12, 2017 Please note that three nodes (Node 127, Node 139, and Node 146) were initially proposed for inclusion in Cluster 1. They were subsequently withdrawn by the applicant on September 12, 2017, but might be proposed in the future via a different application. Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans Zoning Designation: Public right of way within residential districts: R-1 Single Family Residential and R-1 Sub-districts (7,000) and (8,000), and RM-15 and RM-30 Medium Density Multiple Family Residence Districts Comp. Plan Designation: Various, Predominantly Single Family Residential Context-Based Design Criteria: Not Applicable Downtown Urban Design Guide: Not Applicable South of Forest Avenue Coordinated Area Plan: Not Applicable Baylands Master Plan: Not Applicable El Camino Real Design Guidelines (1976 / 2002): Not Applicable Proximity to Residential Uses or Districts (150'): Within residential districts Located w/in the Airport Influence Area: Not Applicable Prior City Reviews & Action City Council: June 27, 2016 Master License Agreement GTE Mobilnet dba Verizon Wireless (http://cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/52893) PTC: None HRB: None 2 Packet Pg. 11 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4 ARB: May 18, 2017: Preliminary Review (application 17PLN-00033) of conceptual siting criteria and project design. The agenda, staff report, and video of the ARB meeting can be found at the following weblinks: Agenda:http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/57843 Report: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/57840 Video: http://midpenmedia.org/architectural-review-board-62/ Administrative Review: The PCE Director approved AR application 17PLN-00063 to allow the installation of Pole #7423 (1350 Newell Road, near the Art Center). This non-live, one-year mock-up of a WCF node (Configuration 1) was installed before the May 18 ARB meeting initially with exposed pole-mounted equipment - “unshrouded” to allow public viewing of the equipment; later, the applicant installed custom shrouding to cover some wires and equipment, responding to preliminary ARB feedback. Project Description The proposed ‘Cluster 1’ is comprised of fifteen (15) WCF small cell nodes located, as shown in the map on the previous page, within the Mid-Town, South of Mid-Town, St. Claire Gardens, and Palo Verde neighborhoods.1 Each node would operate independently from one another and requires its own ‘Tier 3’ Wireless Communication Facility permit. The Tier 3 classification is defined under the City of Palo Alto’s Municipal Code (PAMC)2. The proposed node locations are grouped together into a cluster for processing to allow coordinated City review and transparency to members of the public about what is proposed in their neighborhoods. The applicant has provided a detailed project description (Attachment B). Shot Clock and Extension Process Tier 3 Wireless Communication Facility Permit applications have a unique application process involving a “shot clock” timeline, whereby a decision on each node must take place within 150 days, unless the applicant provides the City an extension to enable and adjustment or “tolling” of the decision deadline and appeal period to complete. For this cluster of nodes, the applicant has provided the City an extension through February 2018. Verizon Proposal/Future Applications In total, Vinculums/Verizon proposes to install ninety-three (93) nodes in various neighborhoods and commercial areas within the City. The additional node locations will be identified and clustered together into a series of applications; two of these applications have been formally submitted to date, and are anticipated to have ARB review in 2018. Cluster 1 List of WCF Node Locations 1 The address for this application 17PLN-00169 is listed in the City’s permit tracking system under 250 Hamilton Avenue because the utility poles that are proposed to host the small cell deployment nodes are identified by unique pole numbers and do not have specific property addresses. 2PAMC Section 18.42.110 is provided as Attachment C. 2 Packet Pg. 12 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5 The application includes a deployment of fifteen (15) small cell WCF node locations listed in Table 1. Table 1 shows that there are three different design configurations and Figure 1 shows simplified images of the design configurations for easy comparison. Table 1 shows the height of the existing utility poles and that their height would increase by approximately 11 to 13 feet. Figure 2 shows an example of the proposed height increase due to a combination of the new antenna and “bayonet.” Two existing wood utility poles are proposed for replacement. No additional street lighting is proposed. 2 Packet Pg. 13 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 6 Table 1: Fifteen (15) Small Cell Deployment Node Locations in Vinculums/Verizon Cluster 1 Node Address of Adjacent APN Pole Type Design Configuration Color - Pole Mounte d Equipme nt - Kelly Moore Publi c ROW Zonin g Class Source for Power & Fiber Height of Existing Height of Proposed (including Antenna) Pole Replace Required (YES/NO) SF PALO ALTO 129 2490 LOUIS RD Wood Utility Config 1 Railroad Ties R-1 Aerial Drop 43'-1" 55'-2" YES SF PALO ALTO 130 2802 LOUIS RD Wood Utility Config 3 Railroad Ties R-1 Aerial Drop 43'-0" 55'-1" NO SF PALO ALTO 131 891 ELBRIDGE WY Wood Utility Config 2 Railroad Ties R-1 Aerial Drop 43'-10" 55'-11" NO SF PALO ALTO 133 925 LOMA VERDE AVE Wood Utility Config 3 Railroad Ties R-1 Aerial Drop 44'-2" 56'-7" YES SF PALO ALTO 134 3409 KENNETH DR Wood Utility Config 3 Clay Bath R-1 (7000 ) Aerial Drop 39'-1" 51'-4" NO SF PALO ALTO 135 795 STONE LN Wood Utility Config 2 Railroad Ties R-1 (8000 ) Aerial Drop 42'-10" 54'-11" NO SF PALO ALTO 136 3191 MANCHESTER CT Wood Utility Config 3 Railroad Ties R-1 Aerial Drop 42'-9" 54'-10" NO SF PALO ALTO 137 3090 ROSS RD Wood Utility Config 3 Railroad Ties R-1 Aerial Drop 43'-8" 55'-9" NO SF PALO ALTO 138 836 COLORADO AVE Wood Utility Config 3 Log Cabin R-1 Aerial Drop 43'-2" 55'-3" NO SF PALO ALTO 140 450 LOMA VERDE AVE Wood Utility Config 3 Railroad Ties R-1 Aerial Drop 33'-6" 45'-7" NO SF PALO ALTO 141 2801 SOUTH CT Wood Utility Config 3 Log Cabin R-1 Aerial Drop 38'-9" 51'-10" NO SF PALO ALTO 143 419 EL VERANO AVE Wood Utility Config 1 Log Cabin R-1 Undergr ound Vault N36 38'-3" 50'-4" NO SF PALO ALTO 144 201 LOMA VERDE AVE Wood Utility Config 3 Log Cabin RM- 30 Aerial Drop 42'-10" 53'-11" NO SF PALO ALTO 145 737 LOMA VERDE AVE Wood Utility Config 3 Log Cabin RM- 15 Aerial Drop 43'-3" 55'-4" NO SF PALO ALTO 147 181 EL VERANO AVE Wood Utility Config 3 Clay Bath R-1 Aerial Drop 38'-10" 50'-11" NO 2 Packet Pg. 14 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 7 Configuration #1 Configuration #2 Configuration #3 Figure 1: Proposed Vinculums/Verizon Design Configurations 2 Packet Pg. 15 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 8 Figure 2: Example of Wood Utility Pole Height Increase with Vinculums/Verizon Project (Node 147) Formal Review Project Plans and Changes Post Preliminary Review The proposed node locations and design configurations themselves remain unchanged from those presented for preliminary architectural review May 18, 2017. The project changes following the preliminary review include proposed paint colors for the wood utility poles/equipment, tree screening of the pole-mounted equipment from some surrounding views, and some reduction in the number of sectors for antennas at some nodes. The project plans now also contain the information requested by City Departments for review. New information includes: pole structural calculations, existing and proposed tree plantings, tree protection measures, surveys in some cases, clarification of power and fiber connection points (aerial drop from pole for all but one node, which uses an underground vault for power and fiber instead of an aerial drop). 2 Packet Pg. 16 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 9 The project plans indicate node locations and provide information about three equipment configurations. Proposed configurations contain some or all of the following equipment: 1 antenna, 3 radios, 1-2 electrical disconnect boxes, Cabling, Conduit, Mounting assembly brackets, and Emergency battery backup cabinet unit(s) (for the following four nodes only: Node 129, Node 131, Node 135, and Node 143), Requested Entitlements, Findings and Purview The applicant requests the following discretionary approvals for each node location: A Tier 3 Wireless Communication Facility (Tier 3 WCF) Permit as outlined in Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Section 18.42.110(h). Each small cell node must comply with or meet: Development Standards, item (i) of PAMC Section 18.42.110 (Attachment C) Conditions of Approval in PAMC Section 18.42.110(j), Architectural Review findings in PAMC Section 18.76.020(d), Conditional Use Permit (CUP) findings in PAMC Section 18.76.010(c), and Additional requirements contained in the Master License Agreement and Undergrounding District requirements in PAMC Chapter 12.16. All findings must be made in the affirmative to approve each Tier 3 WCF permit. Failure to make any one finding requires project redesign or denial. Staff requests the ARB’s recommendations with respect to the Development Standards in PAMC Section 18.42.110(i) (Attachment C) and Architectural Review findings in PAMC Section 18.76.020(d) (Attachment D). 2 Packet Pg. 17 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 10 Analysis3, 4 No staff recommendation is proposed at this time. However, to facilitate timely processing of the application and to provide the public an opportunity to provide comments in a public meeting, staff has scheduled this meeting. The Architectural Review Board is encouraged to consider the public testimony, this initial project analysis, and offer comments to the applicant. Federal Preemption & Radio Frequency (RF) Emissions Under the Telecommunications Act of 1996, federal regulations preempt the state and local governments from regulating RF emissions generated by wireless communications facilities. The City’s authority in this area is limited to ensuring that a proposed installation complies with comprehensive emissions standards established by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). To this end, the city hired an Independent Consultant, Telecom Law Firm PC (“TLFPC”) to confirm the RF information submitted by the applicant. TLFPC evaluated the planned radio frequency emissions for each of the 15 proposed nodes based on: antenna specifications, sector directionality, frequency, bands, pole heights, distances to adjacent 1-story and 2-story residences and additional factors outlined in the TLFPC’s memos for each node. TLFPC also evaluated Verizon’s radio frequency safety engineering reports for each site produced by the applicant’s consultant, Hammett & Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers. The TLFPC memos outline the height and distance of the control zone around each antenna and each node was found to comply with the FCC standards (Attachment E). Any further project design changes would need to be reevaluated for compliance with FCC standards. Noise The ambient noise environment is noted in the City’s Comprehensive Plan, Comprehensive Plan EIR, and Municipal Code; it is referenced therein in goals, policies, requirements, and thresholds to address potential noise impacts from new development. Eleven (11) of the proposed nodes would not be a source of new ambient noise, since Configuration 3 does not include a fan 3 The information provided in this section is based on analysis prepared by the report author prior to the public hearing. The Architectural Review Board in its review of the administrative record and based on public testimony may reach a different conclusion from that presented in this report and may choose to make alternative findings. A change to the findings may result in a final action that is different from the staff recommended action in this report. 4 The Palo Alto Municipal Code is available online: http://www.amlegal.com/codes/client/palo-alto_ca 2 Packet Pg. 18 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 11 within a backup battery heat exchanger. However, the following four (4) proposed nodes listed in Table 2 may produce new ambient noise at unacceptable levels. Table 2: Vinculums/Verizon Cluster 1 Nodes with Noise Generating Equipment Node Adjacent Address Configuration CPAU Pole # SF PALO ALTO 129 2490 LOUIS ROAD Config 1 3121 SF PALO ALTO 131 891 ELBRIDGE WAY Config 2 3315 SF PALO ALTO 135 795 STONE LANE Config 2 3610 SF PALO ALTO 143 419 EL VERANO AVENUE Config 1 3867 These four nodes are under review with respect to the City’s Noise Ordinance and they might potentially conform to the Noise Ordinance for projects on public property; however, the Architectural Review Findings requires compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, which contains or relies upon additional noise policies and thresholds. In addition, the noise produced by these nodes may conflict with other Conditional Use Permit-related findings the Director must make. Any further project design changes would need to be reevaluated for consistency with the Noise Ordinance and with all noise-related Comprehensive Plan goals, policies, and thresholds. Development Standards and Architectural Review Findings The City’s consultant TLFPC reviewed the proposed nodes with respect to the Development Standards of PAMC Section 18.42.110 regarding utilization of the smallest footprint possible, minimization of overall, mass, and size of the cabinet and equipment enclosure, minimization of visibility, utilization of stealth or camouflage design, and architectural compatibility. The TLFPC technical memorandums for each node are included as Attachment E. TLFPC concurred with the Planning Department that the applicant could: Reduce the amount of pole mounted equipment by placing some in one or more small underground vaults at each node, unless site-specific conditions prevent it. Reduce the standoff distance between the mounting assembly bracket and the utility pole. Propose pole replacement to eliminate the need for the elongated bayonet. Propose a shroud around the elongated bayonet if a safety code compliant design can be developed. Propose a shroud for pole mounted equipment and wires to have a more streamlined cohesive look, but in a manner that does not increase the visual bulk of the site. Paint the mounting assembly bracket, cabling, conduits, disconnect, and equipment to match the pole. Staff asserts that incorporating the items above into site specific design affords substantial reduction in the visual prominence of the project for the community over the life of the project. Further consideration should also be made regarding any node proposed for intersections/corners, any node with equipment oriented toward the direct view from a bikeway, any node with above-grade ground mounted equipment cabinets to address 2 Packet Pg. 19 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 12 streetscape quality and reduce obstructions at the street level, any node adjacent to another wireless carrier, and any node with equipment immediately adjacent to a primary entrance walk to a residence. The September 12, 2017 project plans are included as Attachment F. TLFPC notes that the photo simulations provided by the applicant underrepresent the actual visual impact of the proposed site. For example, they do not depict the required RF signage and do not depict the cabling from the antenna canister to the equipment and between the equipment mounted on the assembly brackets. Further, in some instances, vehicles or other items in the simulations block depictions of equipment. TLFPC recommends that the applicant provide photo simulations from various angles depicting all the proposed installations from the top of the antenna and flush to grade. Regarding landscaping compliance and the further screening nodes from public view, the City’s Urban Forestry staff identified that it was possible plant ornamental trees in some locations on either or both sides of the wood utility poles. Such plantings could possibly help to interrupt direct views of pole mounted equipment, contribute to a more cohesive site specific design, and help maintain a residential neighborhood character. The applicant has coordinated with Urban Forestry staff to propose screen trees in the near vicinity of some nodes, as well as some larger street trees where spots are currently vacant. The applicant must submit site specific landscaping plans for plantings at the base of poles and around proposed ground mounted cabinets. Collocation Where it makes sense, the City encourages the collocation of wireless facilities to reduce visual clutter. None of the proposed small cell nodes is proposed as a collocation. The applicant previously indicated that the following factors contributed toward their proposed siting and single carrier: RF Design – Carries do not necessarily need small cells at the same pole locations because each carrier has its own coverage and capacity criteria. Interference – antenna, and frequencies used, of some carriers need significant separation to avoid interference and most poles in the right of way do not provide enough vertical space to provide this separation. Equipment – poles in the right of way are small and can support limited equipment. Placing additional equipment on the pole may exceed structural limits of the pole. Aesthetics – multiple carriers on a single pole would lead to more equipment and boxes on the pole and could potentially result in a less streamlined design. Maximum Buildout It is important to note that, once a wireless facility is placed on a given pole, the Federal Spectrum Act allows for a streamlined process should a second carrier apply to collocate. Consequently and in order to promote transparency in the analysis process, the applicant is required by PAMC Section 18.42.110 to provide a study of the maximum build out permissible 2 Packet Pg. 20 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 13 by the Act. The applicant submitted a statement on maximum buildout within their project description, which is still under analysis. Environmental Review The project is under review in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City. Public Notification, Outreach & Comments The Palo Alto Municipal Code requires notice of this public hearing be published in a local paper and mailed to owners and occupants of property within 600 feet of the subject property at least ten days in advance. Notice of a public hearing for this project was published in the Palo Alto Weekly on Friday, November 24, 2017, which is 12 days in advance of the ARB meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on November 20, 2017 which is 17 days in advance of the meeting. Public Comments Staff received a significant number of public comments and inquiries by telephone and email. Multiple members of the public have noted their preference to gather more information before commenting. Staff received comments of support and opposition. Supporters generally cited a desire for improved wireless coverage. Opposed persons generally cited concerns regarding aesthetics, noise, compatibility with nearby historic resources, consistency with the City’s undergrounding district policies, and radio frequency emissions/health and safety. Public correspondence received through noon on November 29, 2017 have been compiled and available online: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=4106. Additional correspondence received after this time will be provided at ARB member at the December 7, 2017 meeting. Alternative Actions and Appeals of PCE Decisions Instead of the recommended action, the Architectural Review Board may recommend: 1.Direct staff to return with the project with findings or conditions; 2.Continue the project to a date (un)certain prior to February 14, 2017; or 3.Recommend denial of the project based on findings suggested via an ARB motion. Report Author & Contact Information ARB5 Liaison & Contact Information Rebecca Atkinson, AICP, Planner Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager (650) 329-2596 (650) 329-2575 Rebecca.Atkinson@CityofPaloAlto.org Jodie.Gerhardt@CityofPaloAlto.org Attachments: Attachment A Project Location Map (PDF) Attachment B: Applicant Project Description (PDF) 5 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org 2 Packet Pg. 21 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 14 Attachment C: Municipal Code Section 18.42.110 Wireless Communication Facilities (DOC) Attachment D Municipal Code Section 18.76.020d Architectural Review Findings (DOCX) Attachment E: Telecom Law Firm PC Memorandums, dated November 29, 2017 (PDF) Attachment F: Project Plans September 12 2017 (DOCX) 2 Packet Pg. 22 Villa V era sta A venu eVilla Real El Camino Way Curtner Avenue Ventura Avenue Maclane E merson Street Ventura Ct Park Boulevard Magnolia Dr South El Camino Real Cypress Lane El Ca m in es Road Maclane Second Street Wilkie Way C a mino Ct West Meadow Drive Barclay Ct Victoria Place olina LaneTennessee Lane Pa rk Bo ulevard Wilkie Ct Davenport Way Alma Street Roosev n Ct East Charleston Road Lun dyLane Alma Street elt Ci rcl e Linde r o D r i v e Wright Place S t a rr King Ci r cl e asta DriveDiablo Court ScrippsA Nelson Drive Tioga Court Creekside Drive e Dixon Place ly Place Ely Place Ely Pla c e Adobe Place Nelson Cou rt Dun c an Place C arls o n C o urt Duncan Place Mumford Place E a st C h arle st o n R o a dEast Meadow Drive Emerson Street Court Bryant Street RooseveltCircle Ram o naStr eet CarlsonCirc l e R e dwood Circle South C h a rle s to n Ct N e ls o n Dr iv e El C a pita n Pla c e Loma Verde Avenue B ry so n A ve n u e Midtow n Cour t Cow per Street Gary Court Waverley Street South Cour t Bryant Street Ramon a Street Alma Street Coas tland Drive C olora d o A ve n u e Byron Street Middlefield Road Gaspar Court Moreno Avenue Coastland Drive El Carmelo Avenue Rosewo od D Campesino Avenue Dymond Ct Martinsen Ct Ramona Street Bryant Street Towle Way Tow le Plac e Wellsbury Ct Avalon Court Flowers Lane Mackall Way Lo m a V erd e A venu e Kipling Street Cowper Street South Court W averley Street El Verano Avenue W ellsbury Way La Middlefield Road St Claire Drive Alg e r Driv e Ashto n Ave nue St Michael Drive St Michael Drive M a uree n Ave nue C o w p er C o urt Rambow Drive E a st M e a d o w D riv e A shto n C ourt Murdoch DriveCowperStreet Murdoch Ct St Michael Court MayCourt Mayview Avenue Mi d dle fie ld R o a d E n sig n W a y G ail Gro v e A v e n u e T E a st M ea d o w D riv e Grove Avenue Christine Drive Co rina Wa y E a st M ea d o w D ri yn e Court alisman L o ma V erde A v e n ue Allen Court Ross Court Loma Verde Pl Ames Avenue Richardson Court Holly Oak Drive Ames Avenue C ork Oak Way Middlefield Road A m es Ct Ames Avenue Ross Road Rorke Way RorkeWay Stone LaneToyon Place Torreya Court Lupine Avenue T h orn w o od D rive Driftw o o d Drive Talisman Drive Arbutus AvenueRoss Road Louis Road Aspen W ay Evergreen Drive Janice W ay East Me adow Gre e r Road rive Ellsworth PlaceSan Carlos Court Wintergreen W ay S u tt e r Avenue Sutter Avenue Clara Drive Price Court Stern Avenue C olora d o A v e n u e Randers Ct Ross Road S yc a m ore Driv e Sevyson Ct Stelling Drive Ross Road David Avenue MurrayWay Stelling DriveStelling Ct ManchesterCourt Kenneth Drive T ho mas Dr ive G r ee r Road Stockton Place Vernon TerraceLouis Road Janice Way T h o m as D riv eKenneth D riv e L o m a V erde A v e nue Clif t on Court ElbridgeWay Clara Drive BautistaCourt Stockton Place Morris Drive M ad d ux Drive Piers Ct Louis Road M oraga Ct a Dr North Avenue Magnolia Drive Military Way Avenue Wilton Avenue Emerson Street Park Boulevard Orinda Street rt El Dorado Avenue Avenue Waverley Street Kipling Street arion Pl W e b ster Stre et Ross Road Warren Way Garland Drive Louis Road Marshall Drive Fi e ldinMoreno AvenueMarshall Drive Dennis Agnes Way g Drive C olor a d o A ve n u e S yc a m ore Drive Amarillo Avenue V an Auken Circl e B ru ce Driv e Colonial LaneMoreno Avenue Celia Drive W e st B a yshore R oad Sandra Place Clara Drive C olo ra d o A v e n u e Greer Road C olo ra d o A v e n u eSimkins C ourt Otterson Ct Higgins PlaceLawrence L a n e Maddux Drive Genevieve Ct r cle Mo ffett Circle Greer Road Ross Road Oregon Avenue Drive Marion Avenue Court Madeline Ct David Ct Jacob's Ct CalTrain RO W 66 ston Road B aysh ore Fre e w ay B aysh ore Fre e w ay W e st B aysh ore R oad E a st B a ys hore R oad E a st B a ys hore R oa d La Selva Drive G ro ve C t Clara Drive Colorado Pl Los Robles Avenue Vista Villa La Donna Ave K e n neth Driv e Middlefield Road Christine Drive B orond a La n e T a h oe L an e Lak e A v e nu e D on n er L an e Alm a n or L an e Fallen Leaf Street B erry e ssa Stre et Alma Street Alma Village Lane Alma Village Circle C a m i n C h a r l e s t o n n E xp r e M i d d l e f i e l d R o a d 1 0 1 W e st B R-2 RM-15 R-1 CS PF RM-30 RM-30 RM-15 N RM-15 RM-30 PC-2930 RM-30 RM-30 RM-30 RM-15 PF PF RM-30 R-2 RM-30 R M-15 RM-30(L) R-1 R-2 CN CN(GF/P) CN(L)(GF/P) CN RM-30 R-1 CN R M -15 RM-30(L) PC-5116 R-1 R-1 RM-30 R-1(S)PF R-1 R M-15 RM-30 PC-3517 PF CN R M- 15 R-1 R-1(S) R-1(S) PF RM-30 RM-15 RM-30 RM-15 PC-3405 RM-30 PC-4956 PF R-1(8000) R-1(7000) R-2 R-1(7000) R-1 R-1 PF R-2 PF PC-3693 PF R-1(7000)(S) R R M -3 0 RM-30 PC-2236 R-1(7000) PF R-1 R-1(8000) R-1(8000) ROL CN(GF/P) PC- 2197 R-2 R-1 R-2 RM-15 RM-15 PC-3183 R-2 PF PF R-1 PF PC-3726 R-2 R-1 PF ROLM CN (R) R-1 (7000)R-1 ( 7 000) ( S ) R-1 (7000) This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend 15 Proposed Cell Site Application (17PLN 000169 rev 09/12/17) Zone Districts abc Zone District Labels 0'700' Project Location Map 17PLN-00169Vinculums/Verizon Tier 3 WCF - Cluster 1 CITY O F PALO A L TO I N C O R P O R ATE D C ALIFOR N IA P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f A P RIL 16 1894 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors. ©1989 to 2016 City of Palo Alto RRivera, 2017-11-13 12:13:40Cell Application LocMap 17PLN 000169 (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Personal\RRivera.mdb) 2.a Packet Pg. 23 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t A P r o j e c t L o c a t i o n M a p ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 ( 1 s t F o r m a l ) ) Cluster 1 Project Description - Page 1 Verizon Wireless – Project Description Cluster 1 September 8, 2017 Verizon Wireless is seeking approval for the design of proposed small cell attachments to wood poles owned and operated by the City of Palo Alto Utilities (CPAU). A brief overview is provided of Verizon Wireless’ citywide efforts to provide more robust wireless service to the City of Palo Alto through the colocation of small cells on existing city-owned utility poles and streetlights located in the public Right- of-Way. Small cells are currently proposed in three (3) configurations that are dependent on whether emergency battery backup is needed at a location, as well as the design opportunities and constraints of specific pole locations. This application for Architectural Review encompasses the first “cluster” or grouping of small cells and contains fifteen (15) proposed nodes in the Mid-town, South of Mid-Town, St. Claire Gardens and Palo Verde neighborhoods. Verizon Wireless sent notices to owners and occupants within over six hundred feet (600') for a March 30, 2017 community meeting, held at the Palo Alto Art Center. Community feedback was obtained and incorporated into the project prior to application submittal. The proposed project meets the requirements of PAMC 18.42.110 regarding Wireless Communication Facilities and supports the goals of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, including Goal B-3 for Palo Alto to service as a Regional Shopping, Services and Employment Center. Reliable wireless service is a critical aspect of the city’s infrastructure and these state of the art installations will provide essential communication capability for the citizens of Palo Alto, as well as emergency services for years to come. Project Overview Verizon Wireless has entered a Master License Agreement (“MLA”) with the City of Palo Alto allowing the attachment of antennas and other equipment (“small cells”) on city owned poles in the public Right- of-Way. Based on the need to provide network coverage and capacity, Verizon Wireless Radio engineers identify locations throughout the city that require service. Ninety-three (93) such wireless communication facility (“WCF”) installations are currently planned to be co-located on wood utility poles and metal streetlights. Approximately seventy-nine (79) of these small cells are proposed to be co- located on existing wood utility poles; fourteen (14) small cells are proposed to be installed on existing city streetlights. As such, no streetlight attachments are part of this application. These proposed small cells will provide the City of Palo Alto much needed improvements in network capacity and coverage. The proposal for a small cell network in Palo Alto is consistent with the goals of the comprehensive plan to contribute to economic vitality in the area. The proposed antenna node will provide additional network capacity and enhanced wireless communications services, which will benefit the public health, safety, convenience and welfare. The proposed antenna and equipment will be attached to existing wood utility poles in the public Right-of-Way. The equipment will blend in with the existing utility services to provide essential public infrastructure to the City of Palo Alto. The proposed small cells are an extension of existing utility service and will not conflict with adjacent uses or impede the normal use and development of surrounding properties. The public will be served with enhanced wireless communications services and additional network capacity. 2.b Packet Pg. 24 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : A p p l i c a n t P r o j e c t D e s c r i p t i o n ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 ( 1 s t F o r m a l ) ) Cluster 1 Project Description - Page 2 Community Need for Small Cells The unprecedented current and future demand for wireless service requires the densification of existing cellular networks. As a result, wireless communication facilities are diminishing in height and being located closer to the user to meet both daily needs and provide essential coverage for emergency personnel. While terrain is relatively flat, the dense foliage of the tree canopy combined with difficulty in permitting macro wireless communication facilities presents unique challenges in the provision of wireless service to the City of Palo Alto. Verizon Wireless must increase both coverage and capacity throughout the city to meet current and future customer demand. Attachment A – Coverage Maps contains coverage maps that depict this need in the city. As the map demonstrates, there are significant gaps in the coverage area where Verizon Wireless has proposed the fifteen (15) Cluster 1 small cells. Small Cells are the least visually intrusive method to provide the City of Palo Alto the required capacity and coverage. The miniaturization of the equipment used for cellular communications allows for these small cells to be located on existing infrastructure, reducing the need for new WCF structures and minimizing visual impact to the surrounding community. Additionally, these small cells can be located in areas where traditional “macro” wireless communication facilities cannot be located, so that essential communication services can be provided to critical areas all while co-locating on existing infrastructure. Furthermore, the addition of these small cells will both meet the current coverage and capacity needs, as well as provide the road map to future technologies for the next generation of wireless capability to the community in Palo Alto. Pole Selection / Alternative Site Analysis Based on the need to provide network coverage and capacity, Verizon Wireless Radio Frequency engineers identify target locations or “nodes” throughout the city to improve and optimize network performance. Each proposed node is then visited by a team to identify existing city-owned structures available for attachment within the target engineering area. During this fielding walk, guidelines are applied by City of Palo Alto Utilities Engineering, as well as Verizon Wireless Engineering, Real Estate and Construction to determine the most suitable pole, subsequently identified as the “primary” location. Additional poles within the coverage area are designated as either viable alternatives or eliminated for the various reasons outlined in the Alternative Site Analysis for each node (Attachment D). The criteria used to select a pole in a given area have been compiled into the Small Cell Siting Guidelines (Attachment B). As mentioned above, the first step when a location is identified by Engineering, is to visit the area and assess suitable structures for attachment. In some cases, there may be an existing WCF located on a utility pole in the area. While it may appear to make sense to collocate on the same pole as an existing WCF, this is not feasible for many reasons. First, Right-of-Way poles are small and can only support limited equipment. Placing additional equipment on a pole will very likely exceed the structural limits of the pole. Additionally, per CPUC General Order 95, a small cell is required to be attached to the pole in a way that preserves climbing space, defined as a quadrant (90 degree section) on the pole, and collocation would not allow for clear climbing space. Additionally, interference can present a problem in locating different carriers’ equipment on the same structure. Some carrier antennas and frequencies used need significant separation to avoid interference and most RIGHT-OF-WAY poles don’t have enough space to allow for this separation. Additionally, we strive to provide the most seamless aesthetic design possible. Having multiple carriers on a pole means more antennas and more equipment boxes on the pole. For these reasons, Verizon Wireless has not proposed collocation on an existing WCF. 2.b Packet Pg. 25 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : A p p l i c a n t P r o j e c t D e s c r i p t i o n ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 ( 1 s t F o r m a l ) ) Cluster 1 Project Description - Page 3 Beyond the Engineering Criteria, pole selection is based on a thoughtful consideration of the surrounding environment in which the proposed small cell is located. Poles with existing favorable site features such as landscaping and tree foliage are prioritized to provide natural screening to reduce the visual impact of small cell attachments. Wherever possible, poles are selected to reduce the impact on views from streets as well as adjacent residences. Site selection was further constrained to avoid poles located in private residential easements (e.g. backyards) and close proximity to second story windows. Because small cells provide service over a small area, approximately six hundred (600) to twelve hundred (1200) feet, there is less flexibility in how far they can be moved from a defined engineering target. As a result, there are a limited number of existing structures, i.e. existing wood utility poles or streetlights that will meet the required engineering objective for any given small cell node. In Attachment D – Node Level Small Cell Project Descriptions, Verizon Wireless has demonstrated some of the opportunities and constraints that determine which pole has been selected for each proposed small cell node. For each node, a map of poles located near the engineering target has been provided, along with a detailed table outlining the reasons why the alternate poles were not feasible. As those alternative site analyses demonstrate, many seemingly suitable poles must be eliminated for engineering or other reasons. In fact, as these examples demonstrate, there is quite often only one suitable pole for a small cell within a designated coverage area. Siting Guidelines Our team has drafted a list of criteria and constraints used in selecting a pole, presented in Attachment B – Siting Guidelines. Small cells differ from traditional “macro” cells in that their miniature quality dictates that they cover only a very small area and therefore can only move a short distance (measured in feet) within an identified area of need. In selecting a specific pole to serve an area, Verizon Wireless performs a thorough analysis of the existing infrastructure utilizing the to determine the most appropriate location. The standards contained in the Small Cell Siting Guidelines working document have been developed by compiling the criteria and constraints of various regulating agencies. In siting small cells, Verizon Wireless is required to adhere to the standards of the California Public Utilities Commission (General Order 95 Requirements, Rule 94); the engineering and real estate requirements of property owner City of Palo Alto Utilities (CPAU); Development Standards for wireless communication facility (WCF) locations from PAMC §18.42.110(i); and the Architectural Review Findings of PAMC §18.76.020. Criteria have been further adjusted as city staff from Planning, Urban Forestry, CPAU, and the Art Department have all made time to attend site walks with Verizon Wireless real estate, engineering and construction teams in their fielding efforts. Additionally, previous small cell and DAS installations in the City of Palo Alto were analyzed to consider previous findings and recommendations by staff, the public and reviewing bodies. Small Cell Node Design Requirements Verizon Wireless has engineered these small cells utilizing the most streamlined equipment currently available to meet the capacity and coverage requirements. For each small cell, Verizon Wireless network engineering requires one (1) antenna, three (3) radios, one (1) small electrical disconnect box, in some cases a battery backup unit located either on the pole or on the ground adjacent to the pole, and associated conduit for RF and electrical cabling. Details of the three various configurations of the 2.b Packet Pg. 26 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : A p p l i c a n t P r o j e c t D e s c r i p t i o n ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 ( 1 s t F o r m a l ) ) Cluster 1 Project Description - Page 4 required equipment are depicted in Attachment C – Proposed Configurations. Further specifications of each piece of equipment are outlined on the detail pages (D-1 through D-3) of the site plans. Much of the design for the pole-mounted equipment has been dictated by regulatory agencies, such as the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). It would be impossible within the scope of this document to cover the breadth, but in its General Order 95, the CPUC outlines a set of standards for utility pole attachments meant to ensure safety for the public, workers and equipment. To maintain the required clearance from power distribution, the antenna is mounted “above conductor” on a GO95 approved seven-foot (7') pole-top bayonet mount. If the antenna were to be mounted below conductor, then a two-foot (2’) offset from the pole would be required. Arrangement of the radios and associated equipment along the length of the pole is also fairly constrained. All pole mounted equipment must be located a minimum seven-foot (7') clearance from the ground; in this case CPAU requires a minimum of eight (8) feet. The required minimum four-inch (4") horizontal offset from the pole is maintained using a sled-style mount. Radios and associated equipment are attached to this mount as flush as is physically possible, given existing pole conditions, and in no case, is the distance greater than twelve inches (12"). This equipment must also be arranged on the pole in a manner that will preserve clear climbing space (90 degree quadrant), ensuring that utility workers have safe and reliable access to poles. Required small cell equipment specifications further constrain the way equipment can be attached. For example, the coaxial cable used to connect radios to the antenna must maintain a minimum bend radius of six inches (6"); anything less would cause damage to the cable compromising the performance of equipment. To further its commitment to provide essential communications during a disaster resulting in loss of power, Verizon Wireless has proposed four (4) hours of battery backup on the most critical small cell nodes. Battery backup will provide essential network coverage for First Responders and users should power be lost. The City of Palo Alto Emergency Management Services uses the Verizon Wireless network for their cellular communication. Verizon Wireless Engineering has a strong preference to have emergency battery back up on all nodes in Cluster 1. However, Verizon Wireless recognizes the increased visual effect of additional batteries and to reduce that impact, has selected only the most essential locations. The batteries are contained in either one (1) ground mount battery cabinet or one (1) pole mount with an additional disconnect, and the additional associated cabling. The equipment essential to a small cell has been arranged into the three (3) proposed configurations, with selection dependent on the engineering requirements of the particular small cell, as well as the constraints of a particular pole location. CPAU requires above conductor mounting of antennas, so they are always mounted on the pole top, creating a more streamlined appearance than a side-mount in the middle of the pole. If space exists on the pole, then radios are arranged vertically and as close as possible to the pole to minimize their appearance. For each node, a shade of brown has been selected to blend with the color of the existing utility pole. Conduits for fiber and power will also be painted the same shade of brown to blend with the existing pole. If the location is suitable for a ground box, then that is the preferred method of providing critical battery backup where it is required by engineering (Configuration #1). The three (3) radios are then arranged vertically up the pole. If emergency battery backup is required, but the pole location is not suitable for a ground based cabinet, then the battery unit is placed on the pole. In this case, the three (3) radios must be arranged horizontally to make space for the pole mounted battery unit (Configuration #2). Each small cell is served by both fiber and electrical power; in most cases, this is accomplished via an aerial drop on the pole. Many of the design criteria for a small cell relate to safety and reducing visual blight. Because all pole mounted equipment must maintain a minimum mounting height of eight (8) feet, the public will not 2.b Packet Pg. 27 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : A p p l i c a n t P r o j e c t D e s c r i p t i o n ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 ( 1 s t F o r m a l ) ) Cluster 1 Project Description - Page 5 have access to the equipment, which will prevent vandalism and graffiti. In the case of ground mounted equipment cabinets, they are located a minimum of five (5) feet from the pole. Periodic maintenance (1- 2 times per year) is performed by Verizon Wireless technical staff. If maintenance is required, the Network Operations Center (NOC) contact information is located on the signage for each node. PAMC Section 18.42.110(d)(8) requires that “For Tier 3 WCF Permits, the plans shall include a scaled depiction of the maximum permitted increase in the physical dimensions of the proposed project that would be permitted by the Spectrum Act, using the proposed project as a baseline.” For reasons set for in Attachment J, this is not feasible. Verizon Wireless is proposing all of the required equipment for these small cells. No lighting or additional lighting is proposed for this project. This project originally conceived with emergency battery backup in all cases, so all nodes were proposed as Configuration #1, with a ground mounted cabinet. After extensive community outreach and conversations with staff, batteries have been removed from 90% of nodes (11 nodes selected for battery backup). This more streamlined small cell seems appropriate in many of the residential areas, but it is worth noting that during our community outreach, there were also many residents who expressed a desire to have battery backup, so the small cell would remain operational in the event of a catastrophic power outage. If the community does feel strongly about this, Verizon is amenable to adding cabinets where it makes sense. The assignment of configurations for each proposed small cell in Cluster 1 is provided in Attachment C – Cluster 1 Configurations; a map is provided in Attachment F –Map of Cluster 1 Configurations. As currently conceived, wood pole designs would require all pole mounted equipment to be painted brown to blend with the pole. In recognition that brown is not just brown, paint samples (Kelly Moore: Railroad Ties KMA67, Log Cabin KMA76 and Clay Bath KM4595) are included in Attachment G – Proposed Paint Samples. These are a digital approximation of the color and actual samples have been provided with our application. Configurations The three (3) unique equipment configurations are shown on page 2 of the Cluster 1 Plan Set, as well as in Attachement C – Proposed Configurations. For all configurations, climbing pegs are place only above eight and one-half feet (8.5') to prevent unauthorized access. Configuration #1: Emergency battery backup critical The proposed Configuration 1 is designed with one (1) antenna, three (3) radios, and one (1) disconnect arranged vertically on the pole and the emergency battery backup cabinet installed on the ground adjacent to the pole. This is the Verizon Wireless Engineering preferred design as it contains emergency battery backup to maintain coverage for all three (3) radios for a total of four (4) hours, in case of a disaster resulting in loss of power. It is assumed that both fiber and power will be provided via an aerial drop from above on the pole minimizing the ground disturbance to a small (approximately five (5) to ten (10) feet) trench for this scenario. 2.b Packet Pg. 28 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : A p p l i c a n t P r o j e c t D e s c r i p t i o n ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 ( 1 s t F o r m a l ) ) Cluster 1 Project Description - Page 6 For Configuration 1 only, the ground box is placed on a concrete pad, with a 54" tall cabinet, and is currently conceived to be painted to blend with the surrounding area. Paint samples (Kelly Moore: Lone Pine KM4798 and Acanthus Leaf KM4796) are included in Attachment G – Proposed Paint Samples. The ground box is always placed a minimum distance of five (5) feet from the utility pole to prevent climbing. In addition to paint Verizon Wireless has engineered some street furniture options to provide further stealthing in areas where deemed necessary. Available street furniture options include benches, a green relay mailbox or trash can. The emergency battery cabinet also creates a unique opportunity for public art projects such as art wraps. All options are outlined in Attachment H – Proposed Ground Cabinet Stealth Options. Two (2) nodes of Cluster 1 are designed with Configuration 1. For reference, these locations are shown in Attachment F –Map of Cluster 1 Configurations. Configuration #2: Emergency battery backup essential, but no space The proposed Configuration 2 is designed with one (1) antenna, three (3) radios, two (2) disconnects, and emergency battery cabinet, all located on the pole. Verizon Wireless selects this scenario for locations where battery is required, but there is insufficient space for a ground cabinet. The radios are arranged horizontally on the pole, to create space for the battery cabinet. The modification from a ground cabinet to a pole mounted design for the emergency does entail a significant concession in the capability. Configuration 2 will provide four (4) hours of battery backup for only one (1) radio on the small cell. In comparison, the ground mounted cabinet from Configurations 1 will provide a full four (4) hours of battery backup for all three (3) radios. As a result, when Configuration 2 is installed, in case of a disaster resulting in loss of power, there would be reduction in network capacity at this particular location. It is assumed that in most cases, both fiber and power will be provided via an aerial drop from above on the pole. Two (2) nodes of Cluster 1 are designed with Configuration 2. For reference these locations are shown in Attachment F –Map of Cluster 1 Configurations. Configuration #3: Emergency battery backup currently not proposed The proposed Configuration 3 is designed with one (1) antenna, three (3) radios, and one (1) disconnect installed. Battery backup is not proposed in this design. As previously mentioned, Verizon Wireless Engineering prefers emergency battery backup at all small cell locations. However, given the potential visual impact, Verizon has decided not to request the additional equipment required to provide backup battery service. While the pole mounted battery in Configuration 2 represents a significant concession in emergency battery capability, it is critical to emphasize that Configuration 3 provides absolutely no emergency battery backup and in case of a disaster resulting in loss of power, there would be a significant reduction in network capacity and coverage at this particular location. It is assumed that in most cases, both fiber and power will be provided via an aerial drop from above on the pole. Eleven (11) nodes of Cluster 1 are designed with Configuration 3. For reference, these locations are shown in in Attachment F –Map of Cluster 1 Configurations. 2.b Packet Pg. 29 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : A p p l i c a n t P r o j e c t D e s c r i p t i o n ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 ( 1 s t F o r m a l ) ) Cluster 1 Project Description - Page 7 Submission in Clusters Based on detailed discussions with the city, Verizon Wireless has agreed to submit the Conditional Use and Architectural Review (CUP/ARB) applications for consideration in separate “clusters”, easing the burden on staff with one staff report per cluster. The currently planned small cells have been divided based on geography. Cluster 1 consists of fifteen (15) proposed small cells located in the Mid-town, South of Mid-Town, St. Claire Gardens and Palo Verde neighborhoods. Even though these proposed small cells will be submitted in clusters and are linked to the greater Verizon Wireless network, it is important to note that each wireless communication facility (WCF) acts independently of any other small cell. The utility of each node is therefore not dependent on a neighboring node. Screening Shroud Verizon Wireless installed a temporary “shroud” at the model small cell (see below) to cover the cabling between the three (3) radios on the pole, as requested by the Architectural Review Board at the May 18, 2017 Preliminary Review hearing. If the proposed shroud is deemed appropriate, it can be proposed on all Configurations 1 and 3. Landscaping Verizon Wireless has worked closely with our project arborist, Urban Forestry and Planning to propose trees in the public Right-of-Way, where deemed appropriate that will help to screen the proposed equipment from various surrounding views. The proposed trees have been added to the Site Plan (page A-1 of each node) and a New Tree Table placed beside the Existing Tree Table for ease of reference. Careful consultation with Urban Forestry resulted in the species selection and size. Model Small Cell To make transparent for staff and the community how a small cell will look when constructed, Verizon Wireless has attached its equipment on a Configuration #1 on the CPAU wood utility pole adjacent to 1350 Newell Road, across from the Palo Alto Art Center. Both pole mounted equipment and the ground mounted emergency battery backup cabinet are proposed to be located here. The proposed location of the model small cell are shown in a photo in Attachment I – Model Small Cell. This is the best opportunity to see a live example of the proposed small cells. Update: On September 8, 2017 Verizon Wireless installed a temporary “shroud” at the model small cell to cover the cabling between the three (3) radios on the pole, as requested by the Architectural Review Board at the May 18, 2017 Preliminary Review hearing. If the proposed shroud is deemed appropriate, it can be proposed on all Configurations 1 and 3. 2.b Packet Pg. 30 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : A p p l i c a n t P r o j e c t D e s c r i p t i o n ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 ( 1 s t F o r m a l ) ) Cluster 1 Project Description - Page 8 Attachment A – Coverage Maps Coverage Map – Cluster 1: Labels The map below depicts the nodes from Cluster 1, the existing macros sites. For clarity, coverage is not depicted here, but on the next maps. See legend for details. Blue circles represent a proposed node that would transmit signal in all directions. “Pie-shaped” proposed sites represent small cell nodes with fewer than three (3) sectors, i.e. the antenna has a directional signal pattern that is not in all directions. Map of Labels: Streets, Node Numbers, Existing Macro Sites with Names 2.b Packet Pg. 31 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : A p p l i c a n t P r o j e c t D e s c r i p t i o n ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 ( 1 s t F o r m a l ) ) Cluster 1 Project Description - Page 9 Coverage Map – Cluster 1: Existing Coverage The map below depicts the nodes from Cluster 1 without the coverage that will be provided by them. Only existing coverage provided by “macro” sites is shown (small cells turned off). See legend for details. For clarity, site names and numbers are shown on the previous page. Blue circles represent a proposed node that would transmit signal in all directions. “Pie-shaped” proposed sites represent small cell nodes with fewer than three (3) sectors, i.e. the antenna has a directional signal pattern that is not in all directions. As demonstrated by the map, coverage is marginal or poor in many locations. Existing coverage area – proposed small cells in Cluster 1 turned OFF. 2.b Packet Pg. 32 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : A p p l i c a n t P r o j e c t D e s c r i p t i o n ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 ( 1 s t F o r m a l ) ) Cluster 1 Project Description - Page 10 Coverage Map – Cluster 1: Proposed Coverage The map below depicts the coverage from the proposed nodes in Cluster 1 (small cells turned on).. Existing coverage provided by “macro” sites is also shown. See legend for details. For clarity, site names and numbers are shown on the first map page. Blue circles represent a proposed node that would transmit signal in all directions. “Pie-shaped” proposed sites represent small cell nodes with fewer than three (3) sectors, i.e. the antenna has a directional signal pattern that is not in all directions. As demonstrated by the map, coverage is significantly improved in many locations with the addition of small cells. Proposed Coverage – small cells in Cluster 1 turned ON. 2.b Packet Pg. 33 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : A p p l i c a n t P r o j e c t D e s c r i p t i o n ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 ( 1 s t F o r m a l ) ) Cluster 1 Project Description - Page 11 Attachment B – Small Cell Siting Guidelines Drafted by Vinculums Services, on behalf of Verizon Wireless Vinculums Services has created this working document on behalf of Verizon Wireless, a compilation of criteria and constraints of various regulating agencies, regarding the selection of poles for small cells in Palo Alto. Verizon Wireless is required to adhere to the standards of the California Public Utilities Commission (General Order 95 Requirements); the engineering and real estate requirements of property owner City of Palo Alto Utilities (CPAU); and City of Palo Alto Development Standards for wireless communication facility (WCF) locations from PAMC §18.42.110(i); and the Architectural Review Findings of PAMC §18.76.020. Engineering Criteria Nature of Small Cells--small cells differ from traditional “macro” cells in that their miniature quality dictates that they can only move a very small distance (measured in feet) and still serve their intended purpose. Verizon Wireless engineering proposed locations are fielded using the criteria below to select a utility pole or streetlight from existing city infrastructure: City of Palo Alto Utility (Pole Owner) Pole Attachment Mandates All Attachments must meet California Public Utilities General Order 95 o Clear climbing space – minimum of 90-degree quadrant o Clearances between power conduction and/or other attachments o Required distances for separation between pole and equipment o Required distances for separation between equipment o Minimum height of attachment City of Palo Alto Utilities (CPAU) prioritizes the provision of service to its customers. The siting of attachments on poles is secondary and therefore: o No attachments allowed on poles with primary power risers o No attachments allowed on poles with transformers or other special equipment o Primary Line and Buck (primary power lines attaching to the pole at 90 degrees or in perpendicular fashion) situations have a modified climbing space requirement, requiring more pole real estate than otherwise required under CA Public Utility Code o Various other situations where the provision of electrical service would be compromised by attachment 2.b Packet Pg. 34 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : A p p l i c a n t P r o j e c t D e s c r i p t i o n ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 ( 1 s t F o r m a l ) ) Cluster 1 Project Description - Page 12 City of Palo Alto Utility Preferences (in order of importance) 1. Guy stubs - Poles that do not have any electrical or communications; they simply provide a structural tie point for a guy wire for a neighboring pole 2. Poles with overhead secondary power conductors only – Secondary power (typically) being the second from the top level of power on the pole and which provides residential power (120/240 Volts AC) 3. Primary dead-end poles – A pole at the end of a line of poles which no poles further down the line 4. Primary poles with no transformers downstream on the poles to end of line of poles 5. Primary poles with no electric utility equipment on the poles on either side of the proposed pole Development Criteria Development Standards from PAMC §18.42.110(i) Shall utilize the smallest footprint possible Shall be designed to minimize the overall height, mass, and size of the cabinet and enclosure structure Be screened from public view Be architecturally compatible with the existing site 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 An Antenna, Base Station, or Tower shall be designed to minimize its visibility from off-site locations and shall be of a "camouflaged" or "stealth" design, including concealment, screening, and other techniques to hide or blend the Antenna, Base Station, or Tower into the surrounding area Planning and Residential Considerations Poles preferred in the public Right-of-Way are selected. Poles on Public Utility Easements are not generally selected for attachment Prioritize poles which have tree foliage close to help camouflage the pole mounted equipment Prioritize poles that are located near evergreen trees, rather than deciduous trees Select a location for ground based emergency battery equipment that meets standards identified in Tree Technical Manual Face the pole mounted equipment away from direct views of the adjacent home, toward the street when no foliage is present to hide the equipment Consolidate equipment to reduce the visual clutter; move the ground mounted equipment onto the pole when there is not enough Right-of-Way or deemed too obtrusive to the residents In general, prefer locations mid-block instead of at more visible corners/intersections Determine the most advantageous location that is least disruptive to views from both pedestrian and the adjacent residences 2.b Packet Pg. 35 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : A p p l i c a n t P r o j e c t D e s c r i p t i o n ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 ( 1 s t F o r m a l ) ) Cluster 1 Project Description - Page 13 Attachment C – Proposed Configurations Below is a simplified elevation drawing of all proposed equipment Configurations 1, 2 and 3. See page 2 of the Cluster 1 plan set provided for examples of each proposed configuration for wood utility poles. Configuration #1 Configuration #2 Configuration #3 2.b Packet Pg. 36 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : A p p l i c a n t P r o j e c t D e s c r i p t i o n ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 ( 1 s t F o r m a l ) ) Cluster 1 Project Description - Page 14 Attachment D – Node Level Small Cell Project Descriptions Below is a detailed description of each of the selected nodes, including the Alternative Site Analysis about how we selected the pole, as well as the criteria and constraints surrounding the design configuration selected for that pole. SF PALO ALTO 129 This pole was selected because of the natural screening provided by the trees and fence. This node was selected by engineering for emergency battery backup and there is space in the planter strip for a ground box, so Configuration #1 with a ground mounted cabinet is proposed. The ground box is proposed to be painted Kelly Moore Lone Pine to blend in with the existing dark green landscaping in the planter strip. The pole mounted equipment will be painted Railroad Ties to blend with the dark brown color of the proposed new wood utility pole. This pole requires replacement and the structural calculations and plan sets depict that. Because CPAU requires that when we replace poles, we increase the height by a minimum of five (5) feet, the bayonet mount required to provide the separation on utility poles is unnecessary in this case. Per the analysis below, there is only one pole viable for attachment to provide service for this node. 2.b Packet Pg. 37 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : A p p l i c a n t P r o j e c t D e s c r i p t i o n ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 ( 1 s t F o r m a l ) ) Cluster 1 Project Description - Page 15 129 Alternative Site Analysis 2.b Packet Pg. 38 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : A p p l i c a n t P r o j e c t D e s c r i p t i o n ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 ( 1 s t F o r m a l ) ) Cluster 1 Project Description - Page 16 Alternative Candidate ID Structure Type Pole # Fallout Reason Fallout Note 129-A Metal Street Light 251 VZW RF Engineering Not selected as primary because an antenna location on streetlight is lower than on wood pole and does not provide the same level of service. Additionally, utility engineering constraints would not allow an attachment. CPUC GO95 rules require clearance from communication equipment. There is not enough clearance on this pole to allow a VZW attachment. 129-B Wood Utility Pole 3129 CPAU Engineering Utility engineering constraints would not allow an attachment. CPUC GO95 rules require clear climbing space. There is not enough climbing space on this pole to safely allow a VZW attachment. Additionally, the pole is located near a more visible corner along Louis Rd and therefore would is more visible than the primary pole. 129-C Wood Utility Pole 3207 CPAU Engineering Utility engineering constraints would not allow an attachment. High voltage lines located on pole. 129-D Wood Utility Pole 3120 CPAU Engineering Utility engineering constraints would not allow an attachment. Transformer located on pole - wireless equipment not permitted. Additionally, not selected as primary because high visibility corners are not preferred per the planning siting guidelines. 129-E Metal Street Light No Tag VZW RF Engineering Not selected as primary because 1) antenna location on streetlight is lower than on wood pole and does not provide the same level of service; 2) high visibility corners are not preferred per the planning siting guidelines. 129-F Wood Utility Pole 3208 CPAU Engineering Utility engineering constraints would not allow an attachment. High voltage lines located on pole. 129-G Metal Street Light Unknown VZW RF Engineering Not selected as primary because 1) antenna location on streetlight is lower than on wood pole and does not provide the same level of service. 2.b Packet Pg. 39 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : A p p l i c a n t P r o j e c t D e s c r i p t i o n ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 ( 1 s t F o r m a l ) ) Cluster 1 Project Description - Page 17 SF PALO ALTO 130 There was only one viable pole available in this area. This node was not selected for emergency battery backup and so Configuration #3 with only pole mounted equipment was selected. The pole mounted equipment will be painted Railroad Ties to blend with the darker brown color of the existing wood utility pole. 130 Alternative Site Analysis 2.b Packet Pg. 40 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : A p p l i c a n t P r o j e c t D e s c r i p t i o n ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 ( 1 s t F o r m a l ) ) Cluster 1 Project Description - Page 18 Alternative Candidate ID Structure Type Pole # Fallout Reason Fallout Note 130-A Wood Utility Pole 2462 CPAU Engineering Utility engineering constraints would not allow an attachment. Transformer located on pole - wireless equipment not permitted. Additionally, high visibility corners are not preferred per the planning siting guidelines. 130-B Metal Street Light 281 VZW RF Engineering Not selected as primary because 1) antenna location on streetlight is lower than on wood pole and does not provide the same level of service. 130-C Wood Utility Pole 2460 CPAU Engineering Utility engineering constraints would not allow an attachment. Line and buck situation on pole - wireless equipment not permitted. 130-D Wood Utility Pole 4016 Planning Poles located on private property (residential easement) are only selected as a last resort, given potential disturbance to adjacent resident. 130-E Wood Utility Pole 2430 CPAU Engineering Utility engineering constraints would not allow an attachment. High voltage lines located on pole. 130-F Wood Utility Pole 2463 CPAU Engineering Utility engineering constraints would not allow an attachment. Line and buck situation on pole - wireless equipment not permitted. 130-G Wood Utility Pole Unknown CPAU Engineering Utility engineering constraints would not allow an attachment. High voltage lines located on pole. 2.b Packet Pg. 41 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : A p p l i c a n t P r o j e c t D e s c r i p t i o n ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 ( 1 s t F o r m a l ) ) Cluster 1 Project Description - Page 19 SF PALO ALTO 131 Two poles were viable in this service area. While the primary pole is located on a corner and would not normally be preferred, the first alternate pole is in a highly visible location just within the landscape area, between two residences. This node was selected by engineering for emergency battery backup and given the visibility of the corner, Configuration #2 with a pole mounted battery was chosen. The pole mounted equipment will be painted Railroad Ties to blend with the wood pole. 131 Alternative Site Analysis 2.b Packet Pg. 42 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : A p p l i c a n t P r o j e c t D e s c r i p t i o n ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 ( 1 s t F o r m a l ) ) Cluster 1 Project Description - Page 20 Alternative Candidate ID Structure Type Pole # Fallout Reason Fallout Note 131-A Wood Utility Pole 3316 CPAU Engineering Utility engineering constraints would not allow an attachment. Primary power riser located on pole. 131-B Wood Utility Pole 3317 CPAU Engineering Utility engineering constraints would not allow an attachment. Primary power riser located on pole. 131-C Metal Street Light N/A VZW RF Engineering Not selected as primary because 1) antenna location on streetlight is lower than on wood pole and does not provide the same level of service; 2) high visibility corners are not preferred per the planning siting guidelines. 131-D Wood Utility Pole 3314 Viable Alternate Pole is viable alternate, but was not selected as primary. It is first alternate candidate. 131-E Metal Street Light No Tag VZW RF Engineering Viable location, but not selected as primary because an antenna location on streetlight is lower than on wood pole and does not provide the same level of service. 131-F Metal Street Light No Tag VZW RF Engineering Viable location, but not selected as primary because an antenna location on streetlight is lower than on wood pole and does not provide the same level of service. 131-G Wood Utility Pole Unknown CPAU Engineering Utility engineering constraints would not allow an attachment. Line and buck situation on pole - wireless equipment not permitted. 2.b Packet Pg. 43 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : A p p l i c a n t P r o j e c t D e s c r i p t i o n ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 ( 1 s t F o r m a l ) ) Cluster 1 Project Description - Page 21 SF PALO ALTO 133 Two poles were viable in this service area. Both poles have similar settings along Loma Verde Ave, located between two residences, rather than directly in front of one. The selected primary pole better meets the engineering objective and appeared to be less visible when traversing Loma Verde Ave. Additionally, the alternate pole has a cable TV box already mounted on it and attachment would likely block climbing space. This node was not selected for emergency battery backup and so Configuration #3 with only pole mounted equipment was selected. This pole requires replacement and the structural calculations and plan sets depict that. Because CPAU requires that when we replace poles, we increase the height by a minimum of five (5) feet, the bayonet mount required to provide the separation on utility poles is unnecessary. Because the pole will be replaced, the darker brown Railroad Ties will be used to paint the pole mounted equipment to blend with the new pole. 133 Alternative Site Analysis 2.b Packet Pg. 44 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : A p p l i c a n t P r o j e c t D e s c r i p t i o n ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 ( 1 s t F o r m a l ) ) Cluster 1 Project Description - Page 22 Alternative Candidate ID Structure Type Pole # Fallout Reason Fallout Note 133-A Wood Utility Pole 2858 CPAU Engineering Utility engineering constraints would not allow an attachment. Line and buck situation on pole - wireless equipment not permitted. 133-B Metal Street Light No Tag VZW RF Engineering Not selected as primary because an antenna location on streetlight is lower than on wood pole and does not provide the same level of service. Additionally, utility engineering constraints would not allow an attachment. CPUC GO95 rules require clearance from communication equipment. There is not enough clearance on this pole to allow a VZW attachment. 133-C Wood Utility Pole 3304 CPAU Engineering A power line crossover takes place at this corner and does not allow enough space for attachment. Additionally, high visibility corners are not preferred per the planning siting guidelines 133-D Wood Utility Pole 2859 CPAU Engineering A power line crossover takes place at this corner and does not allow enough space for attachment. Additionally, high visibility corners are not preferred per the planning siting guidelines 133-E Wood Utility Pole 2856 Viable Alternate Pole is viable alternate, but was not selected as primary as CATV is located along the side of the pole. It is first alternate candidate. 133-F Metal Street Light No Tag VZW RF Engineering Not selected as primary because an antenna location on streetlight is lower than on wood pole and does not provide the same level of service. 133-G Wood Utility Pole Unknown Planning Poles located on private property (residential easement) are only selected as a last resort, given potential disturbance to adjacent resident. 133-H Metal Street Light Unknown VZW RF Engineering Not selected as primary because an antenna location on streetlight is lower than on wood pole and does not provide the same level of service. 133-I Metal Street Light Unknown VZW RF Engineering Not selected as primary because an antenna location on streetlight is lower than on wood pole and does not provide the same level of service. 2.b Packet Pg. 45 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : A p p l i c a n t P r o j e c t D e s c r i p t i o n ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 ( 1 s t F o r m a l ) ) Cluster 1 Project Description - Page 23 SF PALO ALTO 134 Two poles were viable in this service area. Both poles have similar settings along Kenneth Dr. The selected primary pole better meets the engineering objective and is located between two residences, rather than directly in front of one. This node was not selected for emergency battery backup and so Configuration #3 with only pole mounted equipment was selected. This utility pole has faded and so Clay Bath has been selected to paint the equipment to blend with the existing pole. 134 Alternative Site Analysis 2.b Packet Pg. 46 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : A p p l i c a n t P r o j e c t D e s c r i p t i o n ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 ( 1 s t F o r m a l ) ) Cluster 1 Project Description - Page 24 Alternative Candidate ID Structure Type Pole # Fallout Reason Fallout Note 134-A Metal Street Light 345 VZW RF Engineering Not selected as primary because an antenna location on streetlight is lower than on wood pole and does not provide the same level of service. Additionally, utility engineering constraints would not allow an attachment. CPUC GO95 rules require clearance from seconary power. There is not enough clearance on this pole to allow a VZW attachment. 134-B Wood Utility Pole 2965 VZW RF Engineering Pole is too short and so could not meet engineering objective for this area. 134-C Wood Utility Pole 2963 CPAU Engineering Utility engineering constraints would not allow an attachment. Transformer on pole - wireless equipment not permitted. 134-D Wood Utility Pole 2962 Viable Alternate Pole is viable alternate, but was not selected as primary. It is first alternate candidate. 134-E Wood Utility Pole 2966 VZW RF Engineering Pole is leaning, too short and surrounded by tree clutter and therefore could not meet the engineering objective for this area. 134-F Metal Street Light 341 VZW RF Engineering Not selected as primary because an antenna location on streetlight is lower than on wood pole and does not provide the same level of service. 2.b Packet Pg. 47 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : A p p l i c a n t P r o j e c t D e s c r i p t i o n ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 ( 1 s t F o r m a l ) ) Cluster 1 Project Description - Page 25 SF PALO ALTO 135 One pole was viable to meet the target engineering objectives. Verizon Wireless requires emergency battery backup in this location. However, location of ground mounted equipment cabinet could interfere with the Santa Clara Valley Water District’s operation of the adjacent canal. Therefore, Verizon Wireless has proposed a pole mounted battery backup (Configuration #2) for this scenario. The pole mounted equipment will be painted Railroad Ties to blend with the existing dark brown color of the wood pole. 135 Alternative Site Analysis 2.b Packet Pg. 48 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : A p p l i c a n t P r o j e c t D e s c r i p t i o n ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 ( 1 s t F o r m a l ) ) Cluster 1 Project Description - Page 26 Alternative Candidate ID Structure Type Pole # Fallout Reason Fallout Note 135-A Wood Utility Pole 3611 VZW RF Engineering Pole location is viable, but does not provide enough height to meet required engeering objective. 135-B Wood Utility Pole 3371 CPAU Engineering Utility engineering constraints would not allow an attachment. Primary power riser located on pole. 135-C Metal Street Light 342 VZW RF Engineering Not selected as primary because an antenna location on streetlight is lower than on wood pole and does not provide the same level of service. 135-D Wood Utility Pole 3609 Planning High visibility corners are not preferred per the planning siting guidelines. 135-E Wood Utility Pole Unknown CPAU Engineering Utility engineering constraints would not allow an attachment. Transformer located on pole - wireless equipment not permitted. 135-F Metal Street Light No Tag VZW RF Engineering Not selected as primary because an antenna location on streetlight is lower than on wood pole and does not provide the same level of service. Additionally, utility engineering constraints would not allow an attachment. CPUC GO95 rules require clearance from seconary power. There is not enough clearance on this pole to allow a VZW attachment. 135-G Wood Utility Pole Unknown CPAU Engineering Utility engineering constraints would not allow an attachment. Transformer located on pole - wireless equipment not permitted. 135-H Metal Street Light Unknown VZW RF Engineering Not selected as primary because an antenna location on streetlight is lower than on wood pole and does not provide the same level of service. Additionally, GO95 requires distance form communication lines, therefore attachment is not feasible. 2.b Packet Pg. 49 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : A p p l i c a n t P r o j e c t D e s c r i p t i o n ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 ( 1 s t F o r m a l ) ) Cluster 1 Project Description - Page 27 SF PALO ALTO 136 Only one pole was viable in this area. This node was not selected for emergency battery backup and so Configuration #3 with only pole mounted equipment has been selected. The pole mounted equipment will be painted Railroad Ties to blend with the existing wood pole. 136 Alternative Site Analysis 2.b Packet Pg. 50 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : A p p l i c a n t P r o j e c t D e s c r i p t i o n ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 ( 1 s t F o r m a l ) ) Cluster 1 Project Description - Page 28 Alternative Candidate ID Structure Type Pole # Fallout Reason Fallout Note 136-A Wood Utility Pole 3297 CPAU Engineering Utility engineering constraints would not allow an attachment. Transformer on pole - wireless equipment not permitted. Additionally, switch gear is located on pole and does not allow for an attachment. 136-B Metal Street Light No Tag VZW RF Engineering Not selected as primary because 1) antenna location on streetlight is lower than on wood pole; 2) high visibility corners are not preferred per the planning siting guidelines. 136-C Wood Utility Pole 3296 VZW RF Engineering Pole is viable for attachment, but is too close to node SF PALO ALTO 145 to meet the required engineering objective. 136-D Wood Utility Pole 3359 VZW RF Engineering Pole is viable for attachment, but is too close to node SF PALO ALTO 145 to meet the required engineering objective. The pole also has multiple risers and therefore lacks sufficient climbing space. 136-E Wood Utility Pole 3360 Planning Pole is located in right-of-way, but is located within the interior landscape strip of a resident's yard. Pole would not be preferred so as not to disturb resident. 136-F Metal Street Light 83 VZW RF Engineering Not selected as primary because an antenna location on streetlight is lower than on wood pole and does not provide the same level of service. 136-G Wood Utility Pole 3300 CPAU Engineering Utility engineering constraints would not allow an attachment. Transformer located on pole - wireless equipment not permitted. 136-H Wood Utility Pole Unknown CPAU Engineering Utility engineering constraints would not allow an attachment. Line and buck situation on pole - wireless equipment not permitted. 136-I Wood Utility Pole Unknown CPAU Engineering Utility engineering constraints would not allow an attachment. Transformer located on pole - wireless equipment not permitted. Additionally, pole is not located in right-of-way, but is located within the interior landscape strip of a resident's yard. Pole would not be preferred so as not to disturb resident. 2.b Packet Pg. 51 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : A p p l i c a n t P r o j e c t D e s c r i p t i o n ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 ( 1 s t F o r m a l ) ) Cluster 1 Project Description - Page 29 SF PALO ALTO 137 Two poles were viable to meet the engineering objective at this location. The 137-A candidate is viable and meets the engineering objectives, but is located on a highly visible corner and so was not selected as primary. 137-H is also a viable pole, but was deemed too far south to meet the required engineering objective. This node was not selected for emergency battery backup and so Configuration #3 with only pole mounted equipment was selected. Pole mounted equipment will be painted Log Cabin to blend with the reddish brown color of the existing wood utility pole. 137 Alternative Site Analysis 2.b Packet Pg. 52 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : A p p l i c a n t P r o j e c t D e s c r i p t i o n ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 ( 1 s t F o r m a l ) ) Cluster 1 Project Description - Page 30 Alternative Candidate ID Structure Type Pole # Fallout Reason Fallout Note 137-A Wood Utility Pole 3349 Planning Pole is viable from an engineering perspective, but high visibility corners are not preferred per the planning siting guidelines, so it is an alternate. 137-B Metal Street Light Unknown VZW RF Engineering Pole is too close to SF PALO ALTO 138 and SF PALO ALTO 139 to meet the required engineering objective. Additionally, utility engineering constraints would not allow an attachment. Line and buck situation on pole - wireless equipment not permitted. 137-C Metal Street Light Unknown VZW RF Engineering Not selected as primary because an antenna location on streetlight is lower than on wood pole and does not provide the same level of service. Additionally, the pole is surrounded by tree clutter and could not meet the engineering objective for this area. 137-D Wood Utility Pole Unknown Planning Poles located on private property (residential easement) are only selected as a last resort, given potential disturbance to adjacent resident. Could not get pole number as it is located in backyard. 137-E Wood Utility Pole 3352 VZW RF Engineering Pole is too short and so could not meet engineering objective for this area. 137-F Wood Utility Pole 3353 CPAU Engineering Utility engineering constraints would not allow an attachment. Transformer located on pole - wireless equipment not permitted. 137-G Metal Street Light No Tag VZW RF Engineering Not selected as primary because an antenna location on streetlight is lower than on wood pole and does not provide the same level of service. 137-H Wood Utility Pole 3554 Viable Alternate Pole is viable alternate, but was not selected as primary, as it is somewhat too close to SF PALO ALTO 136 to meet the required engineering objective. It is first alternate candidate. 137-I Wood Utility Pole Unknown CPAU Engineering Utility engineering constraints would not allow an attachment. Transformer located on pole - wireless equipment not permitted. 137-J Metal Street Light Unknown VZW RF Engineering Not selected as primary because an antenna location on streetlight is lower than on wood pole and does not provide the same level of service. Additionally, the pole is surrounded by tree clutter and could not meet the required enginering objectives. GO95 requires a minimum distance from communication lines, which could not be met on this pole. 137-K Metal Street Light Unknown VZW RF Engineering Not selected as primary because an antenna location on streetlight is lower than on wood pole and does not provide the same level of service. Additionally, the pole is surrounded by tree clutter and could not meet the required enginering objectives. GO95 requires a minimum distance from communication lines, which could not be met on this pole. 2.b Packet Pg. 53 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : A p p l i c a n t P r o j e c t D e s c r i p t i o n ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 ( 1 s t F o r m a l ) ) Cluster 1 Project Description - Page 31 SF PALO ALTO 138 Two poles were viable to meet the engineering objective for this area. 138-E is also viable, but was not selected as primary, because it lacks natural screening. The pole selected as primary is located between two residences and within a tree to take advantage of natural screening. This node was not selected for emergency battery backup and so Configuration #3 with only pole mounted equipment was selected. The existing wood utility pole is a reddish brown and therefore all pole mounted equipment will be painted Log Cabin to blend. 138 Alternative Site Analysis 2.b Packet Pg. 54 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : A p p l i c a n t P r o j e c t D e s c r i p t i o n ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 ( 1 s t F o r m a l ) ) Cluster 1 Project Description - Page 32 Alternative Candidate ID Structure Type Pole # Fallout Reason Fallout Note 138-A Wood Utility Pole 2478 CPAU Engineering Utility engineering constraints would not allow an attachment. Transformer located on pole. Additionally, a primary riser is located on the pole. Neither allows attachment. 138-B Metal Street Light 85 VZW RF Engineering Viable location, but not selected as primary because an antenna location on streetlight is lower than on wood pole and does not provide the same level of service. Additionally, CPUC GO95 rules require clearance from communication equipment. There is not enough clearance on this pole to allow a VZW attachment. There is also too much tree clutter surrounding this pole, so it would not meet the engineering objective for this area. 138-C Wood Utility Pole 2477 CPAU Engineering Utility engineering constraints would not allow an attachment. Primary riser located on pole. 138-D Metal Street Light 83 VZW RF Engineering Not selected as primary because an antenna location on streetlight is lower than on wood pole and does not provide the same level of service. 138-E Wood Utility Pole 2480 Viable Alternate Pole is viable alternate, but was not selected as primary as it has less natural screening. 138-F Wood Utility Pole 2481 VZW RF Engineering Pole is viable from a structural perspective, but is too close to SF PALO ALTO 139 to meet the required engineering objective. 138-G Wood Utility Pole 2482 CPAU Engineering Utility engineering constraints would not allow an attachment. Transformer located on pole - wireless equipment not permitted. 138-H Metal Street Light Unknown VZW RF Engineering Not selected as primary because an antenna location on streetlight is lower than on wood pole and does not provide the same level of service. 2.b Packet Pg. 55 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : A p p l i c a n t P r o j e c t D e s c r i p t i o n ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 ( 1 s t F o r m a l ) ) Cluster 1 Project Description - Page 33 SF PALO ALTO 140 Only one pole was viable in this location. This node was not selected for emergency battery backup and so Configuration #3 with only pole mounted equipment was selected. Railroad Ties has been selected to paint all pole mounted equipment to blend with the existing wood utility pole. 140 Alternative Site Analysis 2.b Packet Pg. 56 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : A p p l i c a n t P r o j e c t D e s c r i p t i o n ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 ( 1 s t F o r m a l ) ) Cluster 1 Project Description - Page 34 Alternative Candidate ID Structure Type Pole # Fallout Reason Fallout Note 140-A Wood Utility Pole 3970 CPAU Engineering Utility engineering constraints would not allow an attachment. Transformer on pole - wireless equipment not permitted. 140-B Metal Street Light No Tag VZW RF Engineering Not selected as primary because 1) antenna location on streetlight is lower than on wood pole; 2) high visibility corners are not preferred per the planning siting guidelines. 140-C Wood Utility Pole 3969 CPAU Engineering Utility engineering constraints would not allow an attachment. Power line crossover takes place at this location--no space for antenna attachment. 140-D Metal Street Light 41 VZW RF Engineering Not selected as primary because an antenna location on streetlight is lower than on wood pole and does not provide the same level of service. 140-E Wood Utility Pole 3972 CPAU Engineering Utility engineering constraints would not allow an attachment. Line and buck situation on pole - wireless equipment not permitted. 140-F Wood Utility Pole 3876 CPAU Engineering Utility engineering constraints would not allow an attachment. Transformer located on pole - wireless equipment not permitted. 140-G Wood Utility Pole 4002 CPAU Engineering Existing AT&T utilities conflict with attachment. 140-H Wood Utility Pole Unknown VZW RF Engineering Pole is too short and so could not meet engineering objective for this area. 2.b Packet Pg. 57 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : A p p l i c a n t P r o j e c t D e s c r i p t i o n ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 ( 1 s t F o r m a l ) ) Cluster 1 Project Description - Page 35 SF PALO ALTO 141 There were two poles available for attachment in this area, but only the selected pole adequately meets the engineering objective. Candidate 141-H is a viable pole from a structural perspective, but is located too far west along El Dorado Ave. to meet the target coverage. This node was not selected for emergency battery backup and so Configuration #3 with only pole mounted equipment was selected. The existing wood utility pole is a reddish brown and so Log Cabin has been selected to paint the equipment to blend. 141 Alternative Site Analysis 2.b Packet Pg. 58 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : A p p l i c a n t P r o j e c t D e s c r i p t i o n ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 ( 1 s t F o r m a l ) ) Cluster 1 Project Description - Page 36 Alternative Candidate ID Structure Type Pole # Fallout Reason Fallout Note 141-A Wood Utility Pole 2668 CPAU Engineering Utility engineering constraints would not allow an attachment. Primary riser located on pole. 141-B Wood Utility Pole 2667 CPAU Engineering Utility engineering constraints would not allow an attachment. Primary riser located on pole. 141-C Wood Utility Pole 2670 CPAU Engineering Existing AT&T utilities conflict with attachment. 141-D Wood Utility Pole 2548 CPAU Engineering Utility engineering constraints would not allow an attachment. CPUC GO95 rules require clear climbing space. There is not enough climbing space on this pole to safely allow a VZW attachment. 141-E Wood Utility Pole 2534 CPAU Engineering Utility engineering constraints would not allow an attachment. Line and buck situation on pole - wireless equipment not permitted. 141-F Wood Utility Pole 2535 CPAU Engineering Utility engineering constraints would not allow an attachment. Transformer located on pole - wireless equipment not permitted. 141-G Metal Street Light No Tag VZW RF Engineering Not selected as primary because an antenna location on streetlight is lower than on wood pole and does not provide the same level of service. 141-H Wood Utility Pole 2666 Viable Alternate Pole is viable alternate, but was not selected as primary because it is somewhat too far away from the engineering target to meet the coverage objective. It is first alternate candidate. 141-I Wood Utility Pole Unknown VZW RF Engineering Pole is too short and so could not meet engineering objective for this area. 141-J Metal Street Light Unknown VZW RF Engineering Not selected as primary because an antenna location on streetlight is lower than on wood pole and does not provide the same level of service. 2.b Packet Pg. 59 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : A p p l i c a n t P r o j e c t D e s c r i p t i o n ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 ( 1 s t F o r m a l ) ) Cluster 1 Project Description - Page 37 SF PALO ALTO 143 Only one pole was available to meet the required engineering objective. Verizon Wireless requires emergency battery backup at this proposed location. The emergency battery equipment is currently proposed to be located in the existing landscape strip located within the Right-of-Way. See attached site plan with pole elevations and equipment detail. This node was selected for emergency battery backup and there is space in the planter strip for a ground box, so Configuration #1 with a ground mounted cabinet was selected. The ground box will be painted Kelly Moore Lone Pine to blend in with the existing dark green landscaping in the planter strip. 143 Alternative Site Analysis 2.b Packet Pg. 60 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : A p p l i c a n t P r o j e c t D e s c r i p t i o n ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 ( 1 s t F o r m a l ) ) Cluster 1 Project Description - Page 38 Alternative Candidate ID Structure Type Pole # Fallout Reason Fallout Note 143-A Wood Utility Pole 3866 Planning Poles located on private property (residential easement) are only selected as a last resort, given potential disturbance to adjacent resident. Could not get pole number as it is located in yard. 143-B Wood Utility Pole 3889 CPAU Engineering Utility engineering constraints would not allow an attachment. Transformer located on pole - wireless equipment not permitted. 143-C Wood Utility Pole Unknown Planning Poles located on private property (residential easement) are only selected as a last resort, given potential disturbance to adjacent resident. Could not get pole number as it is located in backyard. 143-D Metal Street Light 18 VZW RF Engineering Viable location, but not selected as primary because 1) antenna location on streetlight is lower than on wood pole; 2) high visibility corners are not preferred per the planning siting guidelines. 143-E Wood Utility Pole 3995 VZW RF Engineering Pole is too short give the surrounding tree clutter and so could not meet engineering objective for this area. 143-F Wood Utility Pole 3996 VZW RF Engineering Pole location is viable, but was not selected as primary, as it is short and likely would require replacement to meet the required engineering objective. 143-G Metal Street Light 323 VZW RF Engineering Viable location, but not selected as primary because an antenna location on streetlight is lower than on wood pole and does not provide the same level of service. 143-H Metal Street Light Unknown VZW RF Engineering Viable location, but not selected as primary because an antenna location on streetlight is lower than on wood pole and does not provide the same level of service. Additionally, CPUC GO95 rules require clearance from communication equipment. There is not enough clearance on this pole to allow a VZW attachment. 143-I Wood Utility Pole Unknown CPAU Engineering Utility engineering constraints would not allow an attachment. Transformer on pole - wireless equipment not permitted. Additionally, switch gear is located on pole and does not allow for an attachment. 143-J Metal Street Light Unknown VZW RF Engineering Viable location, but not selected as primary because an antenna location on streetlight is lower than on wood pole and does not provide the same level of service. 143-K Metal Street Light Unknown VZW RF Engineering Viable location, but not selected as primary because an antenna location on streetlight is lower than on wood pole and does not provide the same level of service. 2.b Packet Pg. 61 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : A p p l i c a n t P r o j e c t D e s c r i p t i o n ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 ( 1 s t F o r m a l ) ) Cluster 1 Project Description - Page 39 SF PALO ALTO 144 Only one pole was viable for attachment within the targeted coverage area. This node was not selected for emergency battery backup and so Configuration #3 with only pole mounted equipment was selected. This utility pole is a reddish brown and so Log Cabin has been selected to paint the equipment to blend with the pole. 144 Alternative Site Analysis 2.b Packet Pg. 62 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : A p p l i c a n t P r o j e c t D e s c r i p t i o n ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 ( 1 s t F o r m a l ) ) Cluster 1 Project Description - Page 40 Alternative Candidate ID Structure Type Pole # Fallout Reason Fallout Note 144-A Metal Street Light No Tag VZW RF Engineering Not selected as primary because 1) antenna location on streetlight is lower than on wood pole; 2) high visibility corners are not preferred per the planning siting guidelines. 144-B Wood Utility Pole 1521 CPAU Engineering Existing AT&T utilities conflict with attachment. 144-C Metal Street Light No Tag VZW RF Engineering Viable location, but not selected as primary because an antenna location on streetlight is lower than on wood pole and does not provide the same level of service. Additionally, CPUC GO95 rules require clearance from communication equipment. There is not enough clearance on this pole to allow a VZW attachment. 144-D Wood Utility Pole 1507 CPAU Engineering Utility engineering constraints would not allow an attachment. Transformer located on the pole. 144-E Wood Utility Pole 1508 Planning Poles located on private property (residential easement) are only selected as a last resort, given potential disturbance to adjacent resident. 144-F Metal Street Light No Tag VZW RF Engineering Viable location, but not selected as primary because an antenna location on streetlight is lower than on wood pole and does not provide the same level of service. 144-G Metal Street Light 304 VZW RF Engineering Significant tree clutter surround light and would not meet engineering objectives. 144-H Metal Street Light 311 VZW RF Engineering Viable location, but not selected as primary because an antenna location on streetlight is lower than on wood pole and does not provide the same level of service. 144-I Metal Street Light Unknown VZW RF Engineering Viable location, but not selected as primary because an antenna location on streetlight is lower than on wood pole and does not provide the same level of service. 2.b Packet Pg. 63 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : A p p l i c a n t P r o j e c t D e s c r i p t i o n ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 ( 1 s t F o r m a l ) ) Cluster 1 Project Description - Page 41 SF PALO ALTO 145 Two poles were viable to meet the engineering objective for this node. 135-A is viable, but is not as good a location for engineering. This node was not selected for emergency battery backup and so Configuration #3 with only pole mounted equipment was selected. The existing utility pole is reddish brown, so Log Cabin has been selected to paint the pole mounted equipment. 145 Alternative Site Analysis 145-L 2.b Packet Pg. 64 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : A p p l i c a n t P r o j e c t D e s c r i p t i o n ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 ( 1 s t F o r m a l ) ) Cluster 1 Project Description - Page 42 Alternative Candidate ID Structure Type Pole # Fallout Reason Fallout Note 145-A Wood Utility Pole 3292 Viable Alternate Pole is viable alternate, but was not selected as primary. It is first alternate candidate. 145-B Metal Street Light No Tag VZW RF Engineering Viable location, but not selected as primary because an antenna location on streetlight is lower than on wood pole and does not provide the same level of service. Additionally, there is too much tree clutter surrounding this pole, so it would not meet the engineering objective for this area. 145-C Wood Utility Pole 3292 VZW RF Engineering Pole located too close to SF PALO ALTO 136 to the east. 145-D Wood Utility Pole 3289 CPAU Engineering Existing AT&T utilities conflict with attachment. 145-E Metal Street Light No Tag VZW RF Engineering Viable location, but not selected as primary because an antenna location on streetlight is lower than on wood pole and does not provide the same level of service. Additionally, CPUC GO95 rules require clearance from communication equipment. There is not enough clearance on this pole to allow a VZW attachment. 145-F Metal Street Light No Tag VZW RF Engineering Viable location, but not selected as primary because an antenna location on streetlight is lower than on wood pole and does not provide the same level of service. 145-G Wood Utility Pole 3290 CPAU Engineering Utility engineering constraints would not allow an attachment. Primary riser located on pole. 145-H Wood Utility Pole Unknown CPAU Engineering Existing AT&T utilities conflict with attachment. 145-I Wood Utility Pole Unknown CPAU Engineering Utility engineering constraints would not allow an attachment. Transformer located on the pole. 145-J Metal Street Light Unknown VZW RF Engineering Viable location, but not selected as primary because an antenna location on streetlight is lower than on wood pole and does not provide the same level of service. 145-K Metal Street Light Unknown VZW RF Engineering Viable location, but not selected as primary because an antenna location on streetlight is lower than on wood pole and does not provide the same level of service. 145-L Wood Utility Pole Unknown VZW RF Engineering Pole located too close to SF PALO ALTO 136 to the east. 145-M Metal Street Light Unknown VZW RF Engineering Pole located too close to SF PALO ALTO 136 to the east. 145-N Wood Utility Pole Unknown VZW RF Engineering Pole is too short and so could not meet engineering objective for this area. 2.b Packet Pg. 65 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : A p p l i c a n t P r o j e c t D e s c r i p t i o n ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 ( 1 s t F o r m a l ) ) Cluster 1 Project Description - Page 43 SF PALO ALTO 147 Two poles meet the engineering objective for this area. However, one pole is located at a highly visible intersection, so the pole located mid-block was selected. This node was not selected for emergency battery backup and so Configuration #3 with only pole mounted equipment was selected. This existing wood utility pole is faded with only a little brown color on the pole and so Clay Bath has been selected to paint the equipment to blend. 147 Alternative Site Analysis 2.b Packet Pg. 66 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : A p p l i c a n t P r o j e c t D e s c r i p t i o n ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 ( 1 s t F o r m a l ) ) Cluster 1 Project Description - Page 44 Alternative Candidate ID Structure Type Pole # Fallout Reason Fallout Note 147-A Wood Utility Pole 1539 CPAU Engineering Utility engineering constraints would not allow an attachment. High voltage lines located on pole. 147-B Wood Utility Pole 1540 CPAU Engineering Utility engineering constraints would not allow an attachment. High voltage lines located on pole. 147-C Metal Street Light 331 VZW RF Engineering Viable location, but not selected as primary because 1) antenna location on streetlight is lower than on wood pole; 2) high visibility corners are not preferred per the planning siting guidelines. 147-D Wood Utility Pole 1493 Planning Not selected as primary because high visibility corners are not preferred per the planning siting guidelines 147-E Wood Utility Pole 1492 CPAU Engineering Utility engineering constraints would not allow an attachment. Line and buck situation on pole - wireless equipment not permitted. 147-F Metal Street Light 331 VZW RF Engineering Viable location, but not selected as primary because 1) antenna location on streetlight is lower than on wood pole; 2) high visibility corners are not preferred per the planning siting guidelines. 147-G Metal Street Light Unknown VZW RF Engineering Viable location, but not selected as primary because an antenna location on streetlight is lower than on wood pole and does not provide the same level of service. 147-H Metal Street Light 333 VZW RF Engineering Viable location, but not selected as primary because an antenna location on streetlight is lower than on wood pole and does not provide the same level of service. 2.b Packet Pg. 67 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : A p p l i c a n t P r o j e c t D e s c r i p t i o n ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 ( 1 s t F o r m a l ) ) Cluster 1 Project Description - Page 45 Attachment E – List of Cluster 1 Nodes Cluster 1 contains fifteen (15) proposed small cell nodes. Node Address of Adjacent APN Pole Type Config Color - Pole Mounted Equipment - Kelly Moore CPAU Pole # Adjacent APN Public ROW Zoning Class Source for Power SF PALO ALTO 129 2490 LOUIS RD Wood Utility Config 1 Railroad Ties 3121 12730062 R-1 Aerial Drop SF PALO ALTO 130 2802 LOUIS RD Wood Utility Config 3 Railroad Ties 2461 12728046 R-1 Aerial Drop SF PALO ALTO 131 891 ELBRIDGE WY Wood Utility Config 2 Railroad Ties 3315 12726067 R-1 Aerial Drop SF PALO ALTO 133 925 LOMA VERDE AVE Wood Utility Config 3 Railroad Ties 2857 12724023 R-1 Aerial Drop SF PALO ALTO 134 3409 KENNETH DR Wood Utility Config 3 Clay Bath 2964 12709028 R-1 (7000) Aerial Drop SF PALO ALTO 135 795 STONE LN Wood Utility Config 2 Railroad Ties 3610 12747001 R-1 (8000) Aerial Drop SF PALO ALTO 136 3191 MANCHESTER CT Wood Utility Config 3 Railroad Ties 3298 12758024 R-1 Aerial Drop SF PALO ALTO 137 3090 ROSS RD Wood Utility Config 3 Railroad Ties 3351 12752031 R-1 Aerial Drop SF PALO ALTO 138 836 COLORADO AVE Wood Utility Config 3 Log Cabin 2479 12727063 R-1 Aerial Drop SF PALO ALTO 140 450 LOMA VERDE AVE Wood Utility Config 3 Railroad Ties 3971 13215077 R-1 Aerial Drop SF PALO ALTO 141 2801 SOUTH CT Wood Utility Config 3 Log Cabin 2669 13214023 R-1 Aerial Drop SF PALO ALTO 143 419 EL VERANO AVE Wood Utility Config 1 Log Cabin 3867 13215017 R-1 Underground Vault SF PALO ALTO 144 201 LOMA VERDE AVE Wood Utility Config 3 Log Cabin 1506 13248015 RM-30 Aerial Drop SF PALO ALTO 145 737 LOMA VERDE AVE Wood Utility Config 3 Log Cabin 3288 12764039 RM-15 Aerial Drop SF PALO ALTO 147 181 EL VERANO AVE Wood Utility Config 3 Clay Bath 1494 13227072 R-1 Aerial Drop 2.b Packet Pg. 68 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : A p p l i c a n t P r o j e c t D e s c r i p t i o n ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 ( 1 s t F o r m a l ) ) Cluster 1 Project Description - Page 46 Attachment F –Map of Cluster 1 Configurations Fifteen (15) proposed nodes from Cluster 1 are identified, along with their proposed Configurations 1, 2 and 3. Configuration 1 (2 nodes): Emergency battery backup critical, placed in ground mounted box adjacent to pole. Configuration 2 (2 nodes): Emergency battery backup essential, but no space; small battery placed on pole. Configuration 3 (11 nodes): Emergency battery backup currently not required. No emergency battery. 2.b Packet Pg. 69 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : A p p l i c a n t P r o j e c t D e s c r i p t i o n ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 ( 1 s t F o r m a l ) ) Cluster 1 Project Description - Page 47 Attachment G – Proposed Paint Samples Pole Mounted Equipment (all Kelly Moore durable metal paint) Railroad Ties (KMA67) Log Cabin (KMA76) Clay Bath (KM4595) Ground Mounted Equipment (all Kelly Moore durable metal paint) Lone Pine (KM4798) Acanthus Leaf (KM4796 2.b Packet Pg. 70 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : A p p l i c a n t P r o j e c t D e s c r i p t i o n ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 ( 1 s t F o r m a l ) ) Cluster 1 Project Description - Page 48 Attachment H – Proposed Ground Cabinet Stealth Options Landscaping Ground mounted emergency battery equipment with landscaping. Street Furniture Options Concrete Bench 2.b Packet Pg. 71 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : A p p l i c a n t P r o j e c t D e s c r i p t i o n ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 ( 1 s t F o r m a l ) ) Cluster 1 Project Description - Page 49 Relay Mailbox Metal Bench Garbage Can 2.b Packet Pg. 72 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : A p p l i c a n t P r o j e c t D e s c r i p t i o n ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 ( 1 s t F o r m a l ) ) Cluster 1 Project Description - Page 50 Art-Wrapped Cabinets Ground mounted emergency battery cabinet without wrap. Examples of Existing Art Wraps (located Downtown Walnut Creek) Please note that these cabinets are significantly larger than the proposed emergency battery cabinet, which is placed on a 32" x 43" concrete pad, with a 54" tall cabinet. 2.b Packet Pg. 73 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : A p p l i c a n t P r o j e c t D e s c r i p t i o n ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 ( 1 s t F o r m a l ) ) Cluster 1 Project Description - Page 51 2.b Packet Pg. 74 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : A p p l i c a n t P r o j e c t D e s c r i p t i o n ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 ( 1 s t F o r m a l ) ) Cluster 1 Project Description - Page 52 Attachment I – Model Small Cell Location Verizon Wireless has constructed a non-operational “mock” site for public and staff viewing. The central location adjacent to 1350 Newell, across from the Palo Alto Art Center was selected because that particular pole has no overhead transmission. Placing the model small cell near existing residences was avoided, given the expectation that the public will go out to view the site. Additionally, Verizon Wireless has selected the auditorium at the Palo Alto Art Center as a location to host community meetings. 2.b Packet Pg. 75 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : A p p l i c a n t P r o j e c t D e s c r i p t i o n ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 ( 1 s t F o r m a l ) ) Cluster 1 Project Description - Page 53 Attachment J – Statement Regarding Spectrum Act Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.42.110(d)(8) provides: “For Tier 3 WCF Permits, the plans shall include a scaled depiction of the maximum permitted increase in the physical dimensions of the proposed project that would be permitted by the Spectrum Act, using the proposed project as a baseline.” Verizon Wireless cannot submit a scaled depiction of the maximum permitted increase in the physical dimensions of the proposed small cell facilities on Palo Alto utility poles under the Spectrum Act for the following reasons: 1. Spectrum Act “Substantial Change” Criteria Are Indeterminate Spectrum Act “substantial change” criteria theoretically allow the expansion of a wireless facility in the Right-of-Way by ten feet in height and six feet in width. However, any such expansion cannot defeat existing “concealment elements” of the facility (see 47 C.F.R. §1.40001). Verizon Wireless small cells are designed with vertically integrated and oriented radio equipment as well as a vertical cylindrical antenna that matches the shape and size of the utility pole to which it is mounted. It is not clear what increase in size, if any, could be accomplished without defeating the concealment elements of the Verizon Wireless design. 2. Modifications To The Verizon Wireless Small Cell Allowed Under The Spectrum Act Must Comply With Health And Safety Requirements (CPUC G.O. 95) The Spectrum Act accommodates regulations for health and safety, such as the requirements of G.O. 95, that are generally observed by the City. G.O. 95 places strict limitations on the placement of attachments on utility poles. Specifically, continuous climbing space must be maintained in one quadrant of the pole from top to bottom. A six-foot separation is required between antennas and transmission lines. Equipment must be more than seven feet from the ground, and pole capacity must be restricted to accommodate the structural limitations of each pole. These limitations severely restrict the modifications that can be made to the Verizon Wireless small cell and would likely prevent modifications of the scale allowed under the Spectrum Act. Any modification that requires the replacement of the utility pole, for structural reasons or lack of space, is disqualified as an eligible facility request under the Spectrum Act. In nearly all cases, Palo Alto utility poles are near capacity and cannot accommodate modifications of the dimensions allowed under the Spectrum Act. 3. Verizon Wireless Has No Plans To Modify Its Small Cell Design And Any “Spectrum Act” Modification Would Be Speculative Verizon Wireless cannot predict the customer demand or technological changes that would lead to a modification of the proposed small cell design. Similarly, Verizon Wireless cannot predict what another utility or wireless provider may propose to add or attach to a utility pole. In the same way, the City cannot be obligated to pre-approve hypothetical designs as “eligible facility requests” under the Spectrum Act that may or may not defeat existing concealment or violate health and safety laws. 2.b Packet Pg. 76 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : A p p l i c a n t P r o j e c t D e s c r i p t i o n ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 ( 1 s t F o r m a l ) ) Cluster 1 Project Description - Page 54 4. Hypothetical Maximum Build-Out Under The Spectrum Act Is Irrelevant To Required Approval Findings For Verizon Wireless Small Cells While theoretically interesting, the potential future expansion of a project is not the subject of any of the 16 Architectural Review findings nor the two conditional use findings required for approval of the Verizon Wireless small cell design under the Palo Alto Municipal Code. Projects must be evaluated as proposed and not on future hypothetical modification. There are no reasonably foreseeable modifications to the proposed Verizon Wireless small cell design that can be reviewed by the City at this time. Simply put, speculation cannot form the basis for any findings. Similarly, speculative future modifications do not constitute the substantial evidence required to deny approval of a wireless facility under federal law. For all of the reasons stated above, Verizon Wireless will not revise plans to show a scaled depiction of the maximum permitted increase in the physical dimensions of its small cell project. 2.b Packet Pg. 77 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : A p p l i c a n t P r o j e c t D e s c r i p t i o n ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 ( 1 s t F o r m a l ) ) 17PLN-00033 City of Palo Alto Page 1 of 7 ATTACHMENT C PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 18.42.110 WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES File No. 17PLN-00169 18.42.110 Wireless Communication Facilities (a) Purpose and Interpretation The purpose of this section is two-fold: (A) to implement within the jurisdictional boundaries of the city the applicable zoning, land use and other laws, rules, regulations and policies and procedures applicable to siting applications filed with the city by wireless communications facilities infrastructure owners and operators and wireless communications service providers, which seek to install or attach their facilities at locations in Palo Alto; and (B) to accommodate new wireless technologies and continued improvements to existing wireless communications facilities while minimizing their adverse visual and structural health and safety impacts. Consistent with that purpose, the provisions of this section are to be construed in a manner that is consistent with (1) the interest of consumers in receiving the benefits of the deployment of ultra-high-speed and -capacity broadband wireless communication facilities technology and innovations and the delivery of ultra-high-speed and -capacity broadband wireless communications facilities services, (2) the interest in safeguarding the environment, preserving historic properties, and addressing aesthetics and other local values, and (3) the interest in promoting the public health, safety and welfare in Palo Alto. A wireless communications facility is permitted to be sited in Palo Alto subject to applicable requirements imposed by this chapter, which may include an architectural review process, a conditional use permit application process, or both. These processes are intended to permit wireless communications facilities that blend with their existing surroundings and do not negatively impact the environment, historic properties, or public safety. The procedures prescribed by this chapter are tailored to the type of wireless communication facility that is sought. Building-mounted wireless communications facilities and collocation of facilities are preferred and encouraged, subject to all other provisions of this section. (b) Definitions The following abbreviations, phrases, terms and words shall have the meanings assigned in this section or, as appropriate, in Section 18.04.030 and Section 1.04.050 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, as may be amended from time to time, unless the context indicates otherwise. Words that are not defined in this section or other chapters or sections of the Palo Alto Municipal Code shall have the meanings as set forth in Chapter 6 of Title 47 of the United States Code, Part 1 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations, and, if not defined therein, their common and ordinary meaning. (1) "Antenna" means a wireless antenna and its associated equipment. The term includes a macrocell antenna and a microcell antenna. (2) "Associated equipment" means any and all on-site equipment, including, without limitation, back- up generators and power supply units, cabinets, coaxial and fiber optic cables, connections, shelters, radio transceivers, regular power supply units, and wiring, to which a wireless antenna is attached in order to facilitate mobile broadband service and personal wireless service delivered on mobile broadband devices. 2.c Packet Pg. 78 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t C : M u n i c i p a l C o d e S e c t i o n 1 8 . 4 2 . 1 1 0 W i r e l e s s C o m m u n i c a t i o n F a c i l i t i e s ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - 17PLN-00033 City of Palo Alto Page 2 of 7 (3) "Base Station" means a structure or equipment at a fixed location that enables FCC-licensed or authorized wireless communications between user equipment and a communications network. The term does not encompass a tower as defined herein or any equipment associated with a tower. Base Station includes, without limitation: (i) Equipment associated with wireless communications services such as private, broadcast, and public safety services, as well as unlicensed wireless services and fixed wireless services such as microwave backhaul. (ii) Radio transceivers, antennas, coaxial or fiber-optic cable, regular and backup power supplies, and comparable equipment, regardless of technological configuration (including Distributed Antenna Systems ("DAS") and small-cell networks). (iii) Any structure other than a tower that, at the time the relevant application is filed with the city under this section, supports or houses equipment described in paragraphs (i)-(ii) above and has been previously reviewed and approved by the city. (4) "Collocation" means the mounting or installation of transmission equipment on an eligible support structure for the purpose of transmitting and/or receiving radio frequency signals for communications purposes. (5) "Eligible Facilities Request" means any request for modification of an existing tower or base station that, within the meaning of the Spectrum Act, does not substantially change the physical dimensions of that tower or base station, and involves (a) the collocation of new transmission equipment, (b) the removal of transmission equipment, or (c) the replacement of transmission equipment. (6) "Eligible Support Structure" means any existing tower or base station that exists at the time the application is filed with the city. (7) "Existing" for a constructed tower or base station, means that the tower or base station has been previously reviewed and approved under the applicable city zoning or siting process, or under another applicable state or local regulatory review process, provided that a tower that has not been reviewed and approved because it was not in a zoned area when it was built, but was lawfully constructed, is "Existing" for purposes of this definition. (8) "FCC" means the Federal Communications Commission or successor agency. (9) "Project" means a WCF to be located in Palo Alto for which a permit is required by the city. (10) "RF" means radio frequency on the radio spectrum. (11) "Spectrum Act" means Section 6409(a) of the Middle Class Tax Relief Act and Job Creation Act of 2012, 47 U.S.C. § 1455(a) (providing, in part, "… a State or local government may not deny, and shall approve, any Eligible Facilities Request for a modification of any existing wireless Tower or Base Station that does not substantially change the physical dimensions of such Tower or Base Station."). (12) "Substantially Changes" means, in the context of an eligible support structure, a modification of an existing tower or base station where any of the following criteria is met: (i) For a tower not located in the public rights-of-way: (a) The height of the tower is increased by (I) more than ten (10) percent, or (II) by the height of one additional antenna array with separation from the nearest existing antenna not to exceed twenty (20) feet, whichever is greater; or (b) There is added an appurtenance to the body of the tower that would protrude from the edge of the tower by (I) more than twenty (20) feet, or (II) more than the width of the tower at the level of the appurtenance, whichever is greater. (ii) For a tower located in the public rights-of-way and for all base stations: (a) The height of the tower or base station is increased by more than ten (10) percent or ten (10) feet, whichever is greater; or 2.c Packet Pg. 79 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t C : M u n i c i p a l C o d e S e c t i o n 1 8 . 4 2 . 1 1 0 W i r e l e s s C o m m u n i c a t i o n F a c i l i t i e s ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - 17PLN-00033 City of Palo Alto Page 3 of 7 (b) There is added an appurtenance to the body of that structure that would protrude from the edge of that structure by more than six (6) feet; or (c) It involves the installation of ground cabinets that are more than ten (10) percent larger in height or overall volume than any other ground cabinets associated with the structure; or (d) It involves the installation of any new equipment cabinets on the ground if there is no pre- existing ground cabinet associated with that structure. (iii) For any eligible support structure: (a) It involves the installation of more than the standard number of new equipment cabinets for the technology involved, but not to exceed four (4) cabinets; or (b) There is entailed in the proposed modification any excavation or deployment outside of the current site of the tower or base station; or (c) The proposed modification would cause the concealment/camouflage elements of the tower or base station to be defeated; or (d) The proposed modification would not comply with the conditions associated with the prior siting approval of construction or modification of the tower or base station, unless the non-compliance is due to an increase in height, increase in width, addition of cabinets, or new excavation that does not exceed the corresponding thresholds in this section. (iv) To measure changes in height for the purposes of this section, the baseline is: (a) For deployments that are or will be separated horizontally, measured from the original support structure; (b) For all others, measured from the dimensions of the tower or base station, inclusive of originally approved appurtenances and any modifications that were approved by the city prior to February 22, 2012. (v) To measure changes for the purposes of this section, the baseline is the dimensions that were approved by the city prior to February 22, 2012. (13) "Tower" means any structure built for the sole or primary purpose of supporting any FCC- licensed or -authorized antenna, including any structure that is constructed for wireless communications service. This term does not include a base station. (14) "Transmission Equipment" means equipment that facilitates transmission of any FCC-licensed or authorized wireless communication service. (15) "Wireless Communications Facility" or "WCF" means any antenna, associated equipment, base station, small cell system, tower, and/or transmission equipment located in Palo Alto. (16) "Wireless Communications Service" means, without limitation, all FCC-licensed back-haul and other fixed wireless services, broadcast, private, and public safety communication services, and unlicensed wireless services. (c) Types of WCF Permits Required (1) A Tier 1 WCF Permit shall be required for an eligible facilities request, as defined in this section. (2) A Tier 2 WCF Permit shall be required for: (i) Any modification of an eligible support structure, including the collocation of new equipment, that substantially changes the physical dimensions of the eligible support structure on which it is mounted; or (ii) Any collocation not eligible for a Tier 1 WCF Permit. (3) A Tier 3 WCF Permit shall be required for the siting of any WCF that is not a collocation subject to a Tier 1 or 2 WCF Permit. (d) WCF Application Requirements All applications for a WCF Permit shall include the following items: 2.c Packet Pg. 80 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t C : M u n i c i p a l C o d e S e c t i o n 1 8 . 4 2 . 1 1 0 W i r e l e s s C o m m u n i c a t i o n F a c i l i t i e s ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - 17PLN-00033 City of Palo Alto Page 4 of 7 (1) Any applicant for a WCF Permit shall participate in an intake meeting with the Planning and Community Environment Department to file an application; (2) The applicant must specify in writing whether the applicant believes the application is for an eligible facilities request subject to the Spectrum Act, and if so, provide a detailed written explanation as to why the applicant believes that the application qualifies as an eligible facilities request; (3) The applicant shall complete the city's standard application form, as may be amended from time to time; (4) The applicant shall include a completed and signed application checklist available from the city, including all information required by the application checklist; (5) Payment of the fee prescribed by the Municipal Fee Schedule; (6) The application must be accompanied by all permit applications with all required application materials for each separate permit required by the city for the proposed WCF, including a building permit, an encroachment permit (if applicable) and an electrical permit (if applicable); (7) For Tier 2 and 3 WCF Permits, the applicant must host a community meeting at a time and location designed to maximize attendance by persons receiving notice under this subparagraph to provide outreach to the neighborhood around the project site. The applicant shall give notice of the community meeting to all residents and property owners within 600 feet of the project site at least 14 days in advance of the community meeting. The applicant shall provide a proof of notice affidavit to the city that contains: (i) Proof that the applicant noticed and hosted the community meeting before filing the application; (ii) A summary of comments received at the community meeting and what, if any, changes were made to the application as a result of the meeting; (8) For Tier 3 WCF Permits, the plans shall include a scaled depiction of the maximum permitted increase in the physical dimensions of the proposed project that would be permitted by the Spectrum Act, using the proposed project as a baseline; and (9) Satisfy other such requirements as may be, from time to time, required by the Planning and Community Environment Department Director ("Director"), as publically stated in the application checklist. (e) Permit Review ("Shot Clock") Time Periods (1) City review of application materials. The timeframe for review of an application shall begin to run when the application is submitted, but shall be tolled if the city finds the application incomplete and provides notice of incompleteness that delineates the missing information in writing. Such requests shall be made within 30 days of submission of the application. After submission of additional information, the city will notify the applicant within 10 days of this submission if the additional information failed to complete the application. If the city makes a determination pursuant to Section 18.42.110(e)(2)(i) that an application submitted as a Tier 1 eligible facilities request should be processed as a Tier 2 or Tier 3, then the Tier 2 or Tier 3 processing time, as applicable, shall begin to run when the city issues this decision. (2) Tier 1 processing time. For Tier 1 WCF Permit applications, the city will act on the WCF application, together with any other city permits required for a proposed WCF modification, within 60 days, adjusted for any tolling due to requests for additional information or mutually agreed upon extensions of time. (i) If the city determines that the application does not qualify as a Tier 1 eligible facilities request, the city will notify the applicant of that determination in writing and will process the application as a Tier 2 or Tier 3 WCF Permit application, as applicable. (ii) To the extent federal law provides a "deemed granted" remedy for Tier 1 WCF Permit applications not timely acted upon by the city, no such application shall be deemed granted until the applicant provides notice to the city, in writing, that the application has been deemed granted after the 2.c Packet Pg. 81 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t C : M u n i c i p a l C o d e S e c t i o n 1 8 . 4 2 . 1 1 0 W i r e l e s s C o m m u n i c a t i o n F a c i l i t i e s ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - 17PLN-00033 City of Palo Alto Page 5 of 7 time period provided in Section (e)(2) above has expired. (iii) Any Tier 1 WCF Permit application that the city grants or that is deemed granted by operation of federal law shall be subject to all requirements of Section 18.42.110(i)(3), (5), (6) and (7) and 18.42.110(j)(1), (2), (3), (4), (5) and (6). (3) Tier 2 processing time. For Tier 2 WCF Permit applications, the city will act on the application within 90 days, adjusted for any tolling due to requests for additional information or mutually agreed upon extensions of time. (4) Tier 3 processing time. For Tier 3 WCF Permit applications, the city will act on the application within 150 days, adjusted for any tolling due to requests for additional information or mutually agreed upon extensions of time. (5) Denial of application. If the city denies a WCF application, the city will notify the applicant of the denial in writing of the reasons for the denial. (f) Tier 1 WCF Permit Process and Findings (1) A Tier 1 WCF Permit shall be reviewed by the Director. The Director's decision shall be final and shall not be appealable pursuant to the procedures set forth in Chapters 18.77 or 18.78; (2) The Director shall grant a Tier 1 WCF Permit provided that the Director finds that the applicant proposes an eligible facilities request; (3) The Director shall impose the following conditions on the grant of a Tier 1 WCF Permit: (i) The proposed collocation or modification shall not defeat any existing concealment elements of the support structure; and (ii) The proposed WCF shall comply with the development standards in Section 18.42.110(i)(3), (5), (6) and (7), and the conditions of approval in Section 18.42.110(j). (g) Tier 2 WCF Permit Process and Findings (1) A Tier 2 WCF Permit shall be reviewed by the Director. The Director's decision shall be appealable pursuant to the process for architectural review set forth in Section 18.77.070. (2) The Director, or Council on appeal, shall grant a Tier 2 WCF Permit provided the proposed WCF complies with the development standards in Section 18.42.110(i) and the conditions of approval in Section 18.42.110(j), and all of the architectural review findings in Section 18.76.020(d) can be made. (3) The Director, or Council on appeal, shall deny a Tier 2 WCF Permit if the above findings cannot be made. (h) Tier 3 WCF Permit Process and Findings (1) A Tier 3 WCF Permit shall be reviewed by the Director. The Director's decision shall be appealable pursuant to the process for architectural review set forth in Section 18.77.070 and the process for conditional use permits set forth in Section 18.77.060. (2) The Director or Council on appeal shall grant a Tier 3 WCF Permit provided the proposed WCF complies with the development standards in Section 18.42.110(i) and the conditions of approval in Section 18.42.110(j), and all of the architectural review findings in Section 18.76.020(d) and the conditional use permit findings in Section18.76.010(c) can be made. (3) The Director, or Council on appeal, shall deny a Tier 3 WCF Permit if the above findings cannot be made. 2.c Packet Pg. 82 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t C : M u n i c i p a l C o d e S e c t i o n 1 8 . 4 2 . 1 1 0 W i r e l e s s C o m m u n i c a t i o n F a c i l i t i e s ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - 17PLN-00033 City of Palo Alto Page 6 of 7 (i) Development Standards Except as otherwise provided in this section, a proposed WCF Project shall comply with the following standards: (1) Shall utilize the smallest footprint possible; (2) Shall be designed to minimize the overall height, mass, and size of the cabinet and enclosure structure; (3) Shall be screened from public view; (4) Shall be architecturally compatible with the existing site; (5) Shall be placed at a location that would not require the removal of any required landscaping or would reduce the quantity of landscaping to a level of noncompliance with the Zoning Code; (6) An antenna, base station, or tower shall be designed to minimize its visibility from off-site locations and shall be of a "camouflaged" or "stealth" design, including concealment, screening, and other techniques to hide or blend the antenna, base station, or tower into the surrounding area; (7) A building-mounted antenna, base station, or tower shall be architecturally compatible with the existing building on which the antenna, base station, or tower is attached; (8) For any Tier 2 or Tier 3 WCF proposed to be attached on an historic structure/site, as designated by Chapter 16.49, historic review shall also be required; (9) Except as otherwise permitted by the Spectrum Act, a building-mounted WCF may extend fifteen (15) feet beyond the permitted height of the building in the zone district; (10) Except as otherwise permitted by the Spectrum Act, a tower or other stand-alone Tier 3 WCF Project shall not exceed sixty-five (65) feet in height; and (11) 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 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. (4) Indemnification. To the extent permitted by law, the applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the city, its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the "indemnified parties") from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside or void, any permit or approval authorized hereby for the Project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the city for its actual attorneys' fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. The city may, in its sole discretion and at Applicant's expense, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its own choice. 2.c Packet Pg. 83 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t C : M u n i c i p a l C o d e S e c t i o n 1 8 . 4 2 . 1 1 0 W i r e l e s s C o m m u n i c a t i o n F a c i l i t i e s ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - 17PLN-00033 City of Palo Alto Page 7 of 7 (5) Compliance with applicable laws. The applicant shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Code, any permit issued under this Code, and all other applicable federal, state and local laws (including without limitation all building code, electrical code and other public safety requirements). Any failure by the City to enforce compliance with any applicable laws shall not relieve any applicant of its obligations under this code, any permit issued under this code, or all other applicable laws and regulations. (6) Compliance with approved plans. The proposed Project shall be built in compliance with the approved plans on file with the Planning Division. (k) 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 conditional use 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. (l) 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 for architectural review set forth in Section 18.77.070 and the process for conditional use permits set forth in Section 18.77.060. (Ord. 5340 § 1 (part), 2015) 2.c Packet Pg. 84 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t C : M u n i c i p a l C o d e S e c t i o n 1 8 . 4 2 . 1 1 0 W i r e l e s s C o m m u n i c a t i o n F a c i l i t i e s ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - ATTACHMENT D PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 18.76.020(d) ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW FINDINGS File No. 17PLN-00169 In order for the ARB to make a future recommendation of approval, the project must comply with the following Findings for Architectural Review as required in Chapter 18.76.020(d) of the PAMC. Finding #1: The design is consistent with applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code, coordinated area plans (including compatibility requirements), and any relevant design guides. Finding #2: The project has a unified and coherent design, that: a. creates an internal sense of order and desirable environment for occupants, visitors, and the general community, b. preserves, respects and integrates existing natural features that contribute positively to the site and the historic character including historic resources of the area when relevant, c. is consistent with the context-based design criteria of the applicable zone district, d. provides harmonious transitions in scale, mass and character to adjacent land uses and land use designations, e. enhances living conditions on the site (if it includes residential uses) and in adjacent residential areas. Finding #3: The design is of high aesthetic quality, using high quality, integrated materials and appropriate construction techniques, and incorporating textures, colors, and other details that are compatible with and enhance the surrounding area. Finding #4: The design is functional, allowing for ease and safety of pedestrian and bicycle traffic and providing for elements that support the building’s necessary operations (e.g. convenient vehicle access to property and utilities, appropriate arrangement and amount of open space and integrated signage, if applicable, etc.). Finding #5: The landscape design complements and enhances the building design and its surroundings, is appropriate to the site’s functions, and utilizes to the extent practical, regional indigenous drought resistant plant material capable of providing desirable habitat that can be appropriately maintained. Finding #6: The project incorporates design principles that achieve sustainability in areas related to energy efficiency, water conservation, building materials, landscaping, and site planning. 2.d Packet Pg. 85 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t D M u n i c i p a l C o d e S e c t i o n 1 8 . 7 6 . 0 2 0 d A r c h i t e c t u r a l R e v i e w F i n d i n g s ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 2001 S. Barrington Ave. • Suite 306 • Los Angeles • CA 90025 • T 310-312-9900 6986 La Jolla Boulevard • Suite 204 • La Jolla • CA 92037 • T 619-272-6200 TelecomLawFirm.com WIRELESS PLANNING MEMORANDUM TO: Ms. Rebecca Atkinson FROM: Dr. Jonathan Kramer DATE: November 29, 2017 RE: New Proposed Wireless Facility in the Public Right-of-Way adjacent to 2490 Louis Road- Cluster 1 (17PLN-00169) APPLICANT: Vinculums Services for Verizon Wireless APPLICANT’S ID: SF PALO ALTO 129 ADJ. APN: 127-30-062 UTILITY POLE ID: 3121 LOCATION CODE: 425233 CONFIGURATION: # 1 (Charles Cube Cabinet) The City of Palo Alto (the “City”) requested that Telecom Law Firm, PC (“TLF”) review the Vinculums Services on behalf of GTE Mobilnet dba Verizon Wireless (“Applicant”) application on behalf of Verizon Wireless (“Verizon”) to operate a new wireless site on a replacement Class 2 wood utility pole (“Pole”), owned and operated by the City of Palo Alto Utilities (“CPAU”) located in the public right-of-way (“ROW”) adjacent to 2490 Louis Road. This memorandum reviews the application and related materials received by the City from the Applicant on September 12, 2017 that are listed in Exhibit A of this memorandum. This memorandum provides a project description, analysis and discussion of project design and design alternatives, planner compliance with federal radio frequency exposure guidelines established by the Federal Communications Commission. Although many technical issues implicate legal issues, the analysis and recommendations contained in this memorandum do not constitute legal advice. I. Project Description This section describes the proposed application as depicted in the plans dated August 25, 2017 (“Plans”) and submitted with the permit application, and described in Figure 1. [Balance of page intentionally left blank] 2.e Packet Pg. 86 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 129 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 2 of 20 Telecom Law Firm PC Figure 1: Project description (Source: Plans). The top of the Pole is 50’1” above ground level (“AGL”). The Applicant proposes to install a 5- foot 1-inch tall canister antenna and cable cage affixed to the top of the Pole. The overall height of the Pole structure, including the antenna canister, is 55’2” AGL. The proposed antenna canister is separated from the highest primary power lines by more than 7 feet, which meets the requirements of the California Public Utilities Commission (“CPUC”), General Order 95 (“GO 95”). The centerline of the proposed Verizon antenna is proposed to be at 53’1” AGL and the bottom of the canister antenna is at 51’1” AGL. This is a single sector site aimed at 60° True North with a beam down-tilt of 12° (“Sector A” shown in the Plans). On the Pole, the Applicant proposes to install a 6” W x 11’ L aluminum channel mounting assembly bracket (“Bracket”) (top being at 19’6” AGL and bottom being at 9 feet AGL, with a 7.5” standoff from the Pole) to support radio transmission and powering equipment on the Pole. On the Bracket the Applicant proposes to mount the following: • Two remote radio unit 32 (“RRU-32s”) with a power supply unit (“PSU”). • One remote radio unit 11 (“RRU-11”) with PSU. • Two antenna signal Diplexers. • DC disconnect switch with shut-down instructions signage. 2.e Packet Pg. 87 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 129 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 3 of 20 Telecom Law Firm PC The Plans depict that all Bracket mounted equipment will be above the CPUC GO-95 required 8- foot clearance from the ground. The Bracket and equipment, cables, and conduits on the Bracket will be painted “Railroad Ties” by Kelly Moore KMA67 to blend in with the Pole. Additionally, the disconnect switch can be painted brown to reduce its visibility on the Pole. Moreover, the Plans depict that the Applicant proposes to install a new ground mounted Charles Cube-RL21221AB1 Cabinet (“Cabinet”), with dimensions 54”H x 34”W x 24.9”D, to enclose a DC power supply and battery back-up system. The cabinet is proposed to be mounted on a new concrete pad at grade. A heat exchanger will be mounted on the proposed Cabinet and the shutdown information sign for the AC load will be posted on the center of the Cabinet. The equipment proposed to be located within the Cabinet is associated with providing this node with direct current (“DC”) power to operate the transmission equipment. Page E-2, Panel 1 of the Plans depicts the entire grounding system from the antenna through the Bracket and associated equipment, down to and including the ground rod located in a new ground well adjacent to the Pole. The Plans state that the proposed fiber will be fed from an existing service at the communications level on the Pole to the planned demarcation box. Additionally, the page A-3, panel 1 of the Plans discloses that: “Fiber work to be completed by others under separate contract.” Verizon also proposes to install a flush-to-grade vault to serve as the interface between the fiber optic cables on the Pole and the fiber optic cables to be provided by others. Figure 2 and Figure 3 are current photos of the existing pole, prior to the replacement of the pole and the addition of the proposed node. [Balance of page intentionally left blank] 2.e Packet Pg. 88 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 129 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 4 of 20 Telecom Law Firm PC Figure 2: Current pole. (Source: TLF site visit on November 2, 2017). 2.e Packet Pg. 89 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 129 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 5 of 20 Telecom Law Firm PC Figure 3: Close-up view of the current pole with all associated existing pole-to-pole guys (Source: TLF site visit on November 2, 2017). 2.e Packet Pg. 90 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 129 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 6 of 20 Telecom Law Firm PC Figure 4 depicts the overall design proposed by the Applicant of this Configuration 1 project. Figure 4: Canister antenna, RF signage, Bracket, a total of three RRUs, DC disconnect and diplexers. Additional ground mounted Cabinet. TLF notes that the Plans may be misleading. There is an existing street light standard adjacent but not attached to the existing pole. (Source: Plans page A-3.1, panel 1; annotated by Dr. J. Kramer). 2.e Packet Pg. 91 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 129 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 7 of 20 Telecom Law Firm PC Figure 5 is a photo simulation of the overall design proposed by the Applicant of this Configuration 1 project. Figure 5: Photo simulation of proposed project (Source: Applicant’s Photo Sims). 2.e Packet Pg. 92 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 129 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 8 of 20 Telecom Law Firm PC TLF notes that the photo simulations provided by the Applicant, including the photo simulation in Figure 5, are underrepresented as to the actual visual impact of the proposed site. For example, they do not depict the RF signage on the Pole and do not depict the cabling from the antenna canister to the equipment and between the equipment on the Bracket. Further, the vehicle in the photos blocks the depiction of the proposed Cabinet. The Applicant should provide photo simulations from various angles depicting all the proposed installations on the Pole, above ground, and flush to grade. II. Discussion of Design Elements and Alternatives Even when an applicant claims a significant gap, as the Applicant claims it in its “Community Need for Small Cells” section of the Project Description for Cluster 1 (dated September 8, 2017), the Telecom Act does not grant the applicant rights to build whatever site and design it chooses. A jurisdiction may require a wireless applicant claiming a significant gap to construct a site using the “least intrusive means” to achieve their coverage objectives.1 This balances the national interest in deploying wireless services with the local interest in planned and orderly development. In the Ninth Circuit, the least intrusive means refers to the technically feasible and potentially available alternative design and location that most closely conforms to the local values a permit denial would otherwise serve.2 The Palo Alto Municipal Code (“PAMC”) Section 18.42.110 et seq expresses the local values that form the analytical baseline for considering approval of Wireless Communication Facilities (“WCF”). Based on PAMC 18.42.110(c)(3) the instant projects qualifies as a Tier 3 because it does not qualify under either Tier 1 project (eligible facilities request under Section 6409(a)) or Tier 2 project (a modification request that does not fit within the parameters of Tier 1). PAMC Section 18.42.110(d)(8) requires that an applicant show the maximum potential physical expansion of its site if approved. Pursuant to the FCC’s October 2014 Broadband Order interpreting 47 U.S.C. § 1455(a), once a wireless site exists, FCC rules allow for limited modifications and expansion of the wireless site. There are many federal and state factors that have to be considered to determine the possible future maximum expansion. Those factors include the type and design of the existing site to be modified, and the way the applicant wishes to modify the existing site. State regulations place additional physical safety limitations on the types of permissible modifications and expansions. For these reasons, it is not reasonably or usefully possible to take the current inchoate design to try and estimate possible but perhaps unlikely modifications and expansions. Finally, TLF has 1 See, e.g., American Tower Corp., 763 F.3d at 1056. 2 See id.; see also T-Mobile USA, Inc. v. City of Anacortes, 572 F.3d 987, 995 (9th Cir. 2009). 2.e Packet Pg. 93 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 129 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 9 of 20 Telecom Law Firm PC reviewed the Applicant’s response to PAMC Section 18.42.110(d)(8) (Attachment J – Statement Regarding Spectrum Act of the Applicant’s Project Description for Cluster 1 document dated September 8, 2017). Attachment J, Sections 1 and 2 echo TLF’s assessments above. TLF has no comment on Attachment J, Sections 3 and 4. TLF recommends this evaluation be revisited once the final design is settled. To be approved under PAMC 18.42.110(h) Tier 3, the process (h)(1) and findings (h)(2) required are: (1) A Tier 3 WCF Permit shall be reviewed by the Director. The Director's decision shall be appealable pursuant to the process for architectural review set forth in Section 18.77.070 and the process for conditional use permits set forth in Section 18.77.060. (2) The Director or Council on appeal shall grant a Tier 3 WCF Permit provided the proposed WCF complies with the development standards in Section 18.42.110(i) and the conditions of approval in Section 18.42.110(j), and all of the architectural review findings in Section 18.76.020(d) and the conditional use permit findings in Section 18.76.010(c) can be made. To be approved, the relevant findings for “Development Standards” in Section 18.42.110(i) must be made (our analysis is embedded in italics in each subsection): (1) Shall utilize the smallest footprint possible; “Footprint” is not a defined term in the PAMC Section 18.42.110(b). As proposed, this Pole and ground mounted project does not occupy the smallest “footprint” of ground space since the Cabinet installed on the ground increases the publicly accessible right-of-way area occupied at ground level. (2) Shall be designed to minimize the overall height, mass, and size of the cabinet and enclosure structure; The overall height for a Pole-top antenna is controlled by CPUC GO 95 for separation from existing electrical power conductors. As proposed, this project’s mass and size of the equipment on the Bracket is not minimized because portions of the transmission equipment on the Bracket can be located underground adjacent to the Pole. Additionally, the Cabinet can be eliminated by placing its contents, along with other project elements, in a flush-to-grade vault or vaults. Although TLF has recommended undergrounding, should that solution not be adopted, there remain additional visual mitigations that may be applied, such as reducing the bulk and stand-off distance of the Bracket and equipment attached to the Bracket. 2.e Packet Pg. 94 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 129 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 10 of 20 Telecom Law Firm PC (3) Shall be screened from public view; As proposed, this project is not screened from public view. Additionally, the direction that equipment faces, and accordingly the supporting Bracket, is a local decision. That said, GO 95 also impacts that face that may be used during to potential conflicts with a pole’s required climbing space. These are case-by-case issues, and there is not government standard to consider. Relatedly, if the bulk of the equipment is placed underground, then the size of the Bracket and the offset from the pole will be reduced thereby allowing greater orientation and placement options. (4) Shall be architecturally compatible with the existing site; This is a determination to be made by the Director as set out in the PAMC. (5) Shall be placed at a location that would not require the removal of any required landscaping or would reduce the quantity of landscaping to a level of noncompliance with the Zoning Code; This is a determination to be made by the Director as set out in the PAMC. Additionally, TLF is aware that the Applicant has discussed planting trees in a cohesive design intended to interrupt direct views of the equipment on the Bracket. (6) An antenna, base station, or tower shall be designed to minimize its visibility from off-site locations and shall be of a "camouflaged" or "stealth" design, including concealment, screening, and other techniques to hide or blend the antenna, base station, or tower into the surrounding area; As proposed, this project, other than the antenna canister, is not “designed to minimize its visibility from off-site locations and shall be of a ‘camouflaged’ or ‘stealth’ design, including concealment, screening, and other techniques to hide or blend the antenna, base station, or tower into the surrounding area.” The mass of the equipment located on the Bracket, which is offset from the Pole, is not camouflaged, screened, or stealthed merely by painting that mass a color similar to the Pole. When TLF conducted the site visits, the mock-up site across from 1350 Newell Road was also visited. TLF believes that the proposed shroud—while slightly improving the aesthetics of only the equipment on the Bracket, but not the Bracket itself—results in an increase in the visual bulk of the design. A true minimization of the visibility of the project from off-site locations will occur by undergrounding most of the transmission equipment (RRU-32s with PSU, RRU-11 with PSU DC disconnect diplexers, and power supply) in one or more flush-to-grade sidewalk vaults adjacent to the Pole. The equipment that would remain on the Pole would be associated with the electrical AC power service panel and the Pole supporting the antenna canister. See Figure 6 2.e Packet Pg. 95 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 129 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 11 of 20 Telecom Law Firm PC and Figure 7. Undergrounding of equipment in flush-to-grade vaults will not increase the footprint of the site. (7) A building-mounted antenna, base station, or tower shall be architecturally compatible with the existing building on which the antenna, base station, or tower is attached; This finding is not applicable to the proposed project. (8) For any Tier 2 or Tier 3 WCF proposed to be attached on an historic structure/site, as designated by Chapter 16.49, historic review shall also be required; Although this project is for a Tier 3 WCF, it does not appear that the project site (a wood pole) is a historic structure/site. (9) Except as otherwise permitted by the Spectrum Act, a building-mounted WCF may extend fifteen (15) feet beyond the permitted height of the building in the zone district; This finding is not applicable to the proposed project. (10) Except as otherwise permitted by the Spectrum Act, a tower or other stand-alone Tier 3 WCF Project shall not exceed sixty-five (65) feet in height; and The proposed project does not exceed 65 feet in height. (11) A tower or other stand-alone Tier 3 WCF may encroach into the interior/street side and rear setback. This finding is not applicable to the proposed project. 2.e Packet Pg. 96 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 129 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 12 of 20 Telecom Law Firm PC Figure 6: Reduction of the visibility of Pole mounted antenna associated equipment to be removed from the Pole, such as the two RRU32s, RRU11, (marked with red “x”) and be placed in a flush-to-grade sidewalk vault adjacent to the Pole (Source: Applicant photo simulations, annotated by Dr. J. Kramer). Proposed antenna canister to remain on Pole Proposed shutdown info sign to remain on Pole. Ground mounted cabinet to be removed 2.e Packet Pg. 97 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 129 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 13 of 20 Telecom Law Firm PC Figure 7: Potential location of one or more underground vaults within the 5’ sidewalk to house equipment. (Source: Site visit photo taken on November 2, 2017; annotated by Dr. J. Kramer). Potential underground vault location 2.e Packet Pg. 98 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 129 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 14 of 20 Telecom Law Firm PC TLF measured the width of the sidewalk on the November 2, 2017 during the site visit. The width of the sidewalk is 5 feet. The utility vault manufacturing industry has been adapting existing vault designs to the small volumetric needs of small cells. TLF understands that vaults from leading vault manufacturers can be readily provided for the volume of equipment the Applicant is proposing. Whatever vault size is preferred, TLF recommends that the vault be placed beneath the existing sidewalk wherever possible and utilize flush-to-grade vents. Based on Plans and the equipment that TLF believes may be undergrounded, and considering that this sidewalk is 5 feet in width, a 10 to 15 cubic foot vault would seem to be both reasonable and sufficient. Dimensions obtained from Plans page D-1 and D-2 • Two remote radio unit 32 (“RRU-32s”) (27.2” H x 12” W x 7” D) with a power supply unit (“PSU”). • One remote radio unit 11 (“RRU-11”) (19.67” H x 16.97” W x 7.2” D) with PSU. • Two antenna signal Diplexers (8.3” H x 4.6” W x 1.8” D) • One fiber demarcation box (8.54”H x10”W x2.88”D) This node being a configuration 1, it includes the Cabinet with dimensions (54”H x 34”W x 24.9”D) to enclose a DC power supply and battery back-up system. TLF recommends that the DC power supply be moved to the pole on the Bracket and the battery backup system to be situated within the proposed potential vault or vaults. Based on the Plans, the applicant proposes to install equipment (other than the antennas, the DC power disconnect switch, and the equipment Bracket) occupying approximately 7.25 to 10 cubic feet of space. TLF believes the equipment occupying up to 10 cubic feet should be placed in a flush-to-grade vault. The exact size of the backup battery vault cannot be estimated without more information from the Applicant. No over excavations are foreseen at this time by TLF. If one or more underground vaults are approved by the City, TLF recommends that the vault be placed outside of the drip line of adjacent trees, and the vault lid be: If one or more underground vaults are approved by the City, TLF recommends that the vault lid to be: • Non-skid material. • Painted to match the sidewalk to minimize visual impact. • Locked at all time unless active maintenance is occurring. III. Planned RF Compliance Evaluation Under the Telecom Act, the FCC completely occupies the field with respect to RF emissions regulation. The FCC established comprehensive rules for human exposure to RF emissions (the 2.e Packet Pg. 99 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 129 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 15 of 20 Telecom Law Firm PC “FCC Guidelines”).3 State and local governments cannot regulate wireless facilities based on environmental effects from RF emissions to the extent that the emissions comply with the FCC Guidelines.4 Although localities cannot establish their own standards for RF exposure, local officials may require wireless applicants to demonstrate compliance with the FCC Guidelines.5 Such demonstrations usually involve a predictive calculation because the site has not yet been built. i. FCC Guidelines, Categorical Exclusions and Exposure Mitigation Measures FCC Guidelines regulate exposure rather than emissions.6 Although the FCC establishes a maximum permissible exposure (“MPE”) limit, it does not mandate any specific limitations on power levels applicable to all antennas and requires the antenna operator to adopt exposure- mitigation measures only to the extent that certain persons might become exposed to the emissions. Thus, a relatively low-powered site in proximity to the general population might require more comprehensive mitigation measures than a relatively high-powered site in a remote location accessible only to trained personnel. The MPE limit also differentiates between members of “general population” and “occupational” wireless site workers. Virtually all people fall into the general population class, which includes anyone who either does not know about potential exposure or knows about the exposure but cannot exert control over the transmitters.7 The narrower occupational class includes persons knowingly exposed to RF fields through their employment and are able to exert control over their exposure.8 The MPE limit for the general population is five times lower than the MPE limit for the occupational class. Lastly, the FCC “categorically excludes” certain antennas from routine environmental review when either (1) the antennas create exposures in areas virtually inaccessible to humans or (2) the antennas operate at extreme low power. As a general rule, a wireless site qualified for a categorical exclusion when mounted on a structure built solely or primarily to support FCC- licensed or authorized equipment (i.e., a tower) and such that the lowest point on the lowest transmitter is more than 10 meters (32.8 feet) above ground.9 3 See 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(iv); see also 47 C.F.R. § 1.1307 et seq.; FCC Office of Engineering and Technology, Evaluating Compliance with FCC Guidelines for Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields, OET Bulletin 65, ed. 97-01 (1997). 4 See 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(iv). 5 See In re Procedures for Reviewing Requests for Relief from State and Local Regulations Pursuant to Section 332(c)(7)(B)(iv) of the Communications Act of 1934, Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd. 22821, 22828–22829 (Nov. 13, 2000) (declining to adopt rules that limit local authority to require compliance demonstrations). 6 See generally Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Fields: Guidelines for Cellular and PCS Sites, Consumer Guide, FCC (Oct. 22, 2014), available at https://www.fcc.gov/guides/human-exposure-rf-fields-guidelines-cellular- and-pcs-sites (discussing in general terms how wireless sites transmit and how the FCC regulates the emissions). 7 See 47 C.F.R. § 1.1310, Note 2. 8 See id. 9 See id. § 1.1307(b)(1). 2.e Packet Pg. 100 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 129 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 16 of 20 Telecom Law Firm PC Categorical exclusions establish a presumption that the emissions from the antennas will not significantly impact humans or the human environment. Such antennas are exempt from routine compliance evaluations but not exempt from actual compliance. Under some circumstances, such as a heavily collocated tower or when the transmissions from the proposed antenna(s) are at or just above proximity to general population members, even a categorically excluded site will require additional analysis. ii. Planned Compliance Evaluation and Recommendations The FCC Guidelines do not categorically exclude Verizon’s proposal because Verizon proposes to mount the antenna canister on a replacement Pole that was constructed primarily to transport legacy non-wireless utilities. Therefore, an additional analysis is necessary to determine whether the proposed antenna will demonstrate planned compliance with the FCC Guidelines. TLF notes that Verizon submitted an FCC LSGAC Optional Checklist (“LSGAC”) which discloses that the site is categorically excluded (Box 16 is checked off). This check-off is incorrect because, as mentioned above, this site is not a categorically excluded site. However, in addition to the LSGAC, the Applicant submitted a Statement of Hammett & Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers dated September 8, 2017 (the “RF Report”). The RF Report discloses that: • Verizon proposes to install one Amphenol Model CUUT070X12Fxyz0 tri-directional antenna, but Verizon proposes to activate only one direction of the antenna. • The antenna will employ up to 12° of signal transmission downtilt. • The single sector of transmissions (Sector A in the Plans) will be oriented towards 60° TN. See Figure 8. • The maximum effective radiated power (“ERP”) will be 7,700 watts (representing simultaneous operation at 3,680 watts for AWS, 3,320 watts for PCS and 700 watts for 700 MHz service). • No other wireless base stations are reported within 100 feet of the site. • For a person anywhere at ground, the maximum RF exposure level is calculated to be 0.011 mW/cm2 which is 1.8% of the applicable FCC general population public exposure limit. • The maximum calculated level at the second-floor elevation of any nearby residence is 3.3% of the public exposure limit, occurring at the residence at 2493 Louis Road 85 feet away (distance scaled in the RF Report from Sheet A 1.1 of the drawings).(TLF believes that 2493 Louis Road is a single-story residence). • The maximum calculated level at the second-floor elevation of the nearest residence, located about 40 feet away (distance scaled in the RF Report from Sheet A 1.1 of the drawings) at 897 Marshall Drive is 0.10% of the applicable FCC general population limit. (TLF notes that this site oriented towards 60° TN, which is pointed away from 897 Marshall Drive). 2.e Packet Pg. 101 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 129 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 17 of 20 Telecom Law Firm PC The RF Report finds that the RF exposure from the Verizon antenna will comply with the prevailing standards for limiting public exposure to radio frequency energy, and therefore, will not for this reason cause a significant impact on the environment. TLF agrees with this finding. The RF Report contains the basic RF emissions data needed to independently evaluate planned compliance. Based on the power output levels and operating frequencies provided, Verizon’s antennas would create a controlled access zone that extends approximately 34.4 feet from the face of the antenna at approximately 51 feet AGL. TLF calculated the far-field controlled access zone using RF effective radiated power per band information provided in the H&E report, and inserted those data into the FCC-approved formulae in FCC OET Bulletin 65 (No. 4 on page 19 and No. 5 on page 20). Given the sectorization of the RF emissions, TLF also considered structures along each transmission sector to the extent of the controlled zone. The controlled access zone extends horizontally from the antenna at the height of the antenna with as much as a 12° downtilt, with very little emissions that stray in any other direction, including towards ground level. In this case, the controlled access zone will be located entirely within publically-inaccessible airspace. [Balance of page intentionally left blank] 2.e Packet Pg. 102 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 129 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 18 of 20 Telecom Law Firm PC Figure 8: Direction and orientation of the active emission (Source: Plans page A-2, Panel 1). The fact that a site creates a controlled access zone does not necessarily mean that it violates the FCC Guidelines. Rather, a controlled access zone means that the applicant must affirmatively restrict public access to that area so that members of the general population (including trespassers) cannot unknowingly enter and be exposed to radio emissions in excess of the limits prescribed by the FCC. As discussed above, the FCC imposes an affirmative obligation on site operators to prevent unknowing overexposure to the general public, including trespassers that could potentially climb the Pole and enter the controlled access zone at 60° TN in front of the canister antenna. Accordingly, the Applicant will be able to demonstrate planned compliance with the FCC Rules by applying the signage conditions shown in the RF Report, specifically: Signs should comply with OET-65 color, symbol, and content recommendations. Contact information should be provided (e.g., a telephone number) to arrange for access to restricted areas. The selection of language(s) is not an engineering matter, and guidance from the 2.e Packet Pg. 103 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 129 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 19 of 20 Telecom Law Firm PC landlord, local zoning or health authority, or appropriate professionals may be required. Signage may also need to comply with the requirements of California Public Utilities Commission General Order No. 95. Practically, the Applicant proposes to situate a radio frequency (“RF”) warning sign 3-feet below the antenna, facing the climbing space. TLF proposes the following conditions to be included in any permit of approval for this project: 1. Permittee shall install and at all times maintain in good condition an “RF Notice” sign and network operations center contact information sign on the Pole immediately below the Bracket. Permittee shall install the signs required under this condition so that a person may clearly see the signs as he or she approaches the Pole. 2. Permittee shall install and at all times maintain in good condition an “RF Caution” sign on the Pole three feet (3’) below the canister antenna so that a person may clearly see the sign as he or she approaches the canister antenna. 3. Permittee shall ensure that all radio frequency signage complies with FCC OET Bulletin 65 or ANSI C95.2 for color, symbol, and content conventions. All such signage shall at all times provide a working local or toll-free telephone number to its network operations center, and such telephone number shall be able to reach a live person who can exert transmitter power-down control over this site as required by the FCC. /JLK 2.e Packet Pg. 104 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 129 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 20 of 20 Telecom Law Firm PC EXHIBIT A List of Applicant-provided documents, received by the City on September 12, 2017, that were reviewed by TLF in preparation for this memorandum: 1. Plans dated August 25, 2017. 2. Photo Simulations. 3. Project Description for Cluster 1 dated September 8, 2017 that included the “Community Need for Small Cells”. 4. LSGAC Optional Checklist. 5. Statement of Hammett & Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers dated September 8, 2017. 2.e Packet Pg. 105 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 2001 S. Barrington Ave. • Suite 306 • Los Angeles • CA 90025 • T 310-312-9900 6986 La Jolla Boulevard • Suite 204 • La Jolla • CA 92037 • T 619-272-6200 TelecomLawFirm.com WIRELESS PLANNING MEMORANDUM TO: Ms. Rebecca Atkinson FROM: Dr. Jonathan Kramer DATE: November 29, 2017 RE: New Proposed Wireless Facility in the Public Right-of-Way adjacent to 2802 Louis Road - Cluster 1 (17PLN-00169) APPLICANT: Vinculums Services for Verizon Wireless APPLICANT’S ID: SF PALO ALTO 130 ADJ. APN: 127-28-046 UTILITY POLE ID: 2461 LOCATION CODE: 425234 CONFIGURATION: # 3 The City of Palo Alto (the “City”) requested that Telecom Law Firm, PC (“TLF”) review the Vinculums Services on behalf of GTE Mobilnet dba Verizon Wireless (“Applicant”) application on behalf of Verizon Wireless (“Verizon”) to operate a new wireless site on an existing wood utility pole (“Pole”), owned and operated by the City of Palo Alto Utilities (“CPAU”) located in the public right-of-way (“ROW”) adjacent to 2802 Louis Road. This memorandum reviews the application and related materials received by the City from the Applicant on September 12, 2017 that are listed in Exhibit A of this memorandum. This memorandum provides a project description, analysis and discussion of project design and design alternatives, planner compliance with federal radio frequency exposure guidelines established by the Federal Communications Commission. Although many technical issues implicate legal issues, the analysis and recommendations contained in this memorandum do not constitute legal advice. I. Project Description This section describes the proposed application as depicted in the plans dated August 30, 2017 (“Plans”) and submitted with the permit application, and described in Figure 1. [Balance of page intentionally left blank] 2.e Packet Pg. 106 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 130 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 2 of 19 Telecom Law Firm PC Figure 1: Project description (Source: Plans). On top of the Pole, the Applicant proposes to install a 7-foot tall bayonet extension arm (“Arm”) to support a 5-foot 1-inch tall canister antenna and cable cage affixed to the top of the Arm. The overall height of the Pole will remain at 43 feet above ground level (“AGL”), but the overall height of the final structure, including the Arm and canister, will increase to 55’1” AGL. The 7-foot Arm will separate the antenna from the highest existing primary power line by 7-feet, which meets the requirements of the California Public Utilities Commission (“CPUC”), General Order 95 (“GO 95”). The centerline of the proposed Verizon antenna is proposed to be at 53’ AGL and the bottom of the canister antenna is at 51’AGL. This is a one sector site aimed at Sector A at 330° True North (“TN”) (Sector A shown in the Plans). On the Pole, the Applicant proposes to install a 6” W x 11’ L aluminum channel mounting assembly bracket (“Bracket”) (top being at 19 feet AGL and bottom being at 8 feet AGL, with a 7.5” standoff from the Pole) to support radio transmission and powering equipment on the Pole. On the Bracket the Applicant proposes to mount the following: • Two remote radio unit 32 (“RRU-32s”) with a power supply unit (“PSU”). • One remote radio unit 11 (“RRU-11”) with PSU. • Two antenna signal Diplexers. • One AC power Distribution Panel (with power shutdown and signage). 2.e Packet Pg. 107 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 130 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 3 of 19 Telecom Law Firm PC • One fiber demarcation box (manufactured by Aria Tech or another vendor). The Plans depict that all Bracket mounted equipment will be above the CPUC GO-95 required 8- foot clearance from the ground. The Bracket and equipment, cables, and conduits on the Bracket will be painted “Railroad Ties” by Kelly Moore KMA67 to blend in with the existing Pole. Additionally, the disconnect switch can be painted brown to reduce its visibility on the Pole. Page E-1, Panel 7 of the Plans depicts the entire grounding system from the antenna through the Bracket and associated equipment, down to and including the ground rod located in a new ground well adjacent to the Pole. This project does not include the fiber optic cable coming to this site from some other location. The Plans state that the proposed fiber will be fed from an existing service at the communications level on the Pole to the planned demarcation box to be located on the Bracket. Additionally, the page A-1, panel 1 of the Plans discloses that: “Fiber work to be completed by others under separate contract.” Verizon also proposes to install a flush-to-grade vault to serve as the interface between the fiber optic cables on the Pole and the fiber optic cables to be provided by others. [Balance of page intentionally left blank] 2.e Packet Pg. 108 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 130 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 4 of 19 Telecom Law Firm PC Figure 2 and Figure 3 are current photos of the existing pole without the proposed node. Figure 2: Current pole. (Source: TLF site visit on November 2, 2017). 2.e Packet Pg. 109 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 130 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 5 of 19 Telecom Law Firm PC Figure 3: Close-up view of the current pole with all associated existing connections (Source: TLF site visit on November 2, 2017). 2.e Packet Pg. 110 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 130 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 6 of 19 Telecom Law Firm PC Figure 4 depicts the overall design proposed by the Applicant of this Configuration 3 project. Figure 4: Canister antenna, bayonet extension, RF signage, Bracket, a total of three RRUs, DC converter and diplexers (Source: Plans page A-3.1, panel 1). 2.e Packet Pg. 111 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 130 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 7 of 19 Telecom Law Firm PC Figure 5 depicts the photo simulation of the overall design proposed by the Applicant of this Configuration 3 project. Figure 5: Photo simulation of proposed project and Pole (Source: Applicant’s Photo Sims). 2.e Packet Pg. 112 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 130 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 8 of 19 Telecom Law Firm PC TLF notes that the photo simulations provided by the Applicant, including the photo simulation in Figure 5, are underrepresented as to the actual visual impact of the proposed site. For example, they do not depict the RF signage on the bayonet and do not depict all the cabling from the antenna canister to the equipment and between the equipment on the Bracket. Further, the vehicle in Figure 5 partially obscures the entirety of the project. The Applicant should provide photo simulations from various angles depicting all the proposed installations on the Pole, above ground, and flush to grade. II. Discussion of Design Elements and Alternatives Even when an applicant claims a significant gap, as the Applicant claims it in its “Community Need for Small Cells” section of the Project Description for Cluster 1 (dated September 8, 2017), the Telecom Act does not grant the applicant rights to build whatever site or design it chooses. A jurisdiction may require a wireless applicant claiming a significant gap to construct a site using the “least intrusive means” to achieve their coverage objectives.1 This balances the national interest in deploying wireless services with the local interest in planned and orderly development. In the Ninth Circuit, the least intrusive means refers to the technically feasible and potentially available alternative design and location that most closely conforms to the local values a permit denial would otherwise serve.2 The Palo Alto Municipal Code (“PAMC”) Section 18.42.110 et seq expresses the local values that form the analytical baseline for considering approval of Wireless Communication Facilities (“WCF”). Based on PAMC 18.42.110(c)(3) the instant projects qualifies as a Tier 3 because it does not qualify under either Tier 1 project (eligible facilities request under Section 6409(a)) or Tier 2 project (a modification request that does not fit within the parameters of Tier 1). PAMC Section 18.42.110(d)(8) requires that an applicant show the maximum potential physical expansion of its site if approved. Pursuant to the FCC’s October 2014 Broadband Order interpreting 47 U.S.C. § 1455(a), once a wireless site exists, FCC rules allow for limited modifications and expansion of the wireless site. There are many federal and state factors that have to be considered to determine the possible future maximum expansion. Those factors include the type and design of the existing site to be modified, and the way the applicant wishes to modify the existing site. State regulations place additional physical safety limitations on the types of permissible modifications and expansions. For these reasons, it is not reasonably or usefully possible to take the current inchoate design to try and estimate possible but perhaps unlikely modifications and expansions. Finally, TLF has 1 See, e.g., American Tower Corp., 763 F.3d at 1056. 2 See id.; see also T-Mobile USA, Inc. v. City of Anacortes, 572 F.3d 987, 995 (9th Cir. 2009). 2.e Packet Pg. 113 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 130 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 9 of 19 Telecom Law Firm PC reviewed the Applicant’s response to PAMC Section 18.42.110(d)(8) (Attachment J – Statement Regarding Spectrum Act of the Applicant’s Project Description for Cluster 1 document dated September 8, 2017). Attachment J, Sections 1 and 2 echo TLF’s assessments above. TLF has no comment on Attachment J, Sections 3 and 4. TLF recommends this evaluation be revisited once the final design is settled. To be approved under PAMC 18.42.110(h) Tier 3, the process (h)(1) and findings (h)(2) required are: (1) A Tier 3 WCF Permit shall be reviewed by the Director. The Director's decision shall be appealable pursuant to the process for architectural review set forth in Section 18.77.070 and the process for conditional use permits set forth in Section 18.77.060. (2) The Director or Council on appeal shall grant a Tier 3 WCF Permit provided the proposed WCF complies with the development standards in Section 18.42.110(i) and the conditions of approval in Section 18.42.110(j), and all of the architectural review findings in Section 18.76.020(d) and the conditional use permit findings in Section 18.76.010(c) can be made. To be approved, the relevant findings for “Development Standards” in Section 18.42.110(i) must be made (our analysis is embedded in italics in each subsection): (1) Shall utilize the smallest footprint possible; “Footprint” is not a defined term in the PAMC Section 18.42.110(b). As proposed, this Pole- mounted project is likely to occupy the smallest “footprint” of ground space since the Pole width at ground level will not increase. (2) Shall be designed to minimize the overall height, mass, and size of the cabinet and enclosure structure; The overall height for a Pole-top antenna is controlled by CPUC GO 95 for separation from existing electrical power conductors. As proposed, this project’s mass and size of the equipment on the Bracket is not minimized because portions of the transmission equipment on the Bracket should be located underground adjacent to the Pole. Although TLF has recommended undergrounding, should that solution not be adopted, there remain additional visual mitigations that may be applied, such as reducing the bulk and stand- off distance of the Bracket and equipment attached to the Bracket. 2.e Packet Pg. 114 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 130 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 10 of 19 Telecom Law Firm PC (3) Shall be screened from public view; As proposed, this project is not screened from public view. Additionally, the direction that equipment faces, and accordingly the supporting Bracket, is a local decision. That said, GO 95 also impacts that face that may be used during to potential conflicts with a pole’s required climbing space. These are case-by-case issues, and there is not government standard to consider. Relatedly, if the bulk of the equipment is placed underground, then the size of the Bracket and the offset from the pole will be reduced thereby allowing greater orientation and placement options. (4) Shall be architecturally compatible with the existing site; This is a determination to be made by the Director as set out in the PAMC. (5) Shall be placed at a location that would not require the removal of any required landscaping or would reduce the quantity of landscaping to a level of noncompliance with the Zoning Code; This is a determination to be made by the Director as set out in the PAMC. Additionally, TLF is aware that the Applicant has discussed planting trees in a cohesive design intended to interrupt direct views of the equipment on the Bracket. (6) An antenna, base station, or tower shall be designed to minimize its visibility from off-site locations and shall be of a "camouflaged" or "stealth" design, including concealment, screening, and other techniques to hide or blend the antenna, base station, or tower into the surrounding area; As proposed, this project, other than the antenna canister, is not “designed to minimize its visibility from off-site locations and shall be of a ‘camouflaged’ or ‘stealth’ design, including concealment, screening, and other techniques to hide or blend the antenna, base station, or tower into the surrounding area.” The mass of the equipment located on the Bracket, which is offset from the Pole, is not camouflaged, screened, or stealthed merely by painting that mass a color similar to the Pole. When TLF conducted the site visits, the mock-up site across from 1350 Newell Road was also visited. TLF believes that the proposed shroud—while slightly improving the aesthetics of only the equipment on the Bracket, but not the Bracket itself—results in an increase in the visual bulk of the design. A true minimization of the visibility of the project from off-site locations will occur by undergrounding most of the transmission equipment (RRU-32s with PSU, RRU-11 with PSU, diplexers and fiber demarcation box) in one or more flush-to-grade sidewalk vaults adjacent to the Pole. The equipment that would remain on the Pole would be associated with the electrical AC power service panel and the Pole-top bayonet extension supporting the antenna canister. See 2.e Packet Pg. 115 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 130 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 11 of 19 Telecom Law Firm PC Figure 6 and Figure 7. Undergrounding of equipment in flush-to-grade vaults will not increase the footprint of the site. (7) A building-mounted antenna, base station, or tower shall be architecturally compatible with the existing building on which the antenna, base station, or tower is attached; This finding is not applicable to the proposed project. (8) For any Tier 2 or Tier 3 WCF proposed to be attached on an historic structure/site, as designated by Chapter 16.49, historic review shall also be required; Although this project is for a Tier 3 WCF, it does not appear that the project site (a wood pole) is a historic structure/site. (9) Except as otherwise permitted by the Spectrum Act, a building-mounted WCF may extend fifteen (15) feet beyond the permitted height of the building in the zone district; This finding is not applicable to the proposed project. (10) Except as otherwise permitted by the Spectrum Act, a tower or other stand-alone Tier 3 WCF Project shall not exceed sixty-five (65) feet in height; and The proposed project does not exceed 65 feet in height. (11) A tower or other stand-alone Tier 3 WCF may encroach into the interior/street side and rear setback. This finding is not applicable to the proposed project. [Balance of page intentionally left blank] 2.e Packet Pg. 116 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 130 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 12 of 19 Telecom Law Firm PC Figure 6: Reduction of the visibility of Pole mounted antenna associated equipment to be removed from the Pole, such as the two RRU32s, RRU11, and fiber demarcation enclosure (marked with red “x”s) to be placed in a flush- to-grade sidewalk vault adjacent to the Pole (Source: Applicant photo simulations, annotated by Dr. J. Kramer). Proposed antenna canister to remain on Pole Proposed bayonet to remain on Pole Proposed AC power distribution panel to remain on Pole 2.e Packet Pg. 117 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 130 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 13 of 19 Telecom Law Firm PC Figure 7: Proposed location of underground vault to situate the two RRU32s, RRU11, diplexers and fiber demarcation box (Source: Site visit photo taken on November 2, 2017; annotated by Dr. J. Kramer). TLF measured the width of the sidewalk on the November 2, 2017 during the site visit. The width of the sidewalk is 5 feet. The utility vault manufacturing industry has been adapting existing vault designs to the small volumetric needs of small cells. TLF understands that vaults from leading vault manufacturers can be readily provided for the volume of equipment the Applicant is proposing. Whatever vault Potential Underground Vault Location 2.e Packet Pg. 118 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 130 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 14 of 19 Telecom Law Firm PC size is preferred, TLF recommends that the vault be placed beneath the existing sidewalk wherever possible and utilize flush-to-grade vents. Based on Plans and the equipment that TLF believes may be undergrounded, and considering that this sidewalk is 5 feet in width, a 10 to 15 cubic foot vault would seem to be both reasonable and sufficient. Dimensions obtained from Plans page D-1 • Two remote radio unit 32 (“RRU-32s”) (27.2” H x 12” W x 7” D) with a power supply unit (“PSU”). • One remote radio unit 11 (“RRU-11”) (19.67” H x 16.97” W x 7.2” D) with PSU. • Two antenna signal Diplexers (8.3” H x 4.6” W x 1.8” D) • One fiber demarcation box (Aria Tech dimensions(8.54”H x10”W x2.88”D) Based on the Plans, the applicant proposes to install equipment (other than the antennas, the DC power disconnect switch, and the equipment Bracket) occupying approximately 7.25 to 10 cubic feet of space. TLF believes the equipment occupying up to 10 cubic feet should be placed in a flush-to-grade vault. No over excavations are foreseen at this time by TLF. If one or more underground vaults are approved by the City, TLF recommends that the vault be placed outside of the drip line of adjacent trees, and the vault lid be: • Non-skid material. • Painted to match the sidewalk to minimize visual impact. • Locked at all time unless active maintenance is occurring. III. Planned RF Compliance Evaluation Under the Telecom Act, the FCC completely occupies the field with respect to RF emissions regulation. The FCC established comprehensive rules for human exposure to RF emissions (the “FCC Guidelines”).3 State and local governments cannot regulate wireless facilities based on environmental effects from RF emissions to the extent that the emissions comply with the FCC Guidelines.4 Although localities cannot establish their own standards for RF exposure, local officials may require wireless applicants to demonstrate compliance with the FCC Guidelines.5 Such demonstrations usually involve a predictive calculation because the site has not yet been built. 3 See 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(iv); see also 47 C.F.R. § 1.1307 et seq.; FCC Office of Engineering and Technology, Evaluating Compliance with FCC Guidelines for Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields, OET Bulletin 65, ed. 97-01 (1997). 4 See 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(iv). 5 See In re Procedures for Reviewing Requests for Relief from State and Local Regulations Pursuant to Section 332(c)(7)(B)(iv) of the Communications Act of 1934, Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd. 22821, 22828–22829 (Nov. 13, 2000) (declining to adopt rules that limit local authority to require compliance demonstrations). 2.e Packet Pg. 119 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 130 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 15 of 19 Telecom Law Firm PC i. FCC Guidelines, Categorical Exclusions and Exposure Mitigation Measures FCC Guidelines regulate exposure rather than emissions.6 Although the FCC establishes a maximum permissible exposure (“MPE”) limit, it does not mandate any specific limitations on power levels applicable to all antennas and requires the antenna operator to adopt exposure- mitigation measures only to the extent that certain persons might become exposed to the emissions. Thus, a relatively low-powered site in proximity to the general population might require more comprehensive mitigation measures than a relatively high-powered site in a remote location accessible only to trained personnel. The MPE limit also differentiates between members of “general population” and “occupational” wireless site workers. Virtually all people fall into the general population class, which includes anyone who either does not know about potential exposure or knows about the exposure but cannot exert control over the transmitters.7 The narrower occupational class includes persons knowingly exposed to RF fields through their employment and are able to exert control over their exposure.8 The MPE limit for the general population is five times lower than the MPE limit for the occupational class. Lastly, the FCC “categorically excludes” certain antennas from routine environmental review when either (1) the antennas create exposures in areas virtually inaccessible to humans or (2) the antennas operate at extreme low power. As a general rule, a wireless site qualified for a categorical exclusion when mounted on a structure built solely or primarily to support FCC- licensed or authorized equipment (i.e., a tower) and such that the lowest point on the lowest transmitter is more than 10 meters (32.8 feet) above ground.9 Categorical exclusions establish a presumption that the emissions from the antennas will not significantly impact humans or the human environment. Such antennas are exempt from routine compliance evaluations but not exempt from actual compliance. Under some circumstances, such as a heavily collocated tower or when the transmissions are in close proximity to general population members, even a categorically excluded site will require additional analysis. ii. Planned Compliance Evaluation and Recommendations The FCC Guidelines do not categorically exclude Verizon’s proposal because Verizon proposes to mount the antenna canister on an existing pole that was constructed primarily to transport legacy non-wireless utilities. Therefore, an additional analysis is necessary to determine whether the proposed antenna will demonstrate planned compliance with the FCC Guidelines. 6 See generally Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Fields: Guidelines for Cellular and PCS Sites, Consumer Guide, FCC (Oct. 22, 2014), available at https://www.fcc.gov/guides/human-exposure-rf-fields-guidelines-cellular-and-pcs- sites (discussing in general terms how wireless sites transmit and how the FCC regulates the emissions). 7 See 47 C.F.R. § 1.1310, Note 2. 8 See id. 9 See id. § 1.1307(b)(1). 2.e Packet Pg. 120 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 130 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 16 of 19 Telecom Law Firm PC TLF notes that Verizon submitted an FCC LSGAC Optional Checklist (“LSGAC”) which discloses that the site is categorically excluded (Box 16 is checked off). This check-off is incorrect because, as mentioned above, this site is not a categorically excluded site. However, in addition to the LSGAC, the Applicant submitted a Statement of Hammett & Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers dated September 8, 2017 (the “RF Report”). The RF Report discloses that: • Verizon proposes to install one Amphenol Model CUUT070X12Fxyz0 tri-directional antenna, but Verizon proposes to activate only one direction of the antenna. • The antenna will employ up to 12° of signal transmission downtilt. • The single sector of transmissions (Sector A in the Plans) will be oriented towards 330° TN. See Figure 8. • The maximum effective radiated power (“ERP”) will be 7,700 watts (representing simultaneous operation at 3,680 watts for AWS, 3,320 watts for PCS and 700 watts for 700 MHz service). • No other wireless base stations are reported within 100 feet of the site. • For a person anywhere at ground, the maximum RF exposure level is calculated to be 0.011 mW/cm2 which is 1.8% of the applicable FCC general population public exposure limit. • The maximum calculated level at the second-floor elevation of any nearby residence is 1.8% of the public exposure limit, occurring at the residence at 2796 Louis Road about 90 feet away (distance scaled in the RF Report from Sheet A 1.1 of the drawings). (TLF notes that the emissions are not aimed at 2796 Louis Road, but rather to the north of that address. TLF also notes that the emissions are aimed away from 2824 Louis Drive, a two-story residence.) • The maximum calculated level at the second-floor elevation of the nearest residence, located about 27 feet away (distance scaled in the RF Report from Sheet A 1.1 of the drawings) at 2724 Louis Road is 0.086% of the applicable FCC general population limit. The RF Report finds that the RF exposure from the Verizon antenna will comply with the prevailing standards for limiting public exposure to radio frequency energy, and therefore, will not for this reason cause a significant impact on the environment. TLF agrees with this finding. The RF Report contains the basic RF emissions data needed to independently evaluate planned compliance. Based on the power output levels and operating frequencies provided, Verizon’s antennas would create a controlled access zone that extends approximately 34.4 feet from the face of the antenna at approximately 51 feet AGL. TLF calculated the far-field controlled access zone using RF effective radiated power per band information provided in the H&E report, and inserted those data into the FCC-approved formulae in FCC OET Bulletin 65 (No. 4 on page 19 and No. 5 on page 20). Given the sectorization of the RF emissions, TLF also considered structures along each transmission sector to the extent of the controlled zone. 2.e Packet Pg. 121 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 130 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 17 of 19 Telecom Law Firm PC The controlled access zone extends horizontally from the antenna at the height of the antenna with as much as a 12° downtilt, with very little emissions that stray in any other direction, including towards ground level. In this case, the controlled access zone will be located entirely within publically-inaccessible airspace. Figure 8: Direction and orientation of the active emissions (Source: Plans page A-2, Panel 1). The fact that a site creates a controlled access zone does not necessarily mean that it violates the FCC Guidelines. Rather, a controlled access zone means that the applicant must affirmatively restrict public access to that area so that members of the general population (including trespassers) cannot unknowingly enter and be exposed to radio emissions in excess of the limits prescribed by the FCC. 2.e Packet Pg. 122 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 130 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 18 of 19 Telecom Law Firm PC As discussed above, the FCC imposes an affirmative obligation on site operators to prevent unknowing overexposure to the general public, including trespassers that could potentially climb the Pole and bayonet and enter the controlled access zone at 330° TN in front of the canister antenna. Accordingly, the Applicant will be able to demonstrate planned compliance with the FCC Rules by applying the signage conditions shown in the RF Report, specifically: Signs should comply with OET-65 color, symbol, and content recommendations. Contact information should be provided (e.g., a telephone number) to arrange for access to restricted areas. The selection of language(s) is not an engineering matter, and guidance from the landlord, local zoning or health authority, or appropriate professionals may be required. Signage may also need to comply with the requirements of California Public Utilities Commission General Order No. 95. Practically, the Applicant proposes to situate a radio frequency (“RF”) warning sign 3-feet below the antenna, facing the climbing space. TLF proposes the following conditions to be included in any permit of approval for this project: 1. Permittee shall install and at all times maintain in good condition an “RF Notice” and network operations center contact information sign on the Pole immediately below the Bracket. Permittee shall install the signs required under this condition so that a person may clearly see the signs as he or she approaches the Pole. 2. Permittee shall install and at all times maintain in good condition an “RF Caution” sign on the bayonet three feet (3’) below the canister antenna so that a person may clearly see the sign as he or she approaches the canister antenna. 3. Permittee shall ensure that all radio frequency signage complies with FCC OET Bulletin 65 or ANSI C95.2 for color, symbol, and content conventions. All such signage shall at all times provide a working local or toll-free telephone number to its network operations center, and such telephone number shall be able to reach a live person who can exert transmitter power-down control over this site as required by the FCC. /JLK 2.e Packet Pg. 123 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 130 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 19 of 19 Telecom Law Firm PC EXHIBIT A List of Applicant-provided documents, received by the City on September 12, 2017, that were reviewed by TLF in preparation for this memorandum: 1. Plans dated August 30, 2017. 2. Photo Simulations. 3. Project Description for Cluster 1 dated September 8, 2017 that included the “Community Need for Small Cells”. 4. LSGAC Optional Checklist. 5. Statement of Hammett & Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers dated September 8, 2017. 2.e Packet Pg. 124 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 2001 S. Barrington Ave. • Suite 306 • Los Angeles • CA 90025 • T 310-312-9900 6986 La Jolla Boulevard • Suite 204 • La Jolla • CA 92037 • T 619-272-6200 TelecomLawFirm.com WIRELESS PLANNING MEMORANDUM TO: Ms. Rebecca Atkinson FROM: Dr. Jonathan Kramer DATE: November 29, 2017 RE: New Proposed Wireless Facility in the Public Right-of-Way adjacent to 891 Elbridge Way- Cluster 1 (17PLN-00169) APPLICANT: Vinculums Services for Verizon Wireless APPLICANT’S ID: SF PALO ALTO 131 ADJ. APN: 127-26-067 UTILITY POLE ID: 3315 LOCATION CODE: 425235 CONFIGURATION: # 2 The City of Palo Alto (the “City”) requested that Telecom Law Firm, PC (“TLF”) review the Vinculums Services on behalf of GTE Mobilnet dba Verizon Wireless (“Applicant”) application on behalf of Verizon Wireless (“Verizon”) to operate a new wireless site on an existing wood utility pole (“Pole”), owned and operated by the City of Palo Alto Utilities (“CPAU”) located in the public right-of-way (“ROW”) adjacent to 891 Elbridge Way. This memorandum reviews the application and related materials received by the City from the Applicant on September 12, 2017 that are listed in Exhibit A of this memorandum. This Memorandum provides a project description, analysis and discussion of project design and design alternatives, planner compliance with federal radio frequency exposure guidelines established by the Federal Communications Commission. Although many technical issues implicate legal issues, the analysis and recommendations contained in this memorandum do not constitute legal advice. I. Project Description This section describes the proposed application as depicted in the plans dated August 28, 2017 (“Plans”) and submitted with the permit application, and described in Figure 1. [Balance of page intentionally left blank] 2.e Packet Pg. 125 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 131 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 2 of 18 Telecom Law Firm PC Figure 1: Project description (Source: Plans). On top of the Pole, the Applicant proposes to install a 7-foot tall bayonet extension arm (“Arm”) to support a 5-foot 1-inch tall canister antenna and cable cage affixed to the top of the Arm. The overall height of the Pole will remain at 43’10” above ground level (“AGL”), but the overall height of the final structure, including the Arm and canister, will increase to 55’11” AGL. The 7-foot Arm will separate the antenna from the highest existing primary power line by 7-feet, which meets the requirements of the California Public Utilities Commission (“CPUC”), General Order 95 (“GO 95”). The centerline of the proposed Verizon antenna is proposed to be at 53’10” AGL and the bottom of the canister antenna is at 51’10” AGL. This is a three sector site aimed at Sector A at 0° True North (“TN”), Sector B at 120° TN and Sector C at 240° TN with a beam down-tilt of 12° (“Sector A, B and C” shown in the Plans). On the Pole, the Applicant proposes to install a 6” W x 11’ L aluminum channel mounting assembly bracket ‘pancake frame’ (“Bracket”) (top being at 19’ 9” AGL and bottom being at 9 feet AGL, with a 6” standoff from the Pole) to support radio transmission and powering equipment on the Pole. On the Bracket the Applicant proposes to mount the following: • Two remote radio unit 32 (“RRU-32s”) with a power supply unit (“PSU”). • One remote radio unit 11 (“RRU-11”) with a PSU. • Two antenna signal Diplexers. 2.e Packet Pg. 126 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 131 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 3 of 18 Telecom Law Firm PC • One Charles Cube- SC1042NAN3 cabinet (“Cabinet”) to enclose DC power supply • One AC power Distribution Panel (with power shutdown- DC Disconnect and signage). No Fiber demarcation box shown on the Plans page A-3, panel 1. However, The Plans state that the proposed fiber will be fed from an existing service at the communications level on the Pole to the planned demarcation box. Additionally, the page A-3, panel 1 of the Plans discloses that: “Fiber work to be completed by others under separate contract.” The Plans depict that all Bracket mounted equipment will be above the CPUC GO-95 required 8- foot clearance from the ground. The Bracket and equipment, cables, and conduits on the Bracket will be painted “Railroad Ties” by Kelly Moore Railroad Ties KMA67 to blend in with the existing Pole. Additionally, the disconnect switch can be painted brown to reduce its visibility on the Pole. Page E-1, Panel 7 of the Plans depicts the entire grounding system from the antenna through the Bracket and associated equipment, down to and including the ground rod located in a new ground well adjacent to the Pole. [Balance of page intentionally left blank] 2.e Packet Pg. 127 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 131 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 4 of 18 Telecom Law Firm PC Figure 2 is a current photo of the existing Pole without the proposed node. Figure 2: Current pole. (Source: TLF site visit on November 2, 2017). 2.e Packet Pg. 128 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 131 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 5 of 18 Telecom Law Firm PC Figure 3 depicts the overall design proposed by the Applicant of this Configuration 2 project. Figure 3: Canister antenna, bayonet extension, RF signage, Bracket, DC Power Supply-Cabinet, a total of three RRUs, DC converter and diplexers (Source: Plans page A-3.1, panel 1). 2.e Packet Pg. 129 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 131 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 6 of 18 Telecom Law Firm PC Figure 4 depicts the photo simulation of the overall design proposed by the Applicant of this Configuration 2 project. Figure 4: Photo simulation of proposed project and Pole. (Source: Applicant’s Photo Sims). 2.e Packet Pg. 130 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 131 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 7 of 18 Telecom Law Firm PC TLF notes that the photo simulations provided by the Applicant, including the photo simulation in Figure 4, are underrepresented as to the actual visual impact of the proposed site. For example, they do not depict the RF signage on the bayonet and do not depict all the cabling from the antenna canister to the equipment and between the equipment on the Bracket. II. Discussion of Design Elements and Alternatives Even when an applicant claims a significant gap, as the Applicant claims it in its “Community Need for Small Cells” section of the Project Description for Cluster 1 (dated September 8, 2017), the Telecom Act does not grant the applicant rights to build whatever site or design it chooses. A jurisdiction may require a wireless applicant claiming a significant gap to construct a site using the “least intrusive means” to achieve their coverage objectives.1 This balances the national interest in deploying wireless services with the local interest in planned and orderly development. In the Ninth Circuit, the least intrusive means refers to the technically feasible and potentially available alternative design and location that most closely conforms to the local values a permit denial would otherwise serve.2 The Palo Alto Municipal Code (“PAMC”) Section 18.42.110 et seq expresses the local values that form the analytical baseline for considering approval of Wireless Communication Facilities (“WCF”). Based on PAMC 18.42.110(c)(3) the instant projects qualifies as a Tier 3 because it does not qualify under either Tier 1 project (eligible facilities request under Section 6409(a)) or Tier 2 project (a modification request that does not fit within the parameters of Tier 1). PAMC Section 18.42.110(d)(8) requires that an applicant show the maximum potential physical expansion of its site if approved. Pursuant to the FCC’s October 2014 Broadband Order interpreting 47 U.S.C. § 1455(a), once a wireless site exists, FCC rules allow for limited modifications and expansion of the wireless site. There are many federal and state factors that have to be considered to determine the possible future maximum expansion. Those factors include the type and design of the existing site to be modified, and the way the applicant wishes to modify the existing site. State regulations place additional physical safety limitations on the types of permissible modifications and expansions. For these reasons, it is not reasonably or usefully possible to take the current inchoate design to try and estimate possible but perhaps unlikely modifications and expansions. Finally, TLF has reviewed the Applicant’s response to PAMC Section 18.42.110(d)(8) (Attachment J – Statement Regarding Spectrum Act of the Applicant’s Project Description for Cluster 1 document dated September 8, 2017). Attachment J, Sections 1 and 2 echo TLF’s assessments above. TLF has 1 See, e.g., American Tower Corp., 763 F.3d at 1056. 2 See id.; see also T-Mobile USA, Inc. v. City of Anacortes, 572 F.3d 987, 995 (9th Cir. 2009). 2.e Packet Pg. 131 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 131 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 8 of 18 Telecom Law Firm PC no comment on Attachment J, Sections 3 and 4. TLF recommends this evaluation be revisited once the final design is settled. To be approved under PAMC 18.42.110(h) Tier 3, the process (h)(1) and findings (h)(2) required are: (1) A Tier 3 WCF Permit shall be reviewed by the Director. The Director's decision shall be appealable pursuant to the process for architectural review set forth in Section 18.77.070 and the process for conditional use permits set forth in Section 18.77.060. (2) The Director or Council on appeal shall grant a Tier 3 WCF Permit provided the proposed WCF complies with the development standards in Section 18.42.110(i) and the conditions of approval in Section 18.42.110(j), and all of the architectural review findings in Section 18.76.020(d) and the conditional use permit findings in Section 18.76.010(c) can be made. To be approved, the relevant findings for “Development Standards” in Section 18.42.110(i) must be made (our analysis is embedded in italics in each subsection): (1) Shall utilize the smallest footprint possible; “Footprint” is not a defined term in the PAMC Section 18.42.110(b). As proposed, this Pole-mounted project is likely to occupy the smallest “footprint” of ground space since the Pole width at ground level will not increase. (2) Shall be designed to minimize the overall height, mass, and size of the cabinet and enclosure structure; The overall height for a Pole-top antenna is controlled by CPUC GO 95 for separation from existing electrical power conductors. As proposed, this project’s mass and size of the equipment on the Bracket is not minimized because portions of the transmission equipment on the Bracket should be located underground adjacent to the Pole. Although TLF has recommended undergrounding, should that solution not be adopted, there remain additional visual mitigations that may be applied, such as reducing the bulk and stand-off distance of the Bracket and equipment attached to the Bracket. (3) Shall be screened from public view; As proposed, this project is not screened from public view. Additionally, the direction that equipment faces, and accordingly the supporting Bracket, is a local decision. That said, GO 95 also impacts that face that may be used during to potential conflicts with a pole’s required 2.e Packet Pg. 132 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 131 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 9 of 18 Telecom Law Firm PC climbing space. These are case-by-case issues, and there is not government standard to consider. Relatedly, if the bulk of the equipment is placed underground, then the size of the Bracket and the offset from the pole will be reduced thereby allowing greater orientation and placement options. (4) Shall be architecturally compatible with the existing site; This is a determination to be made by the Director as set out in the PAMC. (5) Shall be placed at a location that would not require the removal of any required landscaping or would reduce the quantity of landscaping to a level of noncompliance with the Zoning Code; This is a determination to be made by the Director as set out in the PAMC. Additionally, TLF is aware that the Applicant has discussed planting trees in a cohesive design intended to interrupt direct views of the equipment on the Bracket. (6) An antenna, base station, or tower shall be designed to minimize its visibility from off-site locations and shall be of a "camouflaged" or "stealth" design, including concealment, screening, and other techniques to hide or blend the antenna, base station, or tower into the surrounding area; As proposed, this project, other than the antenna canister, is not “designed to minimize its visibility from off-site locations and shall be of a ‘camouflaged’ or ‘stealth’ design, including concealment, screening, and other techniques to hide or blend the antenna, base station, or tower into the surrounding area.” The mass of the equipment located on the Bracket, which is offset from the Pole, is not camouflaged, screened, or stealthed merely by painting that mass a color similar to the Pole. When TLF conducted the site visits, the mock-up site across from 1350 Newell Road was also visited. TLF believes that the proposed shroud—while slightly improving the aesthetics of only the equipment on the Bracket, but not the Bracket itself—results in an increase in the visual bulk of the design. A true minimization of the visibility of the project from off-site locations will occur by undergrounding most of the transmission equipment (RRU-32s with PSU, RRU-11 with PSU, diplexers and fiber demarcation box) in one more flush-to-grade sidewalk vault adjacent to the Pole. The equipment that would remain on the Pole would be associated with the electrical AC power service panel and the Pole-top bayonet extension supporting the antenna canister. See Figure 5. Undergrounding of equipment in flush-to-grade vaults will not increase the footprint of the site. 2.e Packet Pg. 133 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 131 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 10 of 18 Telecom Law Firm PC (7) A building-mounted antenna, base station, or tower shall be architecturally compatible with the existing building on which the antenna, base station, or tower is attached; This finding is not applicable to the proposed project. (8) For any Tier 2 or Tier 3 WCF proposed to be attached on an historic structure/site, as designated by Chapter 16.49, historic review shall also be required; Although this project is for a Tier 3 WCF, it does not appear that the project site (a wood pole) is a historic structure/site. (9) Except as otherwise permitted by the Spectrum Act, a building-mounted WCF may extend fifteen (15) feet beyond the permitted height of the building in the zone district; This finding is not applicable to the proposed project. (10) Except as otherwise permitted by the Spectrum Act, a tower or other stand-alone Tier 3 WCF Project shall not exceed sixty-five (65) feet in height; and The proposed project does not exceed 65 feet in height. (11) A tower or other stand-alone Tier 3 WCF may encroach into the interior/street side and rear setback. This finding is not applicable to the proposed project. [Balance of page intentionally left blank] 2.e Packet Pg. 134 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 131 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 11 of 18 Telecom Law Firm PC Figure 5: Reduction of the visibility of Pole mounted antenna associated equipment to be removed from the Pole, such as the two RRU32s, RRU11, DC power supply- Cabinet (marked with red “x”) and be placed in a flush-to- grade sidewalk vault adjacent to the Pole (Source: Applicant photo simulations, annotated by Dr. J. Kramer). Proposed antenna canister to remain on Pole Proposed bayonet to remain on Pole Proposed AC power distribution panel (with power shutdown- DC disconnect and signage) to stay on Pole. 2.e Packet Pg. 135 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 131 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 12 of 18 Telecom Law Firm PC Figure 6: Proposed location of underground vault- away from tree drip lines (Source: TLF site visit on November 2, 2017; annotated by Dr. J. Kramer). TLF measured the width of the sidewalk on the November 2, 2017 during the site visit. The width of the sidewalk is 5 feet. The utility vault manufacturing industry has been adapting existing vault designs to the small volumetric needs of small cells. TLF understands that vaults from leading vault manufacturers can be readily provided for the volume of equipment the Applicant is proposing. Whatever vault size is preferred, TLF recommends that the vault be placed beneath the existing sidewalk wherever possible and utilize flush-to-grade vents. Based on Plans and the equipment that TLF believes may be undergrounded, and considering that this sidewalk is 5 feet in width, a 10 to 15 cubic foot vault would seem to be both reasonable and sufficient. Dimensions obtained from Plans page D-1 and D-2 • Two remote radio unit 32 (“RRU-32s”) (27.2” H x 12” W x 7” D) with a power supply unit (“PSU”). • One remote radio unit 11 (“RRU-11”) (19.67” H x 16.97” W x 7.2” D) with PSU. Potential Underground Vault Location 2.e Packet Pg. 136 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 131 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 13 of 18 Telecom Law Firm PC • Two antenna signal Diplexers (8.3” H x 4.6” W x 1.8” D) • One fiber demarcation box (8.54”H x10”W x2.88”D) This node being a configuration 2, it includes battery backup strapped unto the Pole. TLF recommends that the battery backup system to be situated within the proposed potential vault or vaults. Based on the Plans, the applicant proposes to install equipment (other than the antennas, the DC power disconnect switch, and the equipment Bracket) occupying approximately 7.25 to 10 cubic feet of space. TLF believes the equipment occupying up to 10 cubic feet should be placed in a flush-to-grade vault. The exact size of the backup battery vault cannot be estimated without more information from the Applicant. No over excavations are foreseen at this time by TLF. If one or more underground vaults are approved by the City, TLF recommends that the vault be placed outside of the drip line of adjacent trees, and the vault lid be: If one or more underground vaults are approved by the City, TLF recommends that the vault lid will be: • Non-skid material. • Painted to match the sidewalk to minimize visual impact. • Locked at all time unless active maintenance is occurring. III. Planned RF Compliance Evaluation Under the Telecom Act, the FCC completely occupies the field with respect to RF emissions regulation. The FCC established comprehensive rules for human exposure to RF emissions (the “FCC Guidelines”).3 State and local governments cannot regulate wireless facilities based on environmental effects from RF emissions to the extent that the emissions comply with the FCC Guidelines.4 Although localities cannot establish their own standards for RF exposure, local officials may require wireless applicants to demonstrate compliance with the FCC Guidelines.5 Such demonstrations usually involve a predictive calculation because the site has not yet been built. 3 See 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(iv); see also 47 C.F.R. § 1.1307 et seq.; FCC Office of Engineering and Technology, Evaluating Compliance with FCC Guidelines for Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields, OET Bulletin 65, ed. 97-01 (1997). 4 See 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(iv). 5 See In re Procedures for Reviewing Requests for Relief from State and Local Regulations Pursuant to Section 332(c)(7)(B)(iv) of the Communications Act of 1934, Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd. 22821, 22828–22829 (Nov. 13, 2000) (declining to adopt rules that limit local authority to require compliance demonstrations). 2.e Packet Pg. 137 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 131 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 14 of 18 Telecom Law Firm PC i. FCC Guidelines, Categorical Exclusions and Exposure Mitigation Measures FCC Guidelines regulate exposure rather than emissions.6 Although the FCC establishes a maximum permissible exposure (“MPE”) limit, it does not mandate any specific limitations on power levels applicable to all antennas and requires the antenna operator to adopt exposure- mitigation measures only to the extent that certain persons might become exposed to the emissions. Thus, a relatively low-powered site in proximity to the general population might require more comprehensive mitigation measures than a relatively high-powered site in a remote location accessible only to trained personnel. The MPE limit also differentiates between members of “general population” and “occupational” wireless site workers. Virtually all people fall into the general population class, which includes anyone who either does not know about potential exposure or knows about the exposure but cannot exert control over the transmitters.7 The narrower occupational class includes persons knowingly exposed to RF fields through their employment and are able to exert control over their exposure.8 The MPE limit for the general population is five times lower than the MPE limit for the occupational class. Lastly, the FCC “categorically excludes” certain antennas from routine environmental review when either (1) the antennas create exposures in areas virtually inaccessible to humans or (2) the antennas operate at extreme low power. As a general rule, a wireless site qualified for a categorical exclusion when mounted on a structure built solely or primarily to support FCC- licensed or authorized equipment (i.e., a tower) and such that the lowest point on the lowest transmitter is more than 10 meters (32.8 feet) above ground.9 Categorical exclusions establish a presumption that the emissions from the antennas will not significantly impact humans or the human environment. Such antennas are exempt from routine compliance evaluations but not exempt from actual compliance. Under some circumstances, such as a heavily collocated tower or when the transmissions are in close proximity to general population members, even a categorically excluded site will require additional analysis. ii. Planned Compliance Evaluation and Recommendations The FCC Guidelines do not categorically exclude Verizon’s proposal because Verizon proposes to mount the antenna canister on an existing pole that was constructed primarily to transport legacy non-wireless utilities. Therefore, an additional analysis is necessary to determine whether the proposed antenna will demonstrate planned compliance with the FCC Guidelines. 6 See generally Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Fields: Guidelines for Cellular and PCS Sites, Consumer Guide, FCC (Oct. 22, 2014), available at https://www.fcc.gov/guides/human-exposure-rf-fields-guidelines-cellular- and-pcs-sites (discussing in general terms how wireless sites transmit and how the FCC regulates the emissions). 7 See 47 C.F.R. § 1.1310, Note 2. 8 See id. 9 See id. § 1.1307(b)(1). 2.e Packet Pg. 138 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 131 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 15 of 18 Telecom Law Firm PC TLF notes that Verizon submitted an FCC LSGAC Optional Checklist (“LSGAC”) which discloses that the site is categorically excluded (Box 16 is checked off). This check-off is incorrect because, as mentioned above, this site is not a categorically excluded site. However, in addition to the LSGAC, the Applicant submitted a Statement of Hammett & Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers dated September 8, 2017 (the “RF Report”). The RF Report discloses that: • Verizon proposes to install one Amphenol Model CUUT360X12Fxyz0 tri-directional antenna. • The antenna will employ up to 12° of signal transmission downtilt. • Three sector of transmissions (Sector A, B and C in the Plans) will be oriented towards Sector A at 0° TN, Sector B at 120° TN and Sector C at 240° TN. See Figure 7. • The maximum effective radiated power (“ERP”), in any direction, will be 1,470 watts (representing simultaneous operation at 700 watts for AWS, 620 watts for PCS and 150 watts for 700 MHz service). • There are no other reported wireless base stations within 100 feet of the site. • For a person anywhere at ground, the maximum RF exposure level is calculated to be 0.0019 mW/cm2 which is 0.40% of the applicable FCC general population public exposure limit. • The maximum calculated level at the second-floor elevation of any nearby residence is 0.70 % of the public exposure limit, occurring at the residence at 891 Elbridge Way about 33 feet away (distance scaled in the RF Report from Sheet A-1.1 of the drawings). The RF Report finds that the RF exposure from the Verizon antenna will comply with the prevailing standards for limiting public exposure to radio frequency energy, and therefore, will not for this reason cause a significant impact on the environment. TLF agrees with this finding. The RF Report contains the basic RF emissions data needed to independently evaluate planned compliance. Based on the power output levels and operating frequencies provided, Verizon’s antennas would create a controlled access zone that extends approximately 15.1 feet from the face of the antenna at approximately 51’10” AGL. TLF calculated the far-field controlled access zone using RF effective radiated power per band information provided in the H&E report, and inserted those data into the FCC-approved formulae in FCC OET Bulletin 65 (No. 4 on page 19 and No. 5 on page 20). Given the sectorization of the RF emissions, TLF also considered structures along each transmission sector to the extent of the controlled zone. The controlled access zone extends horizontally from the antenna at the height of the antenna with as much as a 12° downtilt, with very little emissions that stray in any other direction, including towards ground level. In this case, the controlled access zone will be located within publically-inaccessible airspace. 2.e Packet Pg. 139 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 131 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 16 of 18 Telecom Law Firm PC Figure 7: Direction and orientation of the active emissions (Source: Plans page A-2, Panel 1). The fact that a site creates a controlled access zone does not necessarily mean that it violates the FCC Guidelines. Rather, a controlled access zone means that the applicant must affirmatively restrict public access to that area so that members of the general population (including trespassers) cannot unknowingly enter and be exposed to radio emissions in excess of the limits prescribed by the FCC. As discussed above, the FCC imposes an affirmative obligation on site operators to prevent unknowing overexposure to the general public, including trespassers that could potentially climb the Pole and bayonet and enter the controlled access zone at 0°TN, 120°TN and 240° TN in front of the canister antenna. Accordingly, the Applicant will be able to demonstrate planned compliance with the FCC Rules by applying the signage conditions shown in the RF Report, specifically: 2.e Packet Pg. 140 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 131 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 17 of 18 Telecom Law Firm PC Signs should comply with OET-65 color, symbol, and content recommendations. Contact information should be provided (e.g., a telephone number) to arrange for access to restricted areas. The selection of language(s) is not an engineering matter, and guidance from the landlord, local zoning or health authority, or appropriate professionals may be required. Signage may also need to comply with the requirements of California Public Utilities Commission General Order No. 95. Practically, the Applicant proposes to situate a radio frequency (“RF”) warning sign 3-feet below the antenna, facing the climbing space. TLF proposes the following conditions to be included in any permit of approval for this project: 1. Permittee shall install and at all times maintain in good condition an “RF Notice” sign and network operations center contact information sign on the Pole immediately below the Bracket. Permittee shall install the signs required under this condition so that a person may clearly see the signs as he or she approaches the Pole. 2. Permittee shall install and at all times maintain in good condition an “RF Warning” on the bayonet three feet (3’) below the canister antenna so that a person may clearly see the sign as he or she approaches the canister antenna. 3. Permittee shall ensure that all radio frequency signage complies with FCC OET Bulletin 65 or ANSI C95.2 for color, symbol, and content conventions. All such signage shall at all times provide a working local or toll-free telephone number to its network operations center, and such telephone number shall be able to reach a live person who can exert transmitter power-down control over this site as required by the FCC. /JLK 2.e Packet Pg. 141 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 131 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 18 of 18 Telecom Law Firm PC EXHIBIT A List of Applicant-provided documents, received by the City on September 12, 2017, that were reviewed by TLF in preparation for this memorandum: 1. Plans dated August 28, 2017. 2. Photo Simulations. 3. Project Description for Cluster 1 dated September 8, 2017 that included the “Community Need for Small Cells”. 4. LSGAC Optional Checklist. 5. Statement of Hammett & Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers dated September 8, 2017. 2.e Packet Pg. 142 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 2001 S. Barrington Ave. • Suite 306 • Los Angeles • CA 90025 • T 310-312-9900 6986 La Jolla Boulevard • Suite 204 • La Jolla • CA 92037 • T 619-272-6200 TelecomLawFirm.com WIRELESS PLANNING MEMORANDUM TO: Ms. Rebecca Atkinson FROM: Dr. Jonathan Kramer DATE: November 29, 2017 RE: New Proposed Wireless Facility in the Public Right-of-Way adjacent to 925 Loma Verde Avenue - Cluster 1 (17PLN-00169) APPLICANT: Vinculums Services for Verizon Wireless APPLICANT’S ID: SF PALO ALTO 133 ADJ. APN: 127-24-023 UTILITY POLE ID: 2857 LOCATION CODE: 425237 CONFIGURATION: # 3 The City of Palo Alto (the “City”) requested that Telecom Law Firm, PC (“TLF”) review the Vinculums Services on behalf of GTE Mobilnet dba Verizon Wireless (“Applicant”) application on behalf of Verizon Wireless (“Verizon”) to operate a new wireless site on a replacement Class 2 wood utility pole (“Pole”) owned and operated by the City of Palo Alto Utilities (“CPAU”) located in the public right-of-way (“ROW”) adjacent to 925 Loma Verde Avenue. This memorandum reviews the application and related materials received by the City from the Applicant on September 12, 2017 that are listed in Exhibit A of this memorandum. This memorandum provides a project description, analysis and discussion of project design and design alternatives, planner compliance with federal radio frequency exposure guidelines established by the Federal Communications Commission. Although many technical issues implicate legal issues, the analysis and recommendations contained in this memorandum do not constitute legal advice. I. Project Description This section describes the proposed application as depicted in the plans dated August 28, 2017 (“Plans”) and submitted with the permit application, and described in Figure 1. [Balance of page intentionally left blank] 2.e Packet Pg. 143 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 133 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 2 of 18 Telecom Law Firm PC Figure 1: Project description (Source: Plans). The top of the Pole is 51’2” above ground level (“AGL”). The Applicant proposes to install a 5- foot 1-inch tall canister antenna and cable cage affixed to the top of the Pole. The overall height of the final structure, including the arm and canister, is at 56’7” AGL. The proposed antenna cannister is separated from the highest primary power lines by more than 7 feet, which meets the requirements of the California Public Utilities Commission (“CPUC”), General Order 95 (“GO 95”). The centerline of the proposed Verizon antenna is proposed to be at 54’5” AGL and the bottom of the canister antenna is proposed at 52’4”AGL. This is a three sector site aimed at 0° True North, 120° South East, and 240° South West, with a beam down-tilt of 12° (“Sector A,” “Sector B,” and “Sector C” shown in the Plans). On the Pole, the Applicant proposes to install a 6” W x 11’ L aluminum channel mounting assembly bracket (“Bracket”) (top being at 20 feet AGL and bottom being at 9 feet AGL, with a 7.5” standoff from the Pole) to support radio transmission and powering equipment on the Pole. On the Bracket the Applicant proposes to mount the following: • Two remote radio unit 32 (“RRU-32s”) with a power supply unit (“PSU”). • One remote radio unit 11 (“RRU-11”) with PSU. • Two antenna signal Diplexers. • One AC power Distribution Panel (with power shutdown and signage). • One fiber demarcation box (manufactured by Aria Tech or another vendor). 2.e Packet Pg. 144 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 133 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 3 of 18 Telecom Law Firm PC The Plans depict that all Bracket mounted equipment will be above the CPUC GO-95 required 8- foot clearance from the ground. The Bracket and equipment, cables, and conduits on the Bracket will be painted “Railroad Ties’ Kelly Moore KMA67 to blend in with the existing Pole. Additionally, the disconnect switch can be painted brown to reduce its visibility on the Pole. Page E-1, Panel 7 of the Plans depicts the entire grounding system from the antenna through the Bracket and associated equipment, down to and including the ground rod located in a new ground well adjacent to the Pole. This project does not include the fiber optic cable coming to this site from some other location. The Plans state that the proposed fiber will be fed from an existing service at the communications level on the Pole to the planned demarcation box to be located on the Bracket. Additionally, the page A-1, panel 1 of the Plans discloses that: “Fiber work to be completed by others under separate contract.” [Balance of page intentionally left blank] 2.e Packet Pg. 145 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 133 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 4 of 18 Telecom Law Firm PC Figure 2 is a current photo of the existing Pole, prior to the replacement of the pole and the addition of the proposed node. Figure 2: Current pole (Source: TLF site visit on November 2, 2017). 2.e Packet Pg. 146 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 133 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 5 of 18 Telecom Law Firm PC Figure 3 depicts the overall design proposed by the Applicant of this project. Figure 3: Canister antenna, RF signage, Bracket, a total of three RRUs, DC converter and diplexers (Source: Plans page A-3.1, panel 1). 2.e Packet Pg. 147 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 133 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 6 of 18 Telecom Law Firm PC Figure 4 depicts the Applicant’s photo simulation of this project. Figure 4: Photo simulation of proposed project and Pole (Source: Applicant’s Photo Sims). 2.e Packet Pg. 148 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 133 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 7 of 18 Telecom Law Firm PC TLF notes that the photo simulations provided by the Applicant, including the photo simulation in Figure 4, underrepresent the actual visual impact of the proposed site. For example, they do not depict the RF signage on the Pole and do not depict all the cabling from the antenna canister to the equipment cabinets and between the equipment and cabinets on the Bracket. II. Discussion of Design Elements and Alternatives Even when an applicant claims a significant gap, as the Applicant claims it in its “Community Need for Small Cells” section of the Project Description for Cluster 1 (dated September 8, 2017), the Telecom Act does not grant the applicant rights to build whatever site or design it chooses. A jurisdiction may require a wireless applicant claiming a significant gap to construct a site using the “least intrusive means” to achieve their coverage objectives.1 This balances the national interest in deploying wireless services with the local interest in planned and orderly development. In the Ninth Circuit, the least intrusive means refers to the technically feasible and potentially available alternative design and location that most closely conforms to the local values a permit denial would otherwise serve.2 The Palo Alto Municipal Code (“PAMC”) Section 18.42.110 et seq expresses the local values that form the analytical baseline for considering approval of Wireless Communication Facilities (“WCF”). Based on PAMC 18.42.110(c)(3) the instant projects qualifies as a Tier 3 because it does not qualify under either Tier 1 project (eligible facilities request under Section 6409(a)) or Tier 2 project (a modification request that does not fit within the parameters of Tier 1). PAMC Section 18.42.110(d)(8) requires that an applicant show the maximum potential physical expansion of its site if approved. Pursuant to the FCC’s October 2014 Broadband Order interpreting 47 U.S.C. § 1455(a), once a wireless site exists, FCC rules allow for limited modifications and expansion of the wireless site. There are many federal and state factors that have to be considered to determine the possible future maximum expansion. Those factors include the type and design of the existing site to be modified, and the way the applicant wishes to modify the existing site. State regulations place additional physical safety limitations on the types of permissible modifications and expansions. For these reasons, it is not reasonably or usefully possible to take the current inchoate design to try and estimate possible but perhaps unlikely modifications and expansions. Finally, TLF has reviewed the Applicant’s response to PAMC Section 18.42.110(d)(8) (Attachment J – Statement Regarding Spectrum Act of the Applicant’s Project Description for Cluster 1 document dated September 8, 2017). Attachment J, Sections 1 and 2 echo TLF’s assessments above. TLF has 1 See, e.g., American Tower Corp., 763 F.3d at 1056. 2 See id.; see also T-Mobile USA, Inc. v. City of Anacortes, 572 F.3d 987, 995 (9th Cir. 2009). 2.e Packet Pg. 149 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 133 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 8 of 18 Telecom Law Firm PC no comment on Attachment J, Sections 3 and 4. TLF recommends this evaluation be revisited once the final design is settled. To be approved under PAMC 18.42.110(h) Tier 3, the process (h)(1) and findings (h)(2) required are: (1) A Tier 3 WCF Permit shall be reviewed by the Director. The Director's decision shall be appealable pursuant to the process for architectural review set forth in Section 18.77.070 and the process for conditional use permits set forth in Section 18.77.060. (2) The Director or Council on appeal shall grant a Tier 3 WCF Permit provided the proposed WCF complies with the development standards in Section 18.42.110(i) and the conditions of approval in Section 18.42.110(j), and all of the architectural review findings in Section 18.76.020(d) and the conditional use permit findings in Section 18.76.010(c) can be made. To be approved, the relevant findings for “Development Standards” in Section 18.42.110(i) must be made (our analysis is embedded in italics in each subsection): (1) Shall utilize the smallest footprint possible; “Footprint” is not a defined term in the PAMC Section 18.42.110(b). As proposed, this Pole-mounted project is likely to occupy the smallest “footprint” of ground space since the Pole width at ground level will not increase. (2) Shall be designed to minimize the overall height, mass, and size of the cabinet and enclosure structure; The overall height for a Pole-top antenna is controlled by CPUC GO 95 for separation from existing electrical power conductors. As proposed, this project’s mass and size of the equipment on the Bracket is not minimized because portions of the transmission equipment on the Bracket should be located underground adjacent to the Pole. Although TLF has recommended undergrounding, should that solution not be adopted, there remain additional visual mitigations that may be applied, such as reducing the bulk and stand-off distance of the Bracket and equipment attached to the Bracket. (3) Shall be screened from public view; As proposed, this project is not screened from public view. As proposed, this project is not screened from public view. Additionally, the direction that equipment faces, and accordingly the supporting Bracket, is a local decision. That said, GO 95 also impacts that face that may be 2.e Packet Pg. 150 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 133 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 9 of 18 Telecom Law Firm PC used during to potential conflicts with a pole’s required climbing space. These are case-by-case issues, and there is not government standard to consider. Relatedly, if the bulk of the equipment is placed underground, then the size of the Bracket and the offset from the pole will be reduced thereby allowing greater orientation and placement options. (4) Shall be architecturally compatible with the existing site; This is a determination to be made by the Director as set out in the PAMC. (5) Shall be placed at a location that would not require the removal of any required landscaping or would reduce the quantity of landscaping to a level of noncompliance with the Zoning Code; This is a determination to be made by the Director as set out in the PAMC. Additionally, TLF is aware that the Applicant has discussed planting trees in a cohesive design intended to interrupt direct views of the equipment on the Bracket. (6) An antenna, base station, or tower shall be designed to minimize its visibility from off-site locations and shall be of a "camouflaged" or "stealth" design, including concealment, screening, and other techniques to hide or blend the antenna, base station, or tower into the surrounding area; As proposed, this project, other than the antenna canister, is not “designed to minimize its visibility from off-site locations and shall be of a ‘camouflaged’ or ‘stealth’ design, including concealment, screening, and other techniques to hide or blend the antenna, base station, or tower into the surrounding area.” The mass of the equipment located on the Bracket, which is offset from the Pole, is not camouflaged, screened, or stealthed merely by painting that mass a color similar to the Pole. When TLF conducted the site visits, the mock-up site across from 1350 Newell Road was also visited. TLF believes that the proposed shroud—while slightly improving the aesthetics of only the equipment on the Bracket, but not the Bracket itself—results in an increase in the visual bulk of the design. A true minimization of the visibility of the project from off-site locations will occur by undergrounding most of the transmission equipment (RRU-32s with PSU, RRU-11 with PSU, diplexers and fiber demarcation box) in one or more flush-to-grade sidewalk vaults adjacent to the Pole. The equipment that would remain on the Pole would be associated with the electrical AC power service panel and the Pole extension supporting the antenna canister. See Figure 5 and Figure 6. Undergrounding of equipment in flush-to-grade vaults will not increase the footprint of the site. 2.e Packet Pg. 151 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 133 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 10 of 18 Telecom Law Firm PC (7) A building-mounted antenna, base station, or tower shall be architecturally compatible with the existing building on which the antenna, base station, or tower is attached; This finding is not applicable to the proposed project. (8) For any Tier 2 or Tier 3 WCF proposed to be attached on an historic structure/site, as designated by Chapter 16.49, historic review shall also be required; Although this project is for a Tier 3 WCF, it does not appear that the project site (a wood pole) is a historic structure/site. (9) Except as otherwise permitted by the Spectrum Act, a building-mounted WCF may extend fifteen (15) feet beyond the permitted height of the building in the zone district; This finding is not applicable to the proposed project. (10) Except as otherwise permitted by the Spectrum Act, a tower or other stand-alone Tier 3 WCF Project shall not exceed sixty-five (65) feet in height; and The proposed project does not exceed 65 feet in height. (11) A tower or other stand-alone Tier 3 WCF may encroach into the interior/street side and rear setback. This finding is not applicable to the proposed project. [Balance of page intentionally left blank] 2.e Packet Pg. 152 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 133 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 11 of 18 Telecom Law Firm PC Figure 5: Reduction of the visibility of Pole mounted antenna associated equipment to be removed from the Pole, such as the two RRU32s, RRU11, (marked with red “x”) and be placed in a flush-to-grade sidewalk vault adjacent to the Pole (Source: Applicant photo simulations, annotated by Dr. J. Kramer). Proposed AC disconnect to remain on Pole Proposed Antenna Canister to remain on Pole 2.e Packet Pg. 153 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 133 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 12 of 18 Telecom Law Firm PC Figure 6: One potential location of underground vault away from driveways. (Source: Photo taken during site visit on November 2, 2017). 1. TLF measured the width of the sidewalk on the November 2, 2017 during the site visit. The width of the sidewalk is 4.5 feet. 2. The utility vault manufacturing industry has been adapting existing vault designs to the small volumetric needs of small cells. TLF understands that vaults from leading vault manufacturers can be readily provided for the volume of equipment the Applicant is proposing. Whatever vault size is preferred, TLF recommends that the vault be placed beneath the existing sidewalk wherever possible and utilize flush-to-grade vents. Based on Plans and the equipment that TLF believes may be undergrounded, and considering that this sidewalk is 4.5 feet in width, a 10 to 15 cubic foot vault would seem to be both reasonable and sufficient. Dimensions obtained from Plans page D-1 • Two remote radio unit 32 (“RRU-32s”) (27.2” H x 12” W x 7” D) with a power supply unit (“PSU”). • One remote radio unit 11 (“RRU-11”) (19.67” H x 16.97” W x 7.2” D) with PSU. • Two antenna signal Diplexers (8.3” H x 4.6” W x 1.8” D) • One fiber demarcation box (Aria Tech dimensions(8.54”H x10”W x2.88”D) 2.e Packet Pg. 154 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 133 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 13 of 18 Telecom Law Firm PC Based on the Plans, the applicant proposes to install equipment (other than the antennas, the DC power disconnect switch, and the equipment Bracket) occupying approximately 7.25 to 10 cubic feet of space. TLF believes the equipment occupying up to 10 cubic feet should be placed in a flush-to-grade vault. No over excavations are foreseen at this time by TLF. If one or more underground vaults are approved by the City, TLF recommends that the vault be placed outside of the drip line of adjacent trees, and the vault lid be: • Non-skid material. • Painted to match the sidewalk to minimize visual impact. • Locked at all time unless active maintenance is occurring. III. Planned RF Compliance Evaluation Under the Telecom Act, the FCC completely occupies the field with respect to RF emissions regulation. The FCC established comprehensive rules for human exposure to RF emissions (the “FCC Guidelines”).3 State and local governments cannot regulate wireless facilities based on environmental effects from RF emissions to the extent that the emissions comply with the FCC Guidelines.4 Although localities cannot establish their own standards for RF exposure, local officials may require wireless applicants to demonstrate compliance with the FCC Guidelines.5 Such demonstrations usually involve a predictive calculation because the site has not yet been built. i. FCC Guidelines, Categorical Exclusions and Exposure Mitigation Measures FCC Guidelines regulate exposure rather than emissions.6 Although the FCC establishes a maximum permissible exposure (“MPE”) limit, it does not mandate any specific limitations on power levels applicable to all antennas and requires the antenna operator to adopt exposure- mitigation measures only to the extent that certain persons might become exposed to the emissions. Thus, a relatively low-powered site in proximity to the general population might require more comprehensive mitigation measures than a relatively high-powered site in a remote location accessible only to trained personnel. 3 See 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(iv); see also 47 C.F.R. § 1.1307 et seq.; FCC Office of Engineering and Technology, Evaluating Compliance with FCC Guidelines for Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields, OET Bulletin 65, ed. 97-01 (1997). 4 See 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(iv). 5 See In re Procedures for Reviewing Requests for Relief from State and Local Regulations Pursuant to Section 332(c)(7)(B)(iv) of the Communications Act of 1934, Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd. 22821, 22828–22829 (Nov. 13, 2000) (declining to adopt rules that limit local authority to require compliance demonstrations). 6 See generally Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Fields: Guidelines for Cellular and PCS Sites, Consumer Guide, FCC (Oct. 22, 2014), available at https://www.fcc.gov/guides/human-exposure-rf-fields-guidelines-cellular-and-pcs- sites (discussing in general terms how wireless sites transmit and how the FCC regulates the emissions). 2.e Packet Pg. 155 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 133 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 14 of 18 Telecom Law Firm PC The MPE limit also differentiates between members of “general population” and “occupational” wireless site workers. Virtually all people fall into the general population class, which includes anyone who either does not know about potential exposure or knows about the exposure but cannot exert control over the transmitters.7 The narrower occupational class includes persons knowingly exposed to RF fields through their employment and are able to exert control over their exposure.8 The MPE limit for the general population is five times lower than the MPE limit for the occupational class. Lastly, the FCC “categorically excludes” certain antennas from routine environmental review when either (1) the antennas create exposures in areas virtually inaccessible to humans or (2) the antennas operate at extreme low power. As a general rule, a wireless site qualified for a categorical exclusion when mounted on a structure built solely or primarily to support FCC- licensed or authorized equipment (i.e., a tower) and such that the lowest point on the lowest transmitter is more than 10 meters (32.8 feet) above ground.9 Categorical exclusions establish a presumption that the emissions from the antennas will not significantly impact humans or the human environment. Such antennas are exempt from routine compliance evaluations but not exempt from actual compliance. Under some circumstances, such as a heavily collocated tower or when in close proximity to general population members, even a categorically excluded site will require additional analysis. ii. Planned Compliance Evaluation and Recommendations The FCC Guidelines do not categorically exclude Verizon’s proposal because Verizon proposes to mount the antenna canister on an existing pole that was constructed primarily to transport legacy non-wireless utilities. Therefore, an additional analysis is necessary to determine whether the proposed antenna will demonstrate planned compliance with the FCC Guidelines. TLF notes that Verizon submitted an FCC LSGAC Optional Checklist (“LSGAC”) which discloses that the site is categorically excluded (Box 16 is checked off). This check-off is incorrect because, as mentioned above, this site is not a categorically excluded site. However, in addition to the LSGAC, the Applicant submitted a Statement of Hammett & Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers dated September 8, 2017 (the “RF Report”). The RF Report discloses that: • Verizon proposes to install one Amphenol Model CUUT360X12Fxyz0 tri-directional antenna. • The antenna will employ up to 12° of signal transmission downtilt. • Three sector of transmissions (Sector A, B and C in the Plans) will be oriented towards Sector A at 0° TN, Sector B at 120° TN and Sector C at 240° TN. See Figure 7. 7 See 47 C.F.R. § 1.1310, Note 2. 8 See id. 9 See id. § 1.1307(b)(1). 2.e Packet Pg. 156 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 133 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 15 of 18 Telecom Law Firm PC • The maximum effective radiated power (“ERP”), in any direction, will be 1,470 watts (representing simultaneous operation at 700 watts for AWS, 620 watts for PCS and 150 watts for 700 MHz service). • There are no other reported wireless base stations within 100 feet of the site. • For a person anywhere at ground, the maximum RF exposure level is calculated to be 0.0018 mW/cm2 which is 0.37 % of the applicable FCC general population public exposure limit. • The maximum calculated level at the second-floor elevation of any nearby residence is 0.65 % of the public exposure limit, occurring at the residence at 933 Loma Verde Avenue about 30 feet away (distance scaled in the RF Report from Sheet A 1.1 of the drawings). The RF Report finds that the RF exposure from the Verizon antenna will comply with the prevailing standards for limiting public exposure to radio frequency energy, and therefore, will not for this reason cause a significant impact on the environment. TLF agrees with this finding. The RF Report contains the basic RF emissions data needed to independently evaluate planned compliance. Based on the power output levels and operating frequencies provided, Verizon’s antennas would create a controlled access zone that extends 15.1 from the face of the antenna at approximately 52’5” feet AGL. TLF calculated the far-field controlled access zone using RF effective radiated power per band information provided in the H&E report, and inserted those data into the FCC-approved formulae in FCC OET Bulletin 65 (No. 4 on page 19 and No. 5 on page 20). Given the sectorization of the RF emissions, TLF also considered structures along each transmission sector to the extent of the controlled zone. The controlled access zone extends horizontally from the antenna at the height of the antenna with as much as a 12° downtilt, with very little emissions that stray in any other direction, including towards ground level. In this case, the controlled access zone will be located within publically-inaccessible airspace. [Balance of page intentionally left blank] 2.e Packet Pg. 157 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 133 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 16 of 18 Telecom Law Firm PC Figure 7: Direction and orientation of the active emissions (Source: Plans page A-2, Panel 1). The fact that a site creates a controlled access zone does not necessarily mean that it violates the FCC Guidelines. Rather, a controlled access zone means that the applicant must affirmatively restrict public access to that area so that members of the general population (including trespassers) cannot unknowingly enter and be exposed to radio emissions in excess of the limits prescribed by the FCC. As discussed above, the FCC imposes an affirmative obligation on site operators to prevent unknowing overexposure to the general public, including trespassers that could potentially climb the Pole and enter the controlled access zone at 0°TN, 120°TN and 240° TN in front of the canister antenna. Accordingly, the Applicant will be able to demonstrate planned compliance with the FCC Rules by applying the signage conditions shown in the RF Report, specifically: Signs should comply with OET-65 color, symbol, and content recommendations. Contact information should be provided (e.g., a telephone number) to arrange for access to restricted areas. The selection of 2.e Packet Pg. 158 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 133 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 17 of 18 Telecom Law Firm PC language(s) is not an engineering matter, and guidance from the landlord, local zoning or health authority, or appropriate professionals may be required. Signage may also need to comply with the requirements of California Public Utilities Commission General Order No. 95. Practically, the Applicant proposes to situate a radio frequency (“RF”) warning sign 3-feet below the antenna, facing the climbing space. TLF proposes the following conditions to be included in any permit of approval for this project: 1. Permittee shall install and at all times maintain in good condition an “RF Caution” sign and network operations center contact information sign on the Pole immediately below the Bracket. Permittee shall install the signs required under this condition so that a person may clearly see the signs as he or she approaches the Pole. 2. Permittee shall install and at all times maintain in good condition an “RF Caution” on the Pole three feet (3’) below the canister antenna so that a person may clearly see the sign as he or she approaches the canister antenna. 3. Permittee shall ensure that all radio frequency signage complies with FCC OET Bulletin 65 or ANSI C95.2 for color, symbol, and content conventions. All such signage shall at all times provide a working local or toll-free telephone number to its network operations center, and such telephone number shall be able to reach a live person who can exert transmitter power-down control over this site as required by the FCC. JK/ 2.e Packet Pg. 159 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 133 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 18 of 18 Telecom Law Firm PC EXHIBIT A List of Applicant-provided documents, received by the City on September 12, 2017, that were reviewed by TLF in preparation for this memorandum: 1. Plans dated August 28, 2017. 2. Photo Simulations. 3. Project Description for Cluster 1 dated September 8, 2017 that included the “Community Need for Small Cells”. 4. LSGAC Optional Checklist. 5. Statement of Hammett & Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers dated September 8, 2017. 2.e Packet Pg. 160 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 2001 S. Barrington Ave. • Suite 306 • Los Angeles • CA 90025 • T 310-312-9900 6986 La Jolla Boulevard • Suite 204 • La Jolla • CA 92037 • T 619-272-6200 TelecomLawFirm.com WIRELESS PLANNING MEMORANDUM TO: Ms. Rebecca Atkinson FROM: Dr. Jonathan Kramer DATE: November 29, 2017 RE: New Proposed Wireless Facility in the Public Right-of-Way adjacent to 3409 Kenneth Drive- Cluster 1 (17PLN-00169) APPLICANT: Vinculums Services for Verizon Wireless APPLICANT’S ID: SF PALO ALTO 134 ADJ. APN: 127-09-028 UTILITY POLE ID: 2964 LOCATION CODE: 425238 CONFIGURATION: # 3 The City of Palo Alto (the “City”) requested that Telecom Law Firm, PC (“TLF”) review the Vinculums Services on behalf of GTE Mobilnet dba Verizon Wireless (“Applicant”) application on behalf of Verizon Wireless (“Verizon”) to operate a new wireless site on an existing wood utility pole (“Pole”), owned and operated by the City of Palo Alto Utilities (“CPAU”) located in the public right-of-way (“ROW”) adjacent to 3409 Kenneth Drive. This memorandum reviews the application and related materials received by the City from the Applicant on September 12, 2017 that are listed in Exhibit A of this memorandum. This memorandum provides a project description, analysis and discussion of project design and design alternatives, planner compliance with federal radio frequency exposure guidelines established by the Federal Communications Commission. Although many technical issues implicate legal issues, the analysis and recommendations contained in this memorandum do not constitute legal advice. I. Project Description This section describes the proposed application as depicted in the plans dated August 31, 2017 (“Plans”) and submitted with the permit application, and described in Figure 1. [Balance of page intentionally left blank] 2.e Packet Pg. 161 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 134 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 2 of 18 Telecom Law Firm PC Figure 1: Project description (Source: Plans Sheet T-1). On top of the Pole, the Applicant proposes to install a 7-foot tall bayonet extension arm (“Arm”) to support a 5-foot 1-inch tall canister antenna and cable cage affixed to the top of the Arm. The overall height of the Pole will remain at 39’1” above ground level (“AGL”), but the overall height of the final structure, including the Arm and canister, will increase to 51’4” AGL. The 7-foot Arm will separate the antenna from the highest existing primary power line by 7-feet, which meets the requirements of the California Public Utilities Commission (“CPUC”), General Order 95 (“GO 95”). The centerline of the proposed Verizon antenna is proposed to be at 49’3” AGL and the bottom of the canister antenna is at 47’3” AGL. This is a three sector site aimed at Sector A at 0° True North (“TN”), Sector B at 120° TN and Sector C at 240° TN with a beam down-tilt of 12° (“Sector A, B and C” shown in the Plans). On the Pole, the Applicant proposes to install a 6” W x 11’ L aluminum channel mounting assembly bracket (“Bracket”) (top being at 18’ 9” AGL and bottom being at 8’AGL, with a 7.5” standoff from the Pole) to support radio transmission and powering equipment on the Pole. On the Bracket the Applicant proposes to mount the following: • Two remote radio unit 32 (“RRU-32s”) each with a power supply unit (“PSU”). • One remote radio unit 11 (“RRU-11”) with a PSU. • Two antenna signal Diplexers. • One AC power Distribution Panel (with power shutdown and signage). 2.e Packet Pg. 162 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 134 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 3 of 18 Telecom Law Firm PC • One fiber demarcation box (manufactured by Aria Tech or another approved vendor). The Plans depict that all Bracket mounted equipment will be above the CPUC GO-95 required 8- foot clearance from the ground. The Bracket and equipment, cables, and conduits on the Bracket will be painted “Clay Bath” by Kelly Moore No. KM4595 to blend in with the existing Pole. Additionally, the disconnect switch can be painted brown to reduce its visibility on the Pole. Page E-1, Panel 7 of the Plans depicts the entire grounding system from the antenna through the Bracket and associated equipment, down to and including the ground rod located in a new ground well adjacent to the Pole. Page A-3, Panel 1 portrays the existing telco/cable/fiber lines being relocated with proposed installation of the supporting equipment. The Plans state that the proposed fiber will be fed from an existing service at the communications level on the Pole to the planned demarcation box to be located on the Bracket. Additionally, the page A-1, panel 1 of the Plans discloses that: “Fiber work to be completed by others under separate contract.” [Balance of page intentionally left blank] 2.e Packet Pg. 163 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 134 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 4 of 18 Telecom Law Firm PC Figure 2 and Figure 3 are current photos of the existing pole. Figure 2: Current pole (Source: TLF site visit on November 2, 2017). 2.e Packet Pg. 164 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 134 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 5 of 18 Telecom Law Firm PC Figure 3: Close-up view of the current pole with all associated existing cables (Source: TLF site visit on November 2, 2017). 2.e Packet Pg. 165 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 134 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 6 of 18 Telecom Law Firm PC Figure 4 depicts the overall design proposed by the Applicant of this project. Figure 4: Canister antenna, bayonet extension, RF signage, Bracket, a total of three RRUs, PSUs, and diplexers (Source: Plans page A-3.1, panel 1). 2.e Packet Pg. 166 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 134 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 7 of 18 Telecom Law Firm PC Figure 5 is a photo simulation depicting the overall design proposed by the Applicant of this project. Figure 5: Photo simulation of proposed project and Pole (Source: Applicant’s Photo Sims). 2.e Packet Pg. 167 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 134 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 8 of 18 Telecom Law Firm PC TLF notes that the photo simulations provided by the Applicant, including the photo simulation in Figure 5, are underrepresented as to the actual visual impact of the proposed site. For example, they do not depict the RF signage on the bayonet and do not depict all the cabling from the antenna canister to the equipment and between the equipment on the Bracket. II. Discussion of Design Elements and Alternatives Even when an applicant claims a significant gap, as the Applicant claims it in its “Community Need for Small Cells” section of the Project Description for Cluster 1 (dated September 8, 2017), the Telecom Act does not grant the applicant rights to build whatever site or design it chooses. A jurisdiction may require a wireless applicant claiming a significant gap to construct a site using the “least intrusive means” to achieve their coverage objectives.1 This balances the national interest in deploying wireless services with the local interest in planned and orderly development. In the Ninth Circuit, the least intrusive means refers to the technically feasible and potentially available alternative design and location that most closely conforms to the local values a permit denial would otherwise serve.2 The Palo Alto Municipal Code (“PAMC”) Section 18.42.110 et seq expresses the local values that form the analytical baseline for considering approval of Wireless Communication Facilities (“WCF”). Based on PAMC 18.42.110(c)(3) the instant projects qualifies as a Tier 3 because it does not qualify under either Tier 1 project (eligible facilities request under Section 6409(a)) or Tier 2 project (a modification request that does not fit within the parameters of Tier 1). PAMC Section 18.42.110(d)(8) requires that an applicant show the maximum potential physical expansion of its site if approved. Pursuant to the FCC’s October 2014 Broadband Order interpreting 47 U.S.C. § 1455(a), once a wireless site exists, FCC rules allow for limited modifications and expansion of the wireless site. There are many federal and state factors that have to be considered to determine the possible future maximum expansion. Those factors include the type and design of the existing site to be modified, and the way the applicant wishes to modify the existing site. State regulations place additional physical safety limitations on the types of permissible modifications and expansions. For these reasons, it is not reasonably or usefully possible to take the current inchoate design to try and estimate possible but perhaps unlikely modifications and expansions. Finally, TLF has reviewed the Applicant’s response to PAMC Section 18.42.110(d)(8) (Attachment J – Statement Regarding Spectrum Act of the Applicant’s Project Description for Cluster 1 document dated September 8, 2017). Attachment J, Sections 1 and 2 echo TLF’s assessments above. TLF has 1 See, e.g., American Tower Corp., 763 F.3d at 1056. 2 See id.; see also T-Mobile USA, Inc. v. City of Anacortes, 572 F.3d 987, 995 (9th Cir. 2009). 2.e Packet Pg. 168 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 134 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 9 of 18 Telecom Law Firm PC no comment on Attachment J, Sections 3 and 4. TLF recommends this evaluation be revisited once the final design is settled. To be approved under PAMC 18.42.110(h) Tier 3, the process (h)(1) and findings (h)(2) required are: (1) A Tier 3 WCF Permit shall be reviewed by the Director. The Director's decision shall be appealable pursuant to the process for architectural review set forth in Section 18.77.070 and the process for conditional use permits set forth in Section 18.77.060. (2) The Director or Council on appeal shall grant a Tier 3 WCF Permit provided the proposed WCF complies with the development standards in Section 18.42.110(i) and the conditions of approval in Section 18.42.110(j), and all of the architectural review findings in Section 18.76.020(d) and the conditional use permit findings in Section 18.76.010(c) can be made. To be approved, the relevant findings for “Development Standards” in Section 18.42.110(i) must be made (our analysis is embedded in italics in each subsection): (1) Shall utilize the smallest footprint possible; “Footprint” is not a defined term in the PAMC Section 18.42.110(b). As proposed, this Pole-mounted project is likely to occupy the smallest “footprint” of ground space since the Pole width at ground level will not increase. (2) Shall be designed to minimize the overall height, mass, and size of the cabinet and enclosure structure; The overall height for a Pole-top antenna is controlled by CPUC GO 95 for separation from existing electrical power conductors. As proposed, this project’s mass and size of the equipment on the Bracket is not minimized because portions of the transmission equipment on the Bracket should be located underground adjacent to the Pole. Although TLF has recommended undergrounding, should that solution not be adopted, there remain additional visual mitigations that may be applied, such as reducing the bulk and stand-off distance of the Bracket and equipment attached to the Bracket. (3) Shall be screened from public view; As proposed, this project is not screened from public view. Additionally, the direction that equipment faces, and accordingly the supporting Bracket, is a local decision. That said, GO 95 also impacts that face that may be used during to potential conflicts with a pole’s required 2.e Packet Pg. 169 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 134 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 10 of 18 Telecom Law Firm PC climbing space. These are case-by-case issues, and there is not government standard to consider. Relatedly, if the bulk of the equipment is placed underground, then the size of the Bracket and the offset from the pole will be reduced thereby allowing greater orientation and placement options. (4) Shall be architecturally compatible with the existing site; This is a determination to be made by the Director as set out in the PAMC. (5) Shall be placed at a location that would not require the removal of any required landscaping or would reduce the quantity of landscaping to a level of noncompliance with the Zoning Code; This is a determination to be made by the Director as set out in the PAMC. Additionally, TLF is aware that the Applicant has discussed planting trees in a cohesive design intended to interrupt direct views of the equipment on the Bracket. (6) An antenna, base station, or tower shall be designed to minimize its visibility from off-site locations and shall be of a "camouflaged" or "stealth" design, including concealment, screening, and other techniques to hide or blend the antenna, base station, or tower into the surrounding area; As proposed, this project, other than the antenna canister, is not “designed to minimize its visibility from off-site locations and shall be of a ‘camouflaged’ or ‘stealth’ design, including concealment, screening, and other techniques to hide or blend the antenna, base station, or tower into the surrounding area.” The mass of the equipment located on the Bracket, which is offset from the Pole, is not camouflaged, screened, or stealthed merely by painting that mass a color similar to the Pole. When TLF conducted the site visits, the mock-up site across from 1350 Newell Road was also visited. TLF believes that the proposed shroud—while slightly improving the aesthetics of only the equipment on the Bracket, but not the Bracket itself—results in an increase in the visual bulk of the design. A true minimization of the visibility of the project from off-site locations will occur by undergrounding most of the transmission equipment (RRU-32s with PSU, RRU-11 with PSU, diplexers and fiber demarcation box) in one or more flush-to-grade sidewalk vault adjacent to the Pole. The equipment that would remain on the Pole would be associated with the electrical AC power service panel and the Pole-top bayonet extension supporting the antenna canister. See Figure 6. Undergrounding of equipment in flush-to-grade vaults will not increase the footprint of the site. 2.e Packet Pg. 170 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 134 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 11 of 18 Telecom Law Firm PC (7) A building-mounted antenna, base station, or tower shall be architecturally compatible with the existing building on which the antenna, base station, or tower is attached; This finding is not applicable to the proposed project. (8) For any Tier 2 or Tier 3 WCF proposed to be attached on an historic structure/site, as designated by Chapter 16.49, historic review shall also be required; Although this project is for a Tier 3 WCF, it does not appear that the project site (a wood pole) is a historic structure/site. (9) Except as otherwise permitted by the Spectrum Act, a building-mounted WCF may extend fifteen (15) feet beyond the permitted height of the building in the zone district; This finding is not applicable to the proposed project. (10) Except as otherwise permitted by the Spectrum Act, a tower or other stand-alone Tier 3 WCF Project shall not exceed sixty-five (65) feet in height; and The proposed project does not exceed 65 feet in height. (11) A tower or other stand-alone Tier 3 WCF may encroach into the interior/street side and rear setback. This finding is not applicable to the proposed project. [Balance of page intentionally left blank] 2.e Packet Pg. 171 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 134 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 12 of 18 Telecom Law Firm PC Figure 6: Reduction of the visibility of Pole mounted antenna associated equipment to be removed from the Pole, such as the two RRU32s, RRU11, and fiber demarcation box (marked with red “x”) and be placed in a flush-to- grade sidewalk vault adjacent to the Pole (Source: Applicant photo simulations, annotated by Dr. J. Kramer). Proposed antenna canister to remain on Pole Proposed bayonet to remain on Pole Proposed AC power distribution panel to stay on Pole Potential underground vault location 2.e Packet Pg. 172 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 134 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 13 of 18 Telecom Law Firm PC TLF measured the width of the sidewalk on the November 2, 2017 during the site visit. The width of the sidewalk is 5 feet. The utility vault manufacturing industry has been adapting existing vault designs to the small volumetric needs of small cells. TLF understands that vaults from leading vault manufacturers can be readily provided for the volume of equipment the Applicant is proposing. Whatever vault size is preferred, TLF recommends that the vault be placed beneath the existing sidewalk wherever possible and utilize flush-to-grade vents. Based on Plans and the equipment that TLF believes may be undergrounded, and considering that this sidewalk is 5 feet in width, a 10 to 15 cubic foot vault would seem to be both reasonable and sufficient. Dimensions obtained from Plans page D-1 • Two remote radio unit 32 (“RRU-32s”) (27.2” H x 12” W x 7” D) with a power supply unit (“PSU”). • One remote radio unit 11 (“RRU-11”) (19.67” H x 16.97” W x 7.2” D) with PSU. • Two antenna signal Diplexers (8.3” H x 4.6” W x 1.8” D) • One fiber demarcation box (Aria Tech dimensions(8.54”H x10”W x2.88”D) Based on the Plans, the applicant proposes to install equipment (other than the antennas, the DC power disconnect switch, and the equipment Bracket) occupying approximately 7.25 to 10 cubic feet of space. TLF believes the equipment occupying up to 10 cubic feet should be placed in a flush-to-grade vault. No over excavations are foreseen at this time by TLF. If one or more underground vaults are approved by the City, TLF recommends that the vault be placed outside of the drip line of adjacent trees, and the vault lid be: • Non-skid material. • Painted to match the sidewalk to minimize visual impact. • Locked at all time unless active maintenance is occurring. III. Planned RF Compliance Evaluation Under the Telecom Act, the FCC completely occupies the field with respect to RF emissions regulation. The FCC established comprehensive rules for human exposure to RF emissions (the “FCC Guidelines”).3 State and local governments cannot regulate wireless facilities based on environmental effects from RF emissions to the extent that the emissions comply with the FCC Guidelines.4 3 See 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(iv); see also 47 C.F.R. § 1.1307 et seq.; FCC Office of Engineering and Technology, Evaluating Compliance with FCC Guidelines for Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields, OET Bulletin 65, ed. 97-01 (1997). 4 See 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(iv). 2.e Packet Pg. 173 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 134 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 14 of 18 Telecom Law Firm PC Although localities cannot establish their own standards for RF exposure, local officials may require wireless applicants to demonstrate compliance with the FCC Guidelines.5 Such demonstrations usually involve a predictive calculation because the site has not yet been built. i. FCC Guidelines, Categorical Exclusions and Exposure Mitigation Measures FCC Guidelines regulate exposure rather than emissions.6 Although the FCC establishes a maximum permissible exposure (“MPE”) limit, it does not mandate any specific limitations on power levels applicable to all antennas and requires the antenna operator to adopt exposure- mitigation measures only to the extent that certain persons might become exposed to the emissions. Thus, a relatively low-powered site in proximity to the general population might require more comprehensive mitigation measures than a relatively high-powered site in a remote location accessible only to trained personnel. The MPE limit also differentiates between members of “general population” and “occupational” wireless site workers. Virtually all people fall into the general population class, which includes anyone who either does not know about potential exposure or knows about the exposure but cannot exert control over the transmitters.7 The narrower occupational class includes persons knowingly exposed to RF fields through their employment and are able to exert control over their exposure.8 The MPE limit for the general population is five times lower than the MPE limit for the occupational class. Lastly, the FCC “categorically excludes” certain antennas from routine environmental review when either (1) the antennas create exposures in areas virtually inaccessible to humans or (2) the antennas operate at extreme low power. As a general rule, a wireless site qualified for a categorical exclusion when mounted on a structure built solely or primarily to support FCC- licensed or authorized equipment (i.e., a tower) and such that the lowest point on the lowest transmitter is more than 10 meters (32.8 feet) above ground.9 Categorical exclusions establish a presumption that the emissions from the antennas will not significantly impact humans or the human environment. Such antennas are exempt from routine compliance evaluations but not exempt from actual compliance. Under some circumstances, such as a heavily collocated tower or when the transmissions are in close proximity to general population members, even a categorically excluded site will require additional analysis. ii. Planned Compliance Evaluation and Recommendations 5 See In re Procedures for Reviewing Requests for Relief from State and Local Regulations Pursuant to Section 332(c)(7)(B)(iv) of the Communications Act of 1934, Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd. 22821, 22828–22829 (Nov. 13, 2000) (declining to adopt rules that limit local authority to require compliance demonstrations). 6 See generally Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Fields: Guidelines for Cellular and PCS Sites, Consumer Guide, FCC (Oct. 22, 2014), available at https://www.fcc.gov/guides/human-exposure-rf-fields-guidelines-cellular-and-pcs- sites (discussing in general terms how wireless sites transmit and how the FCC regulates the emissions). 7 See 47 C.F.R. § 1.1310, Note 2. 8 See id. 9 See id. § 1.1307(b)(1). 2.e Packet Pg. 174 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 134 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 15 of 18 Telecom Law Firm PC The FCC Guidelines do not categorically exclude Verizon’s proposal because Verizon proposes to mount the antenna canister on an existing pole that was constructed primarily to transport legacy non-wireless utilities. Therefore, an additional analysis is necessary to determine whether the proposed antenna will demonstrate planned compliance with the FCC Guidelines. TLF notes that Verizon submitted an FCC LSGAC Optional Checklist (“LSGAC”) which discloses that the site is categorically excluded (Box 16 is checked off). This check-off is incorrect because, as mentioned above, this site is not a categorically excluded site. However, in addition to the LSGAC, the Applicant submitted a Statement of Hammett & Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers dated September 8, 2017 (the “RF Report”). The RF Report discloses that: • Verizon proposes to install one Amphenol Model CUUT360X12Fxyz0 tri-directional antenna. • The antenna will employ up to 12° of signal transmission downtilt. • Three sector of transmissions (Sector A, B and C in the Plans) will be oriented towards Sector A at 0° TN, Sector B at 120° TN and Sector C at 240° TN. See Figure 7. • The maximum effective radiated power (“ERP”), in any direction, will be 1,470 watts (representing simultaneous operation at 700 watts for AWS, 620 watts for PCS and 150 watts for 700 MHz service). • No other wireless base stations are reported within 100 feet of the site. • For a person anywhere at ground, the maximum RF exposure level is calculated to be 0.0023 mW/cm2 which is 0.47 % of the applicable FCC general population public exposure limit. • The maximum calculated level at the second-floor elevation of any nearby residence is 0.78 % of the public exposure limit, occurring at the residence at 3413 Kenneth Drive about 25 feet away (distance scaled in the RF Report from Sheet A 1.1 of the drawings). Based on the Plans and TLF’s on site visit, TLF observes that 3413 Kenneth Drive is a single story home, while 3417 Kenneth Drive is a two-story home. The RF Report finds that the RF exposure from the Verizon antenna will comply with the prevailing standards for limiting public exposure to radio frequency energy, and therefore, will not for this reason cause a significant impact on the environment. TLF agrees with this finding even given the discrepancy regarding the number of stories of the home at 3413 Kenneth Drive. . [Balance of page intentionally left blank] 2.e Packet Pg. 175 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 134 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 16 of 18 Telecom Law Firm PC Figure 7: Direction and orientation of the active emissions (Source: Plans page A-2, Panel 1). The fact that a site creates a controlled access zone does not necessarily mean that it violates the FCC Guidelines. Rather, a controlled access zone means that the applicant must affirmatively restrict public access to that area so that members of the general population (including trespassers) cannot unknowingly enter and be exposed to radio emissions in excess of the limits prescribed by the FCC. The RF Report contains the basic RF emissions data needed to independently evaluate planned compliance. Based on the power output levels and operating frequencies provided, Verizon’s antennas would create a controlled access zone that extends approximately 15.1 feet from the face of the antenna at approximately 47’3”AGL. TLF calculated the far-field controlled access zone using RF effective radiated power per band information provided in the H&E report, and inserted those data into the FCC-approved formulae in FCC OET Bulletin 65 (No. 4 on page 19 and No. 5 on page 20). Given the sectorization of the RF emissions, TLF also considered structures along each transmission sector to the extent of the controlled zone. 2.e Packet Pg. 176 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 134 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 17 of 18 Telecom Law Firm PC The controlled access zone extends horizontally from the antenna at the height of the antenna with as much as a 12° downtilt, with very little emissions that stray in any other direction, including towards ground level. In this case, the controlled access zone will be located entirely within publically-inaccessible airspace well above the rooftops of every nearby home. As discussed above, the FCC imposes an affirmative obligation on site operators to prevent unknowing overexposure to the general public, including trespassers that could potentially climb the Pole and bayonet and enter the controlled access zone at 0°TN, 120°TN and 240° TN in front of the canister antenna. Accordingly, the Applicant will be able to demonstrate planned compliance with the FCC Rules by applying the signage conditions shown in the RF Report, specifically: Signs should comply with OET-65 color, symbol, and content recommendations. Contact information should be provided (e.g., a telephone number) to arrange for access to restricted areas. The selection of language(s) is not an engineering matter, and guidance from the landlord, local zoning or health authority, or appropriate professionals may be required. Signage may also need to comply with the requirements of California Public Utilities Commission General Order No. 95. Practically, the Applicant proposes to situate a radio frequency (“RF”) warning sign 3-feet below the antenna, facing the climbing space. TLF proposes the following conditions to be included in any permit of approval for this project: 1. Permittee shall install and at all times maintain in good condition an “RF Notice” and network operations center contact information sign on the Pole immediately below the Bracket. Permittee shall install the signs required under this condition so that a person may clearly see the signs as he or she approaches the Pole. 2. Permittee shall install and at all times maintain in good condition an “RF Caution” on the bayonet three feet (3’) below the canister antenna so that a person may clearly see the sign as he or she approaches the canister antenna. 3. Permittee shall ensure that all radio frequency signage complies with FCC OET Bulletin 65 or ANSI C95.2 for color, symbol, and content conventions. All such signage shall at all times provide a working local or toll-free telephone number to its network operations center, and such telephone number shall be able to reach a live person who can exert transmitter power-down control over this site as required by the FCC. /JLK 2.e Packet Pg. 177 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 134 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 18 of 18 Telecom Law Firm PC EXHIBIT A List of Applicant-provided documents, received by the City on September 12, 2017, that were reviewed by TLF in preparation for this memorandum: 1. Plans dated August 31, 2017. 2. Photo Simulations. 3. Project Description for Cluster 1 dated September 8, 2017 that included the “Community Need for Small Cells”. 4. LSGAC Optional Checklist. 5. Statement of Hammett & Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers dated September 8, 2017. 2.e Packet Pg. 178 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 2001 S. Barrington Ave. • Suite 306 • Los Angeles • CA 90025 • T 310-312-9900 6986 La Jolla Boulevard • Suite 204 • La Jolla • CA 92037 • T 619-272-6200 TelecomLawFirm.com WIRELESS PLANNING MEMORANDUM TO: Ms. Rebecca Atkinson FROM: Dr. Jonathan Kramer DATE: November 29, 2017 RE: New Proposed Wireless Facility in the Public Right-of-Way adjacent to 891 Elbridge Way- Cluster 1 (17PLN-00169) APPLICANT: Vinculums Services for Verizon Wireless APPLICANT’S ID: SF PALO ALTO 135 ADJ. APN: 127-47-001 UTILITY POLE ID: 3610 LOCATION CODE: 425239 CONFIGURATION: # 2 The City of Palo Alto (the “City”) requested that Telecom Law Firm, PC (“TLF”) review the Vinculums Services on behalf of GTE Mobilnet dba Verizon Wireless (“Applicant”) application on behalf of Verizon Wireless (“Verizon”) to operate a new wireless site on an existing wood utility pole (“Pole”), owned and operated by the City of Palo Alto Utilities (“CPAU”) located in the public right-of-way (“ROW”) adjacent to795 Stone Lane. This memorandum reviews the application and related materials received by the City from the Applicant on September 12, 2017 that are listed in Exhibit A of this memorandum This memorandum provides a project description, analysis and discussion of project design and design alternatives, planner compliance with federal radio frequency exposure guidelines established by the Federal Communications Commission. Although many technical issues implicate legal issues, the analysis and recommendations contained in this memorandum do not constitute legal advice. I. Project Description This section describes the proposed application as depicted in the plans dated August 28, 2017 (“Plans”) and submitted with the permit application, and described in Figure 1. [Balance of page intentionally left blank] 2.e Packet Pg. 179 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 135 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 2 of 18 Telecom Law Firm PC Figure 1: Project description (Source: Plans). On top of the Pole, the Applicant proposes to install a 7-foot tall bayonet extension arm (“Arm”) to support a 5-foot 1-inch tall canister antenna and cable cage affixed to the top of the Arm. The overall height of the Pole will remain at 42’10” above ground level (“AGL”), but the overall height of the final structure, including the Arm and canister, will increase to 54’11” AGL. The 7-foot Arm will separate the antenna from the highest existing primary power line by 7-feet, which meets the requirements of the California Public Utilities Commission (“CPUC”), General Order 95 (“GO 95”). The centerline of the proposed Verizon antenna is proposed to be at 52’10” AGL and the bottom of the canister antenna is at 49’10” AGL. This is a three sector site aimed at Sector A at 0° True North (“TN”), Sector B at 120° TN and Sector C at 240° TN with a beam down-tilt of 12° (“Sector A, B and C” shown in the Plans). On the Pole, the Applicant proposes to install a 6” W x 11’ L aluminum channel mounting assembly bracket- ‘pancake frame’ (“Bracket”) (top being at 19’ 9” AGL and bottom being at 9 feet AGL, with a 6” standoff from the Pole) to support radio transmission and powering equipment on the Pole. On the Bracket the Applicant proposes to mount the following: • Two remote radio unit 32 (“RRU-32s”) with a power supply unit (“PSU”). • One remote radio unit 11 (“RRU-11”) with PSU. • Two antenna signal Diplexers. 2.e Packet Pg. 180 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 135 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 3 of 18 Telecom Law Firm PC • One Charles Cube- SC1042NAN3 cabinet (“Cabinet”) to enclose DC power supply • One AC power Distribution Panel (with power shutdown- DC Disconnect and signage). No fiber demarcation box shown on the Plans page A-3, panel 1, nor is it shown on page A-3.1. However, The Plans state that the proposed fiber will be fed from an existing service at the communications level on the Pole to the planned demarcation box. Additionally, the page A-3, panel 1 of the Plans discloses that: “Fiber work to be completed by others under separate contract.” The Plans depict that all Bracket mounted equipment will be above the CPUC GO-95 required 8- foot clearance from the ground. The Bracket and equipment, cables, and conduits on the Bracket will be painted “Railroad Ties” by Kelly Moore Railroad Ties KMA67 to blend in with the existing Pole. Additionally, the disconnect switch can be painted brown to reduce its visibility on the Pole. Page E-1, Panel 7 of the Plans depicts the entire grounding system from the antenna through the Bracket and associated equipment, down to and including the ground rod located in a new ground well adjacent to the Pole. [Balance of page intentionally left blank] 2.e Packet Pg. 181 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 135 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 4 of 18 Telecom Law Firm PC Figure 2 is a current photo of the existing pole without the proposed node. Figure 2: Current pole (Source: TLF site visit on November 2, 2017). 2.e Packet Pg. 182 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 135 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 5 of 18 Telecom Law Firm PC Figure 3 depicts the overall design proposed by the Applicant of this Configuration 2 project. Figure 3: Canister antenna, bayonet extension, RF signage, Bracket, DC Power Supply- Cabinet, a total of three RRUs, DC converter and diplexers (Source: Plans page A-3.1, panel 1). 2.e Packet Pg. 183 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 135 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 6 of 18 Telecom Law Firm PC Figure 4 is a photo simulation of design proposed by the Applicant of this Configuration 2 project. Figure 4: Photo simulation of proposed project and Pole (Source: Applicant’s Photo Sims; car plates redacted by Dr. J. Kramer). 2.e Packet Pg. 184 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 135 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 7 of 18 Telecom Law Firm PC TLF notes that the photo simulations provided by the Applicant, including the photo simulation in Figure 4, underrepresent the actual visual impact of the proposed site. For example, they do not depict the RF signage on the bayonet and do not depict all the cabling from the antenna canister to the equipment and between the equipment on the Bracket. II. Discussion of Design Elements and Alternatives Even when an applicant claims a significant gap, as the Applicant claims it in its “Community Need for Small Cells” section of the Project Description for Cluster 1 (dated September 8, 2017), the Telecom Act does not grant the applicant rights to build whatever site or design it chooses. A jurisdiction may require a wireless applicant claiming a significant gap to construct a site using the “least intrusive means” to achieve their coverage objectives.1 This balances the national interest in deploying wireless services with the local interest in planned and orderly development. In the Ninth Circuit, the least intrusive means refers to the technically feasible and potentially available alternative design and location that most closely conforms to the local values a permit denial would otherwise serve.2 The Palo Alto Municipal Code (“PAMC”) Section 18.42.110 et seq expresses the local values that form the analytical baseline for considering approval of Wireless Communication Facilities (“WCF”). Based on PAMC 18.42.110(c)(3) the instant projects qualifies as a Tier 3 because it does not qualify under either Tier 1 project (eligible facilities request under Section 6409(a)) or Tier 2 project (a modification request that does not fit within the parameters of Tier 1). PAMC Section 18.42.110(d)(8) requires that an applicant show the maximum potential physical expansion of its site if approved. Pursuant to the FCC’s October 2014 Broadband Order interpreting 47 U.S.C. § 1455(a), once a wireless site exists, FCC rules allow for limited modifications and expansion of the wireless site. There are many federal and state factors that have to be considered to determine the possible future maximum expansion. Those factors include the type and design of the existing site to be modified, and the way the applicant wishes to modify the existing site. State regulations place additional physical safety limitations on the types of permissible modifications and expansions. For these reasons, it is not reasonably or usefully possible to take the current inchoate design to try and estimate possible but perhaps unlikely modifications and expansions. Finally, TLF has reviewed the Applicant’s response to PAMC Section 18.42.110(d)(8) (Attachment J – Statement Regarding Spectrum Act of the Applicant’s Project Description for Cluster 1 document dated September 8, 2017). Attachment J, Sections 1 and 2 echo TLF’s assessments above. TLF has 1 See, e.g., American Tower Corp., 763 F.3d at 1056. 2 See id.; see also T-Mobile USA, Inc. v. City of Anacortes, 572 F.3d 987, 995 (9th Cir. 2009). 2.e Packet Pg. 185 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 135 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 8 of 18 Telecom Law Firm PC no comment on Attachment J, Sections 3 and 4. TLF recommends this evaluation be revisited once the final design is settled. To be approved under PAMC 18.42.110(h) Tier 3, the process (h)(1) and findings (h)(2) required are: (1) A Tier 3 WCF Permit shall be reviewed by the Director. The Director's decision shall be appealable pursuant to the process for architectural review set forth in Section 18.77.070 and the process for conditional use permits set forth in Section 18.77.060. (2) The Director or Council on appeal shall grant a Tier 3 WCF Permit provided the proposed WCF complies with the development standards in Section 18.42.110(i) and the conditions of approval in Section 18.42.110(j), and all of the architectural review findings in Section 18.76.020(d) and the conditional use permit findings in Section 18.76.010(c) can be made. To be approved, the relevant findings for “Development Standards” in Section 18.42.110(i) must be made (our analysis is embedded in italics in each subsection): (1) Shall utilize the smallest footprint possible; “Footprint” is not a defined term in the PAMC Section 18.42.110(b). As proposed, this Pole-mounted project is likely to occupy the smallest “footprint” of ground space since the Pole width at ground level will not increase. (2) Shall be designed to minimize the overall height, mass, and size of the cabinet and enclosure structure; The overall height for a Pole-top antenna is controlled by CPUC GO 95 for separation from existing electrical power conductors. As proposed, this project’s mass and size of the equipment on the Bracket is not minimized because portions of the transmission equipment on the Bracket should be located underground adjacent to the Pole. Although TLF has recommended undergrounding, should that solution not be adopted, there remain additional visual mitigations that may be applied, such as reducing the bulk and stand-off distance of the Bracket and equipment attached to the Bracket. (3) Shall be screened from public view; As proposed, this project is not screened from public view. Additionally, the direction that equipment faces, and accordingly the supporting Bracket, is a local decision. That said, GO 95 also impacts that face that may be used during to potential conflicts with a pole’s required 2.e Packet Pg. 186 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 135 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 9 of 18 Telecom Law Firm PC climbing space. These are case-by-case issues, and there is not government standard to consider. Relatedly, if the bulk of the equipment is placed underground, then the size of the Bracket and the offset from the pole will be reduced thereby allowing greater orientation and placement options. (4) Shall be architecturally compatible with the existing site; This is a determination to be made by the Director as set out in the PAMC. (5) Shall be placed at a location that would not require the removal of any required landscaping or would reduce the quantity of landscaping to a level of noncompliance with the Zoning Code; This is a determination to be made by the Director as set out in the PAMC. Additionally, TLF is aware that the Applicant has discussed planting trees in a cohesive design intended to interrupt direct views of the equipment on the Bracket. (6) An antenna, base station, or tower shall be designed to minimize its visibility from off-site locations and shall be of a "camouflaged" or "stealth" design, including concealment, screening, and other techniques to hide or blend the antenna, base station, or tower into the surrounding area; As proposed, this project, other than the antenna canister, is not “designed to minimize its visibility from off-site locations and shall be of a ‘camouflaged’ or ‘stealth’ design, including concealment, screening, and other techniques to hide or blend the antenna, base station, or tower into the surrounding area.” The mass of the equipment located on the Bracket, which is offset from the Pole, is not camouflaged, screened, or stealthed merely by painting that mass a color similar to the Pole. When TLF conducted the site visits, the mock-up site across from 1350 Newell Road was also visited. TLF believes that the proposed shroud—while slightly improving the aesthetics of only the equipment on the Bracket, but not the Bracket itself—results in an increase in the visual bulk of the design. A true minimization of the visibility of the project from off-site locations will occur by undergrounding most of the transmission equipment (RRU-32s with PSU, RRU-11 with PSU, diplexers and fiber demarcation box) in one or more flush-to-grade sidewalk vaults adjacent to the Pole. The equipment that would remain on the Pole would be associated with the electrical AC power service panel and the Pole-top bayonet extension supporting the antenna canister. See Figure 5. Undergrounding of equipment in flush-to-grade vaults will not increase the footprint of the site. 2.e Packet Pg. 187 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 135 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 10 of 18 Telecom Law Firm PC (7) A building-mounted antenna, base station, or tower shall be architecturally compatible with the existing building on which the antenna, base station, or tower is attached; This finding is not applicable to the proposed project. (8) For any Tier 2 or Tier 3 WCF proposed to be attached on an historic structure/site, as designated by Chapter 16.49, historic review shall also be required; Although this project is for a Tier 3 WCF, it does not appear that the project site (a wood pole) is a historic structure/site. (9) Except as otherwise permitted by the Spectrum Act, a building-mounted WCF may extend fifteen (15) feet beyond the permitted height of the building in the zone district; This finding is not applicable to the proposed project. (10) Except as otherwise permitted by the Spectrum Act, a tower or other stand-alone Tier 3 WCF Project shall not exceed sixty-five (65) feet in height; and The proposed project does not exceed 65 feet in height. (11) A tower or other stand-alone Tier 3 WCF may encroach into the interior/street side and rear setback. This finding is not applicable to the proposed project. [Balance of page intentionally left blank] 2.e Packet Pg. 188 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 135 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 11 of 18 Telecom Law Firm PC Figure 5: Reduction of the visibility of Pole mounted antenna associated equipment to be removed from the Pole, such as the two RRU32s, RRU11, DC power supply- Cabinet (marked with red “x”) and be placed in a flush-to- grade sidewalk vault adjacent to the Pole (Source: Applicant photo simulations, annotated by Dr. J. Kramer). Proposed antenna canister to remain on Pole Proposed bayonet to remain on Pole Proposed AC power distribution panel (with power shutdown- DC disconnect and signage) to remain on Pole. 2.e Packet Pg. 189 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 135 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 12 of 18 Telecom Law Firm PC Figure 6: Proposed location of underground vault (Source: TLF site visit on November 2, 2017; annotated by Dr. J. Kramer). TLF measured the width of the sidewalk on the November 2, 2017 during the site visit. The width of the sidewalk is 5 feet. The utility vault manufacturing industry has been adapting existing vault designs to the small volumetric needs of small cells. TLF understands that vaults from leading vault manufacturers can be readily provided for the volume of equipment the Applicant is proposing. Whatever vault size is preferred, TLF recommends that the vault be placed beneath the existing sidewalk wherever possible and utilize flush-to-grade vents. Based on Plans and the equipment that TLF believes may be undergrounded, and considering that this sidewalk is 5 feet in width, a 10 to 15 cubic foot vault would seem to be both reasonable and sufficient. Potential Underground Vault to be situated beyond channel. 2.e Packet Pg. 190 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 135 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 13 of 18 Telecom Law Firm PC Dimensions obtained from Plans page D-1 • Two remote radio unit 32 (“RRU-32s”) (27.2” H x 12” W x 7” D) with a power supply unit (“PSU”). • One remote radio unit 11 (“RRU-11”) (19.67” H x 16.97” W x 7.2” D) with PSU. • Two antenna signal Diplexers (8.3” H x 4.6” W x 1.8” D) • One fiber demarcation box (8.54”H x10”W x2.88”D) This node being a configuration 2, it includes battery backup strapped unto the Pole. TLF recommends that the battery backup system to be situated within the proposed potential vault or vaults. Based on the Plans, the applicant proposes to install equipment (other than the antennas, the DC power disconnect switch, and the equipment Bracket) occupying approximately 7.25 to 10 cubic feet of space. TLF believes the equipment occupying up to 10 cubic feet should be placed in a flush-to-grade vault. The exact size of the backup battery vault cannot be estimated without more information from the Applicant. No over excavations are foreseen at this time by TLF. TLF suspects that there will be additional location requirements to consider when vaulting, related to other agency requirements. If one or more underground vaults are approved by the City, TLF recommends that the vault be placed outside of the drip line of adjacent trees, and the vault lid be: If one or more underground vaults are approved by the City, TLF recommends that the vault lid will be: • Non-skid material. • Painted to match the sidewalk to minimize visual impact. • Locked at all time unless active maintenance is occurring. III. Planned RF Compliance Evaluation Under the Telecom Act, the FCC completely occupies the field with respect to RF emissions regulation. The FCC established comprehensive rules for human exposure to RF emissions (the “FCC Guidelines”).3 State and local governments cannot regulate wireless facilities based on environmental effects from RF emissions to the extent that the emissions comply with the FCC Guidelines.4 3 See 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(iv); see also 47 C.F.R. § 1.1307 et seq.; FCC Office of Engineering and Technology, Evaluating Compliance with FCC Guidelines for Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields, OET Bulletin 65, ed. 97-01 (1997). 4 See 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(iv). 2.e Packet Pg. 191 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 135 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 14 of 18 Telecom Law Firm PC Although localities cannot establish their own standards for RF exposure, local officials may require wireless applicants to demonstrate compliance with the FCC Guidelines.5 Such demonstrations usually involve a predictive calculation because the site has not yet been built. i. FCC Guidelines, Categorical Exclusions and Exposure Mitigation Measures FCC Guidelines regulate exposure rather than emissions.6 Although the FCC establishes a maximum permissible exposure (“MPE”) limit, it does not mandate any specific limitations on power levels applicable to all antennas and requires the antenna operator to adopt exposure- mitigation measures only to the extent that certain persons might become exposed to the emissions. Thus, a relatively low-powered site in proximity to the general population might require more comprehensive mitigation measures than a relatively high-powered site in a remote location accessible only to trained personnel. The MPE limit also differentiates between members of “general population” and “occupational” wireless site workers. Virtually all people fall into the general population class, which includes anyone who either does not know about potential exposure or knows about the exposure but cannot exert control over the transmitters.7 The narrower occupational class includes persons knowingly exposed to RF fields through their employment and are able to exert control over their exposure.8 The MPE limit for the general population is five times lower than the MPE limit for the occupational class. Lastly, the FCC “categorically excludes” certain antennas from routine environmental review when either (1) the antennas create exposures in areas virtually inaccessible to humans or (2) the antennas operate at extreme low power. As a general rule, a wireless site qualified for a categorical exclusion when mounted on a structure built solely or primarily to support FCC- licensed or authorized equipment (i.e., a tower) and such that the lowest point on the lowest transmitter is more than 10 meters (32.8 feet) above ground.9 Categorical exclusions establish a presumption that the emissions from the antennas will not significantly impact humans or the human environment. Such antennas are exempt from routine compliance evaluations but not exempt from actual compliance. Under some circumstances, such as a heavily collocated tower or when the transmission are in close proximity to general population members, even a categorically excluded site will require additional analysis. 5 See In re Procedures for Reviewing Requests for Relief from State and Local Regulations Pursuant to Section 332(c)(7)(B)(iv) of the Communications Act of 1934, Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd. 22821, 22828–22829 (Nov. 13, 2000) (declining to adopt rules that limit local authority to require compliance demonstrations). 6 See generally Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Fields: Guidelines for Cellular and PCS Sites, Consumer Guide, FCC (Oct. 22, 2014), available at https://www.fcc.gov/guides/human-exposure-rf-fields-guidelines-cellular-and-pcs- sites (discussing in general terms how wireless sites transmit and how the FCC regulates the emissions). 7 See 47 C.F.R. § 1.1310, Note 2. 8 See id. 9 See id. § 1.1307(b)(1). 2.e Packet Pg. 192 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 135 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 15 of 18 Telecom Law Firm PC ii. Planned Compliance Evaluation and Recommendations The FCC Guidelines do not categorically exclude Verizon’s proposal because Verizon proposes to mount the antenna canister on an existing pole that was constructed primarily to transport legacy non-wireless utilities. Therefore, an additional analysis is necessary to determine whether the proposed antenna will demonstrate planned compliance with the FCC Guidelines. TLF notes that Verizon submitted an FCC LSGAC Optional Checklist (“LSGAC”) which discloses that the site is categorically excluded (Box 16 is checked off). This check-off is incorrect because, as mentioned above, this site is not a categorically excluded site. However, in addition to the LSGAC, the Applicant submitted a Statement of Hammett & Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers dated September 8, 2017 (the “RF Report”). The RF Report discloses that: • Verizon proposes to install one Amphenol Model CUUT360X12Fxyz0 tri-directional antenna. • The antenna will employ up to 12° of signal transmission downtilt. • Three sector of transmissions (Sector A, B and C in the Plans) will be oriented towards Sector A at 0° TN, Sector B at 120° TN and Sector C at 240° TN. See Figure 7. • The maximum effective radiated power (“ERP”), in any direction, will be 1,470 watts (representing simultaneous operation at 700 watts for AWS, 620 watts for PCS and 150 watts for 700 MHz service). • There are no other reported wireless base stations within 100 feet of the site. • For a person anywhere at ground, the maximum RF exposure level is calculated to be 0.0019 mW/cm2 which is 0.40 % of the applicable FCC general population public exposure limit. • The maximum calculated level at the second-floor elevation of any nearby residence is 0.71 % of the public exposure limit, occurring at the residence at 795 Stone Lane about 30 feet away (distance scaled in the RF Report from Sheet A 1.1 of the drawings). The RF Report finds that the RF exposure from the Verizon antenna will comply with the prevailing standards for limiting public exposure to radio frequency energy, and therefore, will not for this reason cause a significant impact on the environment. TLF agrees with this finding. The RF Report contains the basic RF emissions data needed to independently evaluate planned compliance. Based on the power output levels and operating frequencies provided, Verizon’s antennas would create a controlled access zone that extends approximately 15.1 feet from the face of the antenna at approximately 49’10” AGL. TLF calculated the far-field controlled access zone using RF effective radiated power per band information provided in the H&E report, and inserted those data into the FCC-approved formulae in FCC OET Bulletin 65 (No. 4 on page 19 and No. 5 on page 20). Given the sectorization of the RF emissions, TLF also considered structures along each transmission sector to the extent of the controlled zone. 2.e Packet Pg. 193 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 135 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 16 of 18 Telecom Law Firm PC The controlled access zone extends horizontally from the antenna at the height of the antenna with as much as a 12° downtilt, with very little emissions that stray in any other direction, including towards ground level. In this case, the controlled access zone will be entirely located within publically-inaccessible airspace. [Balance of page intentionally left blank] Figure 7: Direction and orientation of the active emissions (Source: Plans page A-2, Panel 1). The fact that a site creates a controlled access zone does not necessarily mean that it violates the FCC Guidelines. Rather, a controlled access zone means that the applicant must affirmatively restrict public access to that area so that members of the general population (including trespassers) cannot unknowingly enter and be exposed to radio emissions in excess of the limits prescribed by the FCC. 2.e Packet Pg. 194 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 135 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 17 of 18 Telecom Law Firm PC As discussed above, the FCC imposes an affirmative obligation on site operators to prevent unknowing overexposure to the general public, including trespassers that could potentially climb the Pole and bayonet and enter the controlled access zone at 0°TN, 120°TN and 240° TN in front of the canister antenna. Accordingly, the Applicant will be able to demonstrate planned compliance with the FCC Rules by applying the signage conditions shown in the RF Report, specifically: Signs should comply with OET-65 color, symbol, and content recommendations. Contact information should be provided (e.g., a telephone number) to arrange for access to restricted areas. The selection of language(s) is not an engineering matter, and guidance from the landlord, local zoning or health authority, or appropriate professionals may be required. Signage may also need to comply with the requirements of California Public Utilities Commission General Order No. 95. Practically, the Applicant proposes to situate a radio frequency (“RF”) warning sign 3-feet below the antenna, facing the climbing space. TLF proposes the following conditions to be included in any permit of approval for this project: 1. Permittee shall install and at all times maintain in good condition an “RF Notice” and network operations center contact information sign on the Pole immediately below the Bracket. Permittee shall install the signs required under this condition so that a person may clearly see the signs as he or she approaches the Pole. 2. Permittee shall install and at all times maintain in good condition an “RF Caution” on the bayonet three feet (3’) below the canister antenna so that a person may clearly see the sign as he or she approaches the canister antenna. 3. Permittee shall ensure that all radio frequency signage complies with FCC OET Bulletin 65 or ANSI C95.2 for color, symbol, and content conventions. All such signage shall at all times provide a working local or toll-free telephone number to its network operations center, and such telephone number shall be able to reach a live person who can exert transmitter power-down control over this site as required by the FCC. /JLK 2.e Packet Pg. 195 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 135 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 18 of 18 Telecom Law Firm PC EXHIBIT A List of Applicant-provided documents, received by the City on September 12, 2017, that were reviewed by TLF in preparation for this memorandum: 1. Plans dated August 28, 2017. 2. Photo Simulations. 3. Project Description for Cluster 1 dated September 8, 2017 that included the “Community Need for Small Cells”. 4. LSGAC Optional Checklist. 5. Statement of Hammett & Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers dated September 8, 2017. 2.e Packet Pg. 196 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 2001 S. Barrington Ave. • Suite 306 • Los Angeles • CA 90025 • T 310-312-9900 6986 La Jolla Boulevard • Suite 204 • La Jolla • CA 92037 • T 619-272-6200 TelecomLawFirm.com WIRELESS PLANNING MEMORANDUM TO: Ms. Rebecca Atkinson FROM: Dr. Jonathan Kramer DATE: November 29, 2017 RE: New Proposed Wireless Facility in the Public Right-of-Way adjacent to 3191 Manchester Court- Cluster 1 (17PLN-00169) APPLICANT: Vinculums Services for Verizon Wireless APPLICANT’S ID: SF PALO ALTO 136 ADJ. APN: 127-58-024 UTILITY POLE ID: 3298 LOCATION CODE: 425240 CONFIGURATION: # 3 The City of Palo Alto (the “City”) requested that Telecom Law Firm, PC (“TLF”) review the Vinculums Services on behalf of GTE Mobilnet dba Verizon Wireless (“Applicant”) application on behalf of Verizon Wireless (“Verizon”) to operate a new wireless site on an existing wood utility pole (“Pole”), owned and operated by the City of Palo Alto Utilities (“CPAU”) located in the public right-of-way (“ROW”) adjacent to 3191 Manchester Court. This memorandum reviews the application and related materials received by the City from the Applicant on September 12, 2017 that are listed in Exhibit A of this memorandum. This memorandum provides a project description, analysis and discussion of project design and design alternatives, planner compliance with federal radio frequency exposure guidelines established by the Federal Communications Commission. Although many technical issues implicate legal issues, the analysis and recommendations contained in this memorandum do not constitute legal advice. I. Project Description This section describes the proposed application as depicted in the plans dated August 29, 2017 (“Plans”) and submitted with the permit application, and described in Figure 1. [Balance of page intentionally left blank] 2.e Packet Pg. 197 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 136 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 2 of 18 Telecom Law Firm PC Figure 1: Project description (Source: Plans Sheet T-1). On top of the Pole, the Applicant proposes to install a 7-foot tall bayonet extension arm (“Arm”) to support a 5-foot 1-inch tall canister antenna and cable cage affixed to the top of the Arm. The overall height of the Pole will remain at 42’9” above ground level (“AGL”), but the overall height of the final structure, including the Arm and canister, will increase to 54’10” AGL. The 7-foot Arm will separate the antenna from the highest existing primary power line by 7-feet, which meets the requirements of the California Public Utilities Commission (“CPUC”), General Order 95 (“GO 95”). The centerline of the proposed Verizon antenna is proposed to be at 52’9” AGL and the bottom of the canister antenna is at 50’9” AGL. This is a three sector site aimed at Sector A at 0° True North (“TN”), Sector B at 120° TN and Sector C at 240° TN with a beam down-tilt of 12° (“Sector A, B and C” shown in the Plans). On the Pole, the Applicant proposes to install a 6” W x 11’ L aluminum channel mounting assembly bracket (“Bracket”) (top being at 20’ 0” AGL and bottom being at 9’ AGL, with a 7.5” standoff from the Pole) to support radio transmission and powering equipment on the Pole. On the Bracket the Applicant proposes to mount the following: • Two remote radio unit 32 (“RRU-32s”) each with a power supply unit (“PSU”). • One remote radio unit 11 (“RRU-11”) with a PSU. • Two antenna signal Diplexers. 2.e Packet Pg. 198 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 136 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 3 of 18 Telecom Law Firm PC • One AC power Distribution Panel (with power shutdown and signage). • One fiber demarcation box (manufactured by Aria Tech or another vendor). The Plans depict that all Bracket mounted equipment will be above the CPUC GO-95 required 8- foot clearance from the ground. The Bracket and equipment, cables, and conduits on the Bracket will be painted “Railroad Ties” by Kelly Moore Railroad Ties KMA67 to blend in with the existing Pole. Additionally, the disconnect switch can be painted brown to reduce its visibility on the Pole. The Plans state that the proposed fiber will be fed from an existing service at the communications level on the Pole to the planned demarcation box to be located on the Bracket. Additionally, the page A-1, panel 1 of the Plans discloses that: “Fiber work to be completed by others under separate contract.” During the site visit on November 2, 2017, TLF observed that the existing Pole appears to be tilting toward street and may need to be removed or reset. The addition of an off-center load to a leaning pole is a safety and service integrity concern. [Balance of page intentionally left blank] 2.e Packet Pg. 199 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 136 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 4 of 18 Telecom Law Firm PC Figure 2 and Figure 3 are current photos of the existing pole without the proposed node. Figure 2: Current pole (Source: TLF site visit on November 2, 2017). 2.e Packet Pg. 200 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 136 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 5 of 18 Telecom Law Firm PC Figure 3: Close-up view of the current pole with all associated existing connections (Source: TLF site visit on November 2, 2017) 2.e Packet Pg. 201 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 136 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 6 of 18 Telecom Law Firm PC Figure 4 depicts the overall design proposed by the Applicant of this Configuration 3 project. Figure 4: Canister antenna, bayonet extension, RF signage, Bracket, a total of three RRUs, DC converter and diplexers (Source: Plans page A-3.1, panel 1). 2.e Packet Pg. 202 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 136 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 7 of 18 Telecom Law Firm PC Figure 5 is a photo simulation depicting the overall design proposed by the Applicant of this Configuration 3 project. Figure 5: Photo simulation of proposed project (Source: Applicant’s Photo Sims). 2.e Packet Pg. 203 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 136 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 8 of 18 Telecom Law Firm PC TLF notes that the photo simulations provided by the Applicant, including the photo simulation in Figure 5, are underrepresented as to the actual visual impact of the proposed site. For example, they do not depict the RF signage on the bayonet and do not depict all the cabling from the antenna canister to the equipment and between the equipment on the Bracket. Additionally, the Applicant did not provide photo simulations from a face-on angle depicting all the proposed installations on the Pole. The Applicant should provide photo simulations from various angles depicting all the proposed installations on the Pole. II. Discussion of Design Elements and Alternatives Even when an applicant claims a significant gap, as the Applicant claims it in its “Community Need for Small Cells” section of the Project Description for Cluster 1 (dated September 8, 2017), the Telecom Act does not grant the applicant rights to build whatever design or site it chooses. A jurisdiction may require a wireless applicant claiming a significant gap to construct a site using the “least intrusive means” to achieve their coverage objectives.1 This balances the national interest in deploying wireless services with the local interest in planned and orderly development. In the Ninth Circuit, the least intrusive means refers to the technically feasible and potentially available alternative design and location that most closely conforms to the local values a permit denial would otherwise serve.2 The Palo Alto Municipal Code (“PAMC”) Section 18.42.110 et seq expresses the local values that form the analytical baseline for considering approval of Wireless Communication Facilities (“WCF”). Based on PAMC 18.42.110(c)(3) the instant projects qualifies as a Tier 3 because it does not qualify under either Tier 1 project (eligible facilities request under Section 6409(a)) or Tier 2 project (a modification request that does not fit within the parameters of Tier 1). PAMC Section 18.42.110(d)(8) requires that an applicant show the maximum potential physical expansion of its site if approved. Pursuant to the FCC’s October 2014 Broadband Order interpreting 47 U.S.C. § 1455(a), once a wireless site exists, FCC rules allow for limited modifications and expansion of the wireless site. There are many federal and state factors that have to be considered to determine the possible future maximum expansion. Those factors include the type and design of the existing site to be modified, and the way the applicant wishes to modify the existing site. State regulations place additional physical safety limitations on the types of permissible modifications and expansions. For these reasons, it is not reasonably or usefully possible to take the current inchoate design to try and estimate possible but perhaps unlikely modifications and expansions. Finally, TLF has 1 See, e.g., American Tower Corp., 763 F.3d at 1056. 2 See id.; see also T-Mobile USA, Inc. v. City of Anacortes, 572 F.3d 987, 995 (9th Cir. 2009). 2.e Packet Pg. 204 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 136 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 9 of 18 Telecom Law Firm PC reviewed the Applicant’s response to PAMC Section 18.42.110(d)(8) (Attachment J – Statement Regarding Spectrum Act of the Applicant’s Project Description for Cluster 1 document dated September 8, 2017). Attachment J, Sections 1 and 2 echo TLF’s assessments above. TLF has no comment on Attachment J, Sections 3 and 4. TLF recommends this evaluation be revisited once the final design is settled. To be approved under PAMC 18.42.110(h) Tier 3, the process (h)(1) and findings (h)(2) required are: (1) A Tier 3 WCF Permit shall be reviewed by the Director. The Director's decision shall be appealable pursuant to the process for architectural review set forth in Section 18.77.070 and the process for conditional use permits set forth in Section 18.77.060. (2) The Director or Council on appeal shall grant a Tier 3 WCF Permit provided the proposed WCF complies with the development standards in Section 18.42.110(i) and the conditions of approval in Section 18.42.110(j), and all of the architectural review findings in Section 18.76.020(d) and the conditional use permit findings in Section 18.76.010(c) can be made. To be approved, the relevant findings for “Development Standards” in Section 18.42.110(i) must be made (our analysis is embedded in italics in each subsection): (1) Shall utilize the smallest footprint possible; “Footprint” is not a defined term in the PAMC Section 18.42.110(b). As proposed, this Pole- mounted project is likely to occupy the smallest “footprint” of ground space since the Pole width at ground level will not increase. (2) Shall be designed to minimize the overall height, mass, and size of the cabinet and enclosure structure; The overall height for a Pole-top antenna is controlled by CPUC GO 95 for separation from existing electrical power conductors. As proposed, this project’s mass and size of the equipment on the Bracket is not minimized because portions of the transmission equipment on the Bracket should be located underground adjacent to the Pole. Although TLF has recommended undergrounding, should that solution not be adopted, there remain additional visual mitigations that may be applied, such as reducing the bulk and stand- off distance of the Bracket and equipment attached to the Bracket. 2.e Packet Pg. 205 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 136 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 10 of 18 Telecom Law Firm PC (3) Shall be screened from public view; As proposed, this project is not screened from public view. Additionally, the direction that equipment faces, and accordingly the supporting Bracket, is a local decision. That said, GO 95 also impacts that face that may be used during to potential conflicts with a pole’s required climbing space. These are case-by-case issues, and there is not government standard to consider. Relatedly, if the bulk of the equipment is placed underground, then the size of the Bracket and the offset from the pole will be reduced thereby allowing greater orientation and placement options. (4) Shall be architecturally compatible with the existing site; This is a determination to be made by the Director as set out in the PAMC. (5) Shall be placed at a location that would not require the removal of any required landscaping or would reduce the quantity of landscaping to a level of noncompliance with the Zoning Code; This is a determination to be made by the Director as set out in the PAMC. Additionally, TLF is aware that the Applicant has discussed planting trees in a cohesive design intended to interrupt direct views of the equipment on the Bracket. (6) An antenna, base station, or tower shall be designed to minimize its visibility from off-site locations and shall be of a "camouflaged" or "stealth" design, including concealment, screening, and other techniques to hide or blend the antenna, base station, or tower into the surrounding area; As proposed, this project, other than the antenna canister, is not “designed to minimize its visibility from off-site locations and shall be of a ‘camouflaged’ or ‘stealth’ design, including concealment, screening, and other techniques to hide or blend the antenna, base station, or tower into the surrounding area.” The mass of the equipment located on the Bracket, which is offset from the Pole, is not camouflaged, screened, or stealth-ed merely by painting that mass a color similar to the Pole. When TLF conducted the site visits, the mock-up site across from 1350 Newell Road was also visited. TLF believes that the proposed shroud—while slightly improving the aesthetics of only the equipment on the Bracket, but not the Bracket itself—results in an increase in the visual bulk of the design. A true minimization of the visibility of the project from off-site locations will occur by undergrounding most of the transmission equipment (RRU-32s with PSU, RRU-11 with PSU, diplexers and fiber demarcation box) in one or more flush-to-grade sidewalk vaults adjacent to the Pole. The equipment that would remain on the Pole would be associated with the electrical AC power service panel and the Pole-top bayonet extension supporting the antenna canister. See 2.e Packet Pg. 206 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 136 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 11 of 18 Telecom Law Firm PC Figure 6. Undergrounding of equipment in flush-to-grade vaults will not increase the footprint of the site. (7) A building-mounted antenna, base station, or tower shall be architecturally compatible with the existing building on which the antenna, base station, or tower is attached; This finding is not applicable to the proposed project. (8) For any Tier 2 or Tier 3 WCF proposed to be attached on an historic structure/site, as designated by Chapter 16.49, historic review shall also be required; Although this project is for a Tier 3 WCF, it does not appear that the project site (a wood pole) is a historic structure/site. (9) Except as otherwise permitted by the Spectrum Act, a building-mounted WCF may extend fifteen (15) feet beyond the permitted height of the building in the zone district; This finding is not applicable to the proposed project. (10) Except as otherwise permitted by the Spectrum Act, a tower or other stand-alone Tier 3 WCF Project shall not exceed sixty-five (65) feet in height; and The proposed project does not exceed 65 feet in height. (11) A tower or other stand-alone Tier 3 WCF may encroach into the interior/street side and rear setback. This finding is not applicable to the proposed project. [Balance of page intentionally left blank] 2.e Packet Pg. 207 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 136 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 12 of 18 Telecom Law Firm PC Figure 6:Reduction of the visibility of Pole mounted antenna associated equipment to be removed from the Pole, such as the two RRU32s, RRU11, and fiber demarcation box (marked with red “x”) and be placed in a flush-to- grade sidewalk vault adjacent to the Pole (Source: Applicant photo simulations, annotated by Dr. J. Kramer). TLF measured the width of the sidewalk on the November 2, 2017 during the site visit. The width of the sidewalk is 5 feet. Proposed antenna Canister to remain on Pole Proposed bayonet to remain on Pole Proposed AC power distribution panel to remain on Pole Potential Underground Vault Location 2.e Packet Pg. 208 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 136 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 13 of 18 Telecom Law Firm PC The utility vault manufacturing industry has been adapting existing vault designs to the small volumetric needs of small cells. TLF understands that vaults from leading vault manufacturers can be readily provided for the volume of equipment the Applicant is proposing. Whatever vault size is preferred, TLF recommends that the vault be placed beneath the existing sidewalk wherever possible and utilize flush-to-grade vents. Based on Plans and the equipment that TLF believes may be undergrounded, and considering that this sidewalk is 5 feet in width, a 10 to 15 cubic foot vault would seem to be both reasonable and sufficient. Dimensions obtained from Plans page D-1 • Two remote radio unit 32 (“RRU-32s”) (27.2” H x 12” W x 7” D) with a power supply unit (“PSU”). • One remote radio unit 11 (“RRU-11”) (19.67” H x 16.97” W x 7.2” D) with PSU. • Two antenna signal Diplexers (8.3” H x 4.6” W x 1.8” D) • One fiber demarcation box (Aria Tech dimensions(8.54”H x10”W x2.88”D) Based on the Plans, the applicant proposes to install equipment (other than the antennas, the DC power disconnect switch, and the equipment Bracket) occupying approximately 7.25 to 10 cubic feet of space. TLF believes the equipment occupying up to 10 cubic feet should be placed in a flush-to-grade vault. No over excavations are foreseen at this time by TLF. If one or more underground vaults are approved by the City, TLF recommends that the vault be placed outside of the drip line of adjacent trees, and the vault lid be: • Non-skid material. • Painted to match the sidewalk to minimize visual impact. • Locked at all time unless active maintenance is occurring. III. Planned RF Compliance Evaluation Under the Telecom Act, the FCC completely occupies the field with respect to RF emissions regulation. The FCC established comprehensive rules for human exposure to RF emissions (the “FCC Guidelines”).3 State and local governments cannot regulate wireless facilities based on environmental effects from RF emissions to the extent that the emissions comply with the FCC Guidelines.4 3 See 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(iv); see also 47 C.F.R. § 1.1307 et seq.; FCC Office of Engineering and Technology, Evaluating Compliance with FCC Guidelines for Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields, OET Bulletin 65, ed. 97-01 (1997). 4 See 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(iv). 2.e Packet Pg. 209 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 136 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 14 of 18 Telecom Law Firm PC Although localities cannot establish their own standards for RF exposure, local officials may require wireless applicants to demonstrate compliance with the FCC Guidelines.5 Such demonstrations usually involve a predictive calculation because the site has not yet been built. i. FCC Guidelines, Categorical Exclusions and Exposure Mitigation Measures FCC Guidelines regulate exposure rather than emissions.6 Although the FCC establishes a maximum permissible exposure (“MPE”) limit, it does not mandate any specific limitations on power levels applicable to all antennas and requires the antenna operator to adopt exposure- mitigation measures only to the extent that certain persons might become exposed to the emissions. Thus, a relatively low-powered site in proximity to the general population might require more comprehensive mitigation measures than a relatively high-powered site in a remote location accessible only to trained personnel. The MPE limit also differentiates between members of “general population” and “occupational” wireless site workers. Virtually all people fall into the general population class, which includes anyone who either does not know about potential exposure or knows about the exposure but cannot exert control over the transmitters.7 The narrower occupational class includes persons knowingly exposed to RF fields through their employment and are able to exert control over their exposure.8 The MPE limit for the general population is five times lower than the MPE limit for the occupational class. Lastly, the FCC “categorically excludes” certain antennas from routine environmental review when either (1) the antennas create exposures in areas virtually inaccessible to humans or (2) the antennas operate at extreme low power. As a general rule, a wireless site qualified for a categorical exclusion when mounted on a structure built solely or primarily to support FCC- licensed or authorized equipment (i.e., a tower) and such that the lowest point on the lowest transmitter is more than 10 meters (32.8 feet) above ground.9 Categorical exclusions establish a presumption that the emissions from the antennas will not significantly impact humans or the human environment. Such antennas are exempt from routine compliance evaluations but not exempt from actual compliance. Under some circumstances, such as a heavily collocated tower or when in close proximity to general population members, even a categorically excluded site will require additional analysis. ii. Planned Compliance Evaluation and Recommendations 5 See In re Procedures for Reviewing Requests for Relief from State and Local Regulations Pursuant to Section 332(c)(7)(B)(iv) of the Communications Act of 1934, Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd. 22821, 22828–22829 (Nov. 13, 2000) (declining to adopt rules that limit local authority to require compliance demonstrations). 6 See generally Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Fields: Guidelines for Cellular and PCS Sites, Consumer Guide, FCC (Oct. 22, 2014), available at https://www.fcc.gov/guides/human-exposure-rf-fields-guidelines-cellular-and-pcs- sites (discussing in general terms how wireless sites transmit and how the FCC regulates the emissions). 7 See 47 C.F.R. § 1.1310, Note 2. 8 See id. 9 See id. § 1.1307(b)(1). 2.e Packet Pg. 210 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 136 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 15 of 18 Telecom Law Firm PC The FCC Guidelines do not categorically exclude Verizon’s proposal because Verizon proposes to mount the antenna canister on an existing Pole that was constructed primarily to transport legacy utilities. Therefore, an additional analysis is necessary to determine whether the proposed antenna will demonstrate planned compliance with the FCC Guidelines. TLF notes that Verizon submitted an FCC LSGAC Optional Checklist (“LSGAC”) which discloses that the site is categorically excluded (Box 16 is checked off). This check-off is incorrect because, as mentioned above, this site is not a categorically excluded site. However, in addition to the LSGAC, the Applicant submitted a Statement of Hammett & Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers dated September 8, 2017 (the “RF Report”). The RF Report discloses that: • Verizon proposes to install one Amphenol Model CUUT360X12Fxyz0 omni-directional antenna. • The antenna will employ up to 12° of signal transmission downtilt. • Three sector of transmissions (Sector A, B and C in the Plans) will be oriented towards Sector A at 0° TN, Sector B at 120° TN and Sector C at 240° TN. See Figure 7. • The maximum effective radiated power (“ERP”), in any direction, will be 1,470 watts (representing simultaneous operation at 700 watts for AWS, 620 watts for PCS and 150 watts for 700 MHz service). • No other wireless base stations are reported within 100 feet of the site. • For a person anywhere at ground, the maximum RF exposure level is calculated to be 0.0019 mW/cm2 which is 0.40 % of the applicable FCC general population public exposure limit. • The maximum calculated level at the second-floor elevation of any nearby residence is 0.71% of the public exposure limit, occurring at the residence at 3191 Manchester Court about 25 feet away (distance scaled in the RF Report from Sheet A-1.1 of the drawings). (Based on the site visit on November 2, 2017 TLF believes that 3191 Manchester Court is a single-story residence.) Regarding 826 Loma Verde Avenue, a two story residence, the controlled zone emissions from Sector B end approximately in the middle of Loma Verde Avenue at an elevation in excess of 40 feet AGL. The RF Report finds that the RF exposure from the Verizon antenna will comply with the prevailing standards for limiting public exposure to radio frequency energy, and therefore, will not for this reason cause a significant impact on the environment. TLF agrees with this finding. The RF Report contains the basic RF emissions data needed to independently evaluate planned compliance. Based on the power output levels and operating frequencies provided, Verizon’s antennas would create a controlled access zone that extends approximately 15.1 feet from the face of the antenna at approximately 51’10” AGL. 2.e Packet Pg. 211 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 136 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 16 of 18 Telecom Law Firm PC TLF calculated the far-field controlled access zone using RF effective radiated power per band information provided in the H&E report, and inserted those data into the FCC-approved formulae in FCC OET Bulletin 65 (No. 4 on page 19 and No. 5 on page 20). Given the sectorization of the RF emissions, TLF also considered structures along each transmission sector to the extent of the controlled zone. The controlled access zone extends horizontally from the antenna at the height of the antenna with as much as a 12° downtilt, with very little emissions that stray in any other direction, including towards ground level. In this case, the controlled access zone will be located within publically-inaccessible airspace. Figure 7: Direction and orientation of the active emissions (Source: Plans page A-2, Panel 1). The fact that a site creates a controlled access zone does not necessarily mean that it violates the FCC Guidelines. Rather, a controlled access zone means that the applicant must affirmatively restrict public access to that area so that members of the general population (including 2.e Packet Pg. 212 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 136 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 17 of 18 Telecom Law Firm PC trespassers) cannot unknowingly enter and be exposed to radio emissions in excess of the limits prescribed by the FCC. As discussed above, the FCC imposes an affirmative obligation on site operators to prevent unknowing overexposure to the general public, including trespassers that could potentially climb the Pole and bayonet and enter the controlled access zone at 0°TN, 120°TN and 240° TN in front of the canister antenna. Accordingly, the Applicant will be able to demonstrate planned compliance with the FCC Rules by applying the signage conditions shown in the RF Report, specifically: Signs should comply with OET-65 color, symbol, and content recommendations. Contact information should be provided (e.g., a telephone number) to arrange for access to restricted areas. The selection of language(s) is not an engineering matter, and guidance from the landlord, local zoning or health authority, or appropriate professionals may be required. Signage may also need to comply with the requirements of California Public Utilities Commission General Order No. 95. Practically, the Applicant proposes to situate a radio frequency (“RF”) warning sign 3-feet below the antenna, facing the climbing space. TLF proposes the following conditions to be included in any permit of approval for this project: 1. Permittee shall install and at all times maintain in good condition an “RF Notice” and network operations center contact information sign on the Pole immediately below the Bracket. Permittee shall install the signs required under this condition so that a person may clearly see the signs as he or she approaches the Pole. 2. Permittee shall install and at all times maintain in good condition an “RF Caution” on the bayonet three feet (3’) below the canister antenna so that a person may clearly see the sign as he or she approaches the canister antenna. 3. Permittee shall ensure that all radio frequency signage complies with FCC OET Bulletin 65 or ANSI C95.2 for color, symbol, and content conventions. All such signage shall at all times provide a working local or toll-free telephone number to its network operations center, and such telephone number shall be able to reach a live person who can exert transmitter power-down control over this site as required by the FCC. /JLK 2.e Packet Pg. 213 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 136 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 18 of 18 Telecom Law Firm PC EXHIBIT A List of Applicant-provided documents, received by the City on September 12, 2017, that were reviewed by TLF in preparation for this memorandum: 1. Plans dated August 29, 2017. 2. Photo Simulations. 3. Project Description for Cluster 1 dated September 8, 2017 that included the “Community Need for Small Cells”. 4. LSGAC Optional Checklist. 5. Statement of Hammett & Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers dated September 8, 2017. 2.e Packet Pg. 214 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 2001 S. Barrington Ave. • Suite 306 • Los Angeles • CA 90025 • T 310-312-9900 6986 La Jolla Boulevard • Suite 204 • La Jolla • CA 92037 • T 619-272-6200 TelecomLawFirm.com WIRELESS PLANNING MEMORANDUM TO: Ms. Rebecca Atkinson FROM: Dr. Jonathan Kramer DATE: November 29, 2017 RE: New Proposed Wireless Facility in the Public Right-of-Way adjacent to 3090 Ross Road- Cluster 1 (17PLN-00169) APPLICANT: Vinculums Services for Verizon Wireless APPLICANT’S ID: SF PALO ALTO 137 ADJ. APN: 127-52-031 UTILITY POLE ID: 3351 LOCATION CODE: 425241 CONFIGURATION: # 3 The City of Palo Alto (the “City”) requested that Telecom Law Firm, PC (“TLF”) review the Vinculums Services on behalf of GTE Mobilnet dba Verizon Wireless (“Applicant”) application on behalf of Verizon Wireless (“Verizon”) to operate a new wireless site on an existing wood utility pole (“Pole”), owned and operated by the City of Palo Alto Utilities (“CPAU”) located in the public right-of-way (“ROW”) adjacent to 3090 Ross Road. This memorandum reviews the application and related materials received by the City from the Applicant on September 12, 2017 that are listed in Exhibit A of this memorandum. This memorandum provides a project description, analysis and discussion of project design and design alternatives, planner compliance with federal radio frequency exposure guidelines established by the Federal Communications Commission. Although many technical issues implicate legal issues, the analysis and recommendations contained in this memorandum do not constitute legal advice. I. Project Description This section describes the proposed application as depicted in the plans dated August 29, 2017 (“Plans”) and submitted with the permit application, and described in Figure 1. [Balance of page intentionally left blank] 2.e Packet Pg. 215 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 137 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 2 of 18 Telecom Law Firm PC Figure 1: Project description incorrectly describing a new wood pole and failing to describe the bayonet extension (Source: Plans; annotated by Dr. J. Kramer). TLF notes that the Applicant has mismatching information on the Title page T-1 of the Plans compared to the actual design shown in the Plans. Based on page A-3.1, Panel 1, on top of the Pole, the Applicant proposes to install a 7-foot tall bayonet extension arm (“Arm”) to support a 5-foot 1-inch tall canister antenna and cable cage affixed to the top of the Arm. The overall height of the Pole will remain at 43’8” above ground level (“AGL”), but the overall height of the final structure, including the Arm and canister, will increase to 55’9” AGL. The 7-foot Arm will separate the antenna from the highest existing primary power line by 7-feet, which meets the requirements of the California Public Utilities Commission (“CPUC”), General Order 95 (“GO 95”). The centerline of the proposed Verizon antenna is proposed to be at 53’8” AGL and the bottom of the canister antenna is at 51’8” AGL. This is a three sector site aimed at Sector A at 0° True North (“TN”), Sector B at 120° TN and Sector C at 240° TN with a beam down-tilt of 12° (“Sector A, B and C” shown in the Plans). 2.e Packet Pg. 216 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 137 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 3 of 18 Telecom Law Firm PC On the Pole, the Applicant proposes to install a 6” W x 11’ L aluminum channel mounting assembly bracket (“Bracket”) (top being at 19’ 9” AGL and bottom being at 9 feet AGL, with a 7.5” standoff from the Pole) to support radio transmission and powering equipment on the Pole. On the Bracket the Applicant proposes to mount the following: • Two remote radio unit 32 (“RRU-32s”) with a power supply unit (“PSU”). • One remote radio unit 11 (“RRU-11”) with PSU. • Two antenna signal Diplexers. • One AC power Distribution Panel (with power shutdown and signage). • One fiber demarcation box (manufactured by Aria Tech or another vendor). The Plans depict that all Bracket mounted equipment will be above the CPUC GO-95 required 8- foot clearance from the ground. The Bracket and equipment, cables, and conduits on the Bracket will be painted “Railroad Ties” by Kelly Moore Railroad Ties KMA67 to blend in with the existing Pole. Additionally, the disconnect switch can be painted brown to reduce its visibility on the Pole. Page E-1, Panel 7 of the Plans depicts the entire grounding system from the antenna through the Bracket and associated equipment, down to and including the ground rod located in a new ground well adjacent to the Pole. Title page T-1 project description of the Plans, references “new fiber cables from POC down to Pole to RRUs”. Additionally, The Plans state that the proposed fiber will be fed from an existing service at the communications level on the Pole to the planned demarcation box to be located on the Bracket. Moreover, the page A-1, panel 1 of the Plans discloses that: “Fiber work to be completed by others under separate contract.” [Balance of page intentionally left blank] 2.e Packet Pg. 217 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 137 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 4 of 18 Telecom Law Firm PC Figure 2 and Figure 3 are current photos of the existing pole without the proposed node. Figure 2: Current pole (Source: TLF site visit on November 2, 2017). 2.e Packet Pg. 218 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 137 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 5 of 18 Telecom Law Firm PC Figure 3: Close-up photo showing Cable TV Power Supply Box on the current pole (Source: TLF site visit on November 2, 2017). The proposed Verizon site equipment and Bracket installed 180° to the existing power supply cabinet suggests that there may not be adequate climbing space on the Pole post installation. Page A-4, panel 1, which shows the expected climbing space quadrant, omits the cable TV power supply. Given that a portion of the Bracket will be at the same level as the cable TV power supply, it is unclear as to where the legally-required climbing space will be on the Pole, or how it can rotate around all of the existing and proposed equipment. 2.e Packet Pg. 219 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 137 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 6 of 18 Telecom Law Firm PC Figure 4 depicts the overall design proposed by the Applicant of this Configuration 3 project. Figure 4: Canister antenna, bayonet extension, RF signage, Bracket, a total of three RRUs, DC converter and diplexers (Source: Plans page A-3.1, panel 1). 2.e Packet Pg. 220 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 137 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 7 of 18 Telecom Law Firm PC Figure 5 is a photo simulation of the Applicant’s proposed Configuration 3 project. Figure 5: Photo simulation of proposed project (Source: Applicant’s Photo Sims). 2.e Packet Pg. 221 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 137 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 8 of 18 Telecom Law Firm PC TLF notes that the photo simulations provided by the Applicant, including the photo simulation in Figure 5, underrepresent the actual visual impact of the proposed site. For example, they do not depict the RF signage on the bayonet and do not depict all the cabling from the antenna canister to the equipment and between the equipment on the Bracket. II. Discussion of Design Elements and Alternatives Even when an applicant claims a significant gap, as the Applicant claims it in its “Community Need for Small Cells” section of the Project Description for Cluster 1 (dated September 8, 2017), the Telecom Act does not grant the applicant rights to build whatever site or design it chooses. A jurisdiction may require a wireless applicant claiming a significant gap to construct a site using the “least intrusive means” to achieve their coverage objectives.1 This balances the national interest in deploying wireless services with the local interest in planned and orderly development. In the Ninth Circuit, the least intrusive means refers to the technically feasible and potentially available alternative design and location that most closely conforms to the local values a permit denial would otherwise serve.2 The Palo Alto Municipal Code (“PAMC”) Section 18.42.110 et seq expresses the local values that form the analytical baseline for considering approval of Wireless Communication Facilities (“WCF”). Based on PAMC 18.42.110(c)(3) the instant projects qualifies as a Tier 3 because it does not qualify under either Tier 1 project (eligible facilities request under Section 6409(a)) or Tier 2 project (a modification request that does not fit within the parameters of Tier 1). PAMC Section 18.42.110(d)(8) requires that an applicant show the maximum potential physical expansion of its site if approved. Pursuant to the FCC’s October 2014 Broadband Order interpreting 47 U.S.C. § 1455(a), once a wireless site exists, FCC rules allow for limited modifications and expansion of the wireless site. There are many federal and state factors that have to be considered to determine the possible future maximum expansion. Those factors include the type and design of the existing site to be modified, and the way the applicant wishes to modify the existing site. State regulations place additional physical safety limitations on the types of permissible modifications and expansions. For these reasons, it is not reasonably or usefully possible to take the current inchoate design to try and estimate possible but perhaps unlikely modifications and expansions. Finally, TLF has reviewed the Applicant’s response to PAMC Section 18.42.110(d)(8) (Attachment J – Statement Regarding Spectrum Act of the Applicant’s Project Description for Cluster 1 document dated September 8, 2017). Attachment J, Sections 1 and 2 echo TLF’s assessments above. TLF has 1 See, e.g., American Tower Corp., 763 F.3d at 1056. 2 See id.; see also T-Mobile USA, Inc. v. City of Anacortes, 572 F.3d 987, 995 (9th Cir. 2009). 2.e Packet Pg. 222 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 137 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 9 of 18 Telecom Law Firm PC no comment on Attachment J, Sections 3 and 4. TLF recommends this evaluation be revisited once the final design is settled. To be approved under PAMC 18.42.110(h) Tier 3, the process (h)(1) and findings (h)(2) required are: (1) A Tier 3 WCF Permit shall be reviewed by the Director. The Director's decision shall be appealable pursuant to the process for architectural review set forth in Section 18.77.070 and the process for conditional use permits set forth in Section 18.77.060. (2) The Director or Council on appeal shall grant a Tier 3 WCF Permit provided the proposed WCF complies with the development standards in Section 18.42.110(i) and the conditions of approval in Section 18.42.110(j), and all of the architectural review findings in Section 18.76.020(d) and the conditional use permit findings in Section 18.76.010(c) can be made. To be approved, the relevant findings for “Development Standards” in Section 18.42.110(i) must be made (our analysis is embedded in italics in each subsection): (1) Shall utilize the smallest footprint possible; “Footprint” is not a defined term in the PAMC Section 18.42.110(b). As proposed, this Pole-mounted project is likely to occupy the smallest “footprint” of ground space since the Pole width at ground level will not increase. (2) Shall be designed to minimize the overall height, mass, and size of the cabinet and enclosure structure; The overall height for a Pole-top antenna is controlled by CPUC GO 95 for separation from existing electrical power conductors. As proposed, this project’s mass and size of the equipment on the Bracket is not minimized because portions of the transmission equipment on the Bracket should be located underground adjacent to the Pole. Although TLF has recommended undergrounding, should that solution not be adopted, there remain additional visual mitigations that may be applied, such as reducing the bulk and stand-off distance of the Bracket and equipment attached to the Bracket. (3) Shall be screened from public view; As proposed, this project is not screened from public view. Additionally, the direction that equipment faces, and accordingly the supporting Bracket, is a local decision. That said, GO 95 also impacts that face that may be used during to potential conflicts with a pole’s required 2.e Packet Pg. 223 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 137 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 10 of 18 Telecom Law Firm PC climbing space. These are case-by-case issues, and there is not government standard to consider. Relatedly, if the bulk of the equipment is placed underground, then the size of the Bracket and the offset from the pole will be reduced thereby allowing greater orientation and placement options. (4) Shall be architecturally compatible with the existing site; This is a determination to be made by the Director as set out in the PAMC. (5) Shall be placed at a location that would not require the removal of any required landscaping or would reduce the quantity of landscaping to a level of noncompliance with the Zoning Code; This is a determination to be made by the Director as set out in the PAMC. Additionally, TLF is aware that the Applicant has discussed planting trees in a cohesive design intended to interrupt direct views of the equipment on the Bracket. (6) An antenna, base station, or tower shall be designed to minimize its visibility from off-site locations and shall be of a "camouflaged" or "stealth" design, including concealment, screening, and other techniques to hide or blend the antenna, base station, or tower into the surrounding area; As proposed, this project, other than the antenna canister, is not “designed to minimize its visibility from off-site locations and shall be of a ‘camouflaged’ or ‘stealth’ design, including concealment, screening, and other techniques to hide or blend the antenna, base station, or tower into the surrounding area.” The mass of the equipment located on the Bracket, which is offset from the Pole, is not camouflaged, screened, or stealthed merely by painting that mass a color similar to the Pole. When TLF conducted the site visits, the mock-up site across from 1350 Newell Road was also visited. TLF believes that the proposed shroud—while slightly improving the aesthetics of only the equipment on the Bracket, but not the Bracket itself—results in an increase in the visual bulk of the design. A true minimization of the visibility of the project from off-site locations will occur by undergrounding most of the transmission equipment (RRU-32s with PSU, RRU-11 with PSU, diplexers and fiber demarcation box) in one or more flush-to-grade sidewalk vault adjacent to the Pole. The equipment that would remain on the Pole would be associated with the electrical AC power service panel and the Pole-top bayonet extension supporting the antenna canister, and will resolve the climbing space concerns discussed above. See Figure 6. Undergrounding of equipment in flush-to-grade vaults will not increase the footprint of the site. 2.e Packet Pg. 224 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 137 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 11 of 18 Telecom Law Firm PC (7) A building-mounted antenna, base station, or tower shall be architecturally compatible with the existing building on which the antenna, base station, or tower is attached; This finding is not applicable to the proposed project. (8) For any Tier 2 or Tier 3 WCF proposed to be attached on an historic structure/site, as designated by Chapter 16.49, historic review shall also be required; Although this project is for a Tier 3 WCF, it does not appear that the project site (a wood pole) is a historic structure/site. (9) Except as otherwise permitted by the Spectrum Act, a building-mounted WCF may extend fifteen (15) feet beyond the permitted height of the building in the zone district; This finding is not applicable to the proposed project. (10) Except as otherwise permitted by the Spectrum Act, a tower or other stand-alone Tier 3 WCF Project shall not exceed sixty-five (65) feet in height; and The proposed project does not exceed 65 feet in height. (11) A tower or other stand-alone Tier 3 WCF may encroach into the interior/street side and rear setback. This finding is not applicable to the proposed project. [Balance of page intentionally left blank] 2.e Packet Pg. 225 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 137 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 12 of 18 Telecom Law Firm PC Figure 6: Reduction of the visibility of Pole mounted antenna associated equipment to be removed from the Pole, such as the two RRU32s, RRU11, (marked with red “x”) and be placed in a flush-to-grade sidewalk vault adjacent to the Pole (Source: Applicant photo simulations, annotated by Dr. J. Kramer). Proposed antenna canister to remain on Pole Proposed bayonet to remain on Pole Potential Underground Vault Proposed AC power distribution panel to remain on Pole 2.e Packet Pg. 226 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 137 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 13 of 18 Telecom Law Firm PC The utility vault manufacturing industry has been adapting existing vault designs to the small volumetric needs of small cells. TLF understands that vaults from leading vault manufacturers can be readily provided for the volume of equipment the Applicant is proposing. Whatever vault size is preferred, TLF recommends that the vault be placed beneath the existing sidewalk wherever possible and utilize flush-to-grade vents. Based on Plans and the equipment that TLF believes may be undergrounded, and considering that this sidewalk is 5 feet in width, a 10 to 15 cubic foot vault would seem to be both reasonable and sufficient. Dimensions obtained from Plans page D-1 • Two remote radio unit 32 (“RRU-32s”) (27.2” H x 12” W x 7” D) with a power supply unit (“PSU”). • One remote radio unit 11 (“RRU-11”) (19.67” H x 16.97” W x 7.2” D) with PSU. • Two antenna signal Diplexers (8.3” H x 4.6” W x 1.8” D) • One fiber demarcation box (Aria Tech dimensions(8.54”H x10”W x2.88”D) Based on the Plans, the applicant proposes to install equipment (other than the antennas, the DC power disconnect switch, and the equipment Bracket) occupying approximately 7.25 to 10 cubic feet of space. TLF believes the equipment occupying up to 10 cubic feet should be placed in a flush-to-grade vault. No over excavations are foreseen at this time by TLF. If one or more underground vaults are approved by the City, TLF recommends that the vault be placed outside of the drip line of adjacent trees, and the vault lid be: TLF measured the width of the sidewalk on the November 2, 2017 during the site visit. The width of the sidewalk is 5 feet. • Non-skid material. • Painted to match the sidewalk to minimize visual impact. • Locked at all time unless active maintenance is occurring. III. Planned RF Compliance Evaluation Under the Telecom Act, the FCC completely occupies the field with respect to RF emissions regulation. The FCC established comprehensive rules for human exposure to RF emissions (the “FCC Guidelines”).3 State and local governments cannot regulate wireless facilities based on environmental effects from RF emissions to the extent that the emissions comply with the FCC Guidelines.4 3 See 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(iv); see also 47 C.F.R. § 1.1307 et seq.; FCC Office of Engineering and Technology, Evaluating Compliance with FCC Guidelines for Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields, OET Bulletin 65, ed. 97-01 (1997). 4 See 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(iv). 2.e Packet Pg. 227 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 137 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 14 of 18 Telecom Law Firm PC Although localities cannot establish their own standards for RF exposure, local officials may require wireless applicants to demonstrate compliance with the FCC Guidelines.5 Such demonstrations usually involve a predictive calculation because the site has not yet been built. i. FCC Guidelines, Categorical Exclusions and Exposure Mitigation Measures FCC Guidelines regulate exposure rather than emissions.6 Although the FCC establishes a maximum permissible exposure (“MPE”) limit, it does not mandate any specific limitations on power levels applicable to all antennas and requires the antenna operator to adopt exposure- mitigation measures only to the extent that certain persons might become exposed to the emissions. Thus, a relatively low-powered site in proximity to the general population might require more comprehensive mitigation measures than a relatively high-powered site in a remote location accessible only to trained personnel. The MPE limit also differentiates between members of “general population” and “occupational” wireless site workers. Virtually all people fall into the general population class, which includes anyone who either does not know about potential exposure or knows about the exposure but cannot exert control over the transmitters.7 The narrower occupational class includes persons knowingly exposed to RF fields through their employment and are able to exert control over their exposure.8 The MPE limit for the general population is five times lower than the MPE limit for the occupational class. Lastly, the FCC “categorically excludes” certain antennas from routine environmental review when either (1) the antennas create exposures in areas virtually inaccessible to humans or (2) the antennas operate at extreme low power. As a general rule, a wireless site qualified for a categorical exclusion when mounted on a structure built solely or primarily to support FCC- licensed or authorized equipment (i.e., a tower) and such that the lowest point on the lowest transmitter is more than 10 meters (32.8 feet) above ground.9 Categorical exclusions establish a presumption that the emissions from the antennas will not significantly impact humans or the human environment. Such antennas are exempt from routine compliance evaluations but not exempt from actual compliance. Under some circumstances, such as a heavily collocated tower or when the transmissions are in close proximity to general population members, even a categorically excluded site will require additional analysis. ii. Planned Compliance Evaluation and Recommendations 5 See In re Procedures for Reviewing Requests for Relief from State and Local Regulations Pursuant to Section 332(c)(7)(B)(iv) of the Communications Act of 1934, Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd. 22821, 22828–22829 (Nov. 13, 2000) (declining to adopt rules that limit local authority to require compliance demonstrations). 6 See generally Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Fields: Guidelines for Cellular and PCS Sites, Consumer Guide, FCC (Oct. 22, 2014), available at https://www.fcc.gov/guides/human-exposure-rf-fields-guidelines-cellular-and-pcs- sites (discussing in general terms how wireless sites transmit and how the FCC regulates the emissions). 7 See 47 C.F.R. § 1.1310, Note 2. 8 See id. 9 See id. § 1.1307(b)(1). 2.e Packet Pg. 228 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 137 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 15 of 18 Telecom Law Firm PC The FCC Guidelines do not categorically exclude Verizon’s proposal because Verizon proposes to mount the antenna canister on an existing pole that was constructed primarily to transport legacy non-wireless utilities. Therefore, an additional analysis is necessary to determine whether the proposed antenna will demonstrate planned compliance with the FCC Guidelines. TLF notes that Verizon submitted an FCC LSGAC Optional Checklist (“LSGAC”) which discloses that the site is categorically excluded (Box 16 is checked off). This check-off is incorrect because, as mentioned above, this site is not a categorically excluded site. However, in addition to the LSGAC, the Applicant submitted a Statement of Hammett & Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers dated September 8, 2017 (the “RF Report”). The RF Report discloses that: • Verizon proposes to install one Amphenol Model CUUT360X12Fxyz0 tri-directional antenna. • The antenna will employ up to 12° of signal transmission downtilt. • Three sector of transmissions (Sector A, B and C in the Plans) will be oriented towards Sector A at 0° TN, Sector B at 120° TN and Sector C at 240° TN. See Figure 7. • The maximum effective radiated power (“ERP”), in any direction, will be 1,470 watts (representing simultaneous operation at 700 watts for AWS, 620 watts for PCS and 150 watts for 700 MHz service). • For a person anywhere at ground, the maximum RF exposure level is calculated to be 0.0019 mW/cm2 which is 0.39 % of the applicable FCC general population public exposure limit. • The maximum calculated level at the second-floor elevation of any nearby residence is 0.68 % of the public exposure limit, occurring at the residence at 3112 Ross Road about 16 feet away (distance scaled in the RF Report from Sheet A-1.1 of the drawings). The RF Report finds that the RF exposure from the Verizon antenna will comply with the prevailing standards for limiting public exposure to radio frequency energy, and therefore, will not for this reason cause a significant impact on the environment. TLF agrees with this finding. The RF Report contains the basic RF emissions data needed to independently evaluate planned compliance. Based on the power output levels and operating frequencies provided, Verizon’s antennas would create a controlled access zone that extends approximately 15.1 feet from the face of the antenna at approximately 51’8”AGL. TLF calculated the far-field controlled access zone using RF effective radiated power per band information provided in the H&E report, and inserted those data into the FCC-approved formulae in FCC OET Bulletin 65 (No. 4 on page 19 and No. 5 on page 20). Given the sectorization of the RF emissions, TLF also considered structures along each transmission sector to the extent of the controlled zone. 2.e Packet Pg. 229 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 137 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 16 of 18 Telecom Law Firm PC The controlled access zone extends horizontally from the antenna at the height of the antenna with as much as a 12° downtilt, with very little emissions that stray in any other direction, including towards ground level. In this case, the controlled access zone will be located entirely within publically-inaccessible airspace. Figure 7: Direction and orientation of the active emissions (Source: Plans page A-2, Panel 1). The fact that a site creates a controlled access zone does not necessarily mean that it violates the FCC Guidelines. Rather, a controlled access zone means that the applicant must affirmatively restrict public access to that area so that members of the general population (including trespassers) cannot unknowingly enter and be exposed to radio emissions in excess of the limits prescribed by the FCC. As discussed above, the FCC imposes an affirmative obligation on site operators to prevent unknowing overexposure to the general public, including trespassers that could potentially climb the Pole and bayonet and enter the controlled access zone at 0°TN, 120°TN and 240° TN in front of the canister antenna. 2.e Packet Pg. 230 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 137 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 17 of 18 Telecom Law Firm PC Accordingly, the Applicant will be able to demonstrate planned compliance with the FCC Rules by applying the signage conditions shown in the RF Report, specifically: Signs should comply with OET-65 color, symbol, and content recommendations. Contact information should be provided (e.g., a telephone number) to arrange for access to restricted areas. The selection of language(s) is not an engineering matter, and guidance from the landlord, local zoning or health authority, or appropriate professionals may be required. Signage may also need to comply with the requirements of California Public Utilities Commission General Order No. 95. Practically, the Applicant proposes to situate a radio frequency (“RF”) warning sign 3-feet below the antenna, facing the climbing space. TLF proposes the following conditions to be included in any permit of approval for this project: 1. Permittee shall install and at all times maintain in good condition an “RF Notice” and network operations center contact information sign on the Pole immediately below the Bracket. Permittee shall install the signs required under this condition so that a person may clearly see the signs as he or she approaches the Pole. 2. Permittee shall install and at all times maintain in good condition an “RF Caution” on the bayonet three feet (3’) below the canister antenna so that a person may clearly see the sign as he or she approaches the canister antenna. 3. Permittee shall ensure that all radio frequency signage complies with FCC OET Bulletin 65 or ANSI C95.2 for color, symbol, and content conventions. All such signage shall at all times provide a working local or toll-free telephone number to its network operations center, and such telephone number shall be able to reach a live person who can exert transmitter power-down control over this site as required by the FCC. /JLK 2.e Packet Pg. 231 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 137 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 18 of 18 Telecom Law Firm PC EXHIBIT A List of Applicant-provided documents, received by the City on September 12, 2017, that were reviewed by TLF in preparation for this memorandum: 1. Plans dated August 29, 2017. 2. Photo Simulations. 3. Project Description for Cluster 1 dated September 8, 2017 that included the “Community Need for Small Cells”. 4. LSGAC Optional Checklist. 5. Statement of Hammett & Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers dated September 8, 2017. 2.e Packet Pg. 232 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 2001 S. Barrington Ave. • Suite 306 • Los Angeles • CA 90025 • T 310-312-9900 6986 La Jolla Boulevard • Suite 204 • La Jolla • CA 92037 • T 619-272-6200 TelecomLawFirm.com WIRELESS PLANNING MEMORANDUM TO: Ms. Rebecca Atkinson FROM: Dr. Jonathan Kramer DATE: November 29, 2017 RE: New Proposed Wireless Facility in the Public Right-of-Way adjacent to 836 Colorado Avenue - Cluster 1 (17PLN-00169) APPLICANT: Vinculums Services for Verizon Wireless APPLICANT’S ID: SF PALO ALTO 138 ADJ. APN: 127-27-063 UTILITY POLE ID: 2479 LOCATION CODE: 425242 CONFIGURATION: # 3 The City of Palo Alto (the “City”) requested that Telecom Law Firm, PC (“TLF”) review the Vinculums Services on behalf of GTE Mobilnet dba Verizon Wireless (“Applicant”) application on behalf of Verizon Wireless (“Verizon”) to operate a new wireless site on an existing wood utility pole (“Pole”), owned and operated by the City of Palo Alto Utilities (“CPAU”) located in the public right-of-way (“ROW”) adjacent to 836 Colorado Avenue. This memorandum reviews the application and related materials received by the City from the Applicant on September 12, 2017 that are listed in Exhibit A of this memorandum. This memorandum provides a project description, analysis and discussion of project design and design alternatives, planner compliance with federal radio frequency exposure guidelines established by the Federal Communications Commission. Although many technical issues implicate legal issues, the analysis and recommendations contained in this memorandum do not constitute legal advice. I. Project Description This section describes the proposed application as depicted in the plans dated August 29, 2017 (“Plans”) and submitted with the permit application, and described in Figure 1. [Balance of page intentionally left blank] 2.e Packet Pg. 233 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 138 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 2 of 18 Telecom Law Firm PC Figure 1: Project description (Source: Plans Sheet T-1). On top of the Pole, the Applicant proposes to install a 7-foot tall bayonet extension arm (“Arm”) to support a 5-foot 1-inch tall canister antenna and cable cage affixed to the top of the Arm. The overall height of the Pole will remain at 43’2” above ground level (“AGL”), but the overall height of the final structure, including the Arm and the canister, will increase to 55’3” AGL. The 7-foot Arm will separate the antenna from the highest existing primary power line by 7-feet, which meets the requirements of the California Public Utilities Commission (“CPUC”), General Order 95 (“GO 95”). The centerline of the proposed Verizon antenna is proposed to be at 53’2” AGL and the bottom of the canister antenna is at 51’2” AGL. This is a single sector site aimed at 60° True North (“TN”) with a beam down-tilt of up to 12° (“Sector A” shown in the Plans). On the Pole, the Applicant proposes to install a 6” W x 11’ L aluminum channel mounting assembly bracket (“Bracket”) (top being at 19’ 9” AGL and bottom being at 9’ AGL, with a 6” standoff from the Pole) to support radio transmission and powering equipment on the Pole. On the Bracket the Applicant proposes to mount the following: • Two remote radio unit 32 (“RRU-32s”) each with a power supply unit (“PSU”). • One remote radio unit 11 (“RRU-11”) with a PSU. • Two antenna signal Diplexers. • One AC power Distribution Panel (with power shutdown and signage). • One fiber demarcation box (manufactured by Aria Tech or another approved vendor). 2.e Packet Pg. 234 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 138 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 3 of 18 Telecom Law Firm PC The Plans depict that all Bracket mounted equipment will be above the CPUC GO-95 required 8- foot clearance from the ground. The Bracket and equipment, cables, and conduits on the Bracket will be painted “Log Cabin” by Kelly Moore KMA76 to blend in with the existing Pole. Additionally, the disconnect switch can be painted brown to reduce its visibility on the Pole. The Plans state that the proposed fiber will be fed from an existing service at the communications level on the Pole to the planned demarcation box to be located on the Bracket. Additionally, the page A-1, panel 1 of the Plans discloses that: “Fiber work to be completed by others under separate contract.” [Balance of page intentionally left blank] 2.e Packet Pg. 235 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 138 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 4 of 18 Telecom Law Firm PC Figure 2 and Figure 3 are current photos of the existing pole without the proposed node. Figure 2: Current pole (Source: TLF site visit on November 2, 2017). 2.e Packet Pg. 236 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 138 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 5 of 18 Telecom Law Firm PC Figure 3: Close-up view of the current pole with all associated existing connections (Source: TLF site visit on November 2, 2017). 2.e Packet Pg. 237 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 138 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 6 of 18 Telecom Law Firm PC Figure 4 depicts the overall design proposed by the Applicant of this Configuration 3 project. Figure 4: Canister antenna, bayonet extension, RF signage, Bracket, a total of three RRUs, PSUs, and diplexers (Source: Plans page A-3.1, panel 1). 2.e Packet Pg. 238 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 138 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 7 of 18 Telecom Law Firm PC Figure 5 is a photo simulation of the overall design proposed by the Applicant of this Configuration 3 project. Figure 5: Photo simulation of proposed project (Source: Applicant’s Photo Sims). 2.e Packet Pg. 239 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 138 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 8 of 18 Telecom Law Firm PC TLF notes that the photo simulations provided by the Applicant, including the photo simulation in Figure 5, underrepresent the actual visual impact of the proposed site. For example, they do not depict the RF signage on the bayonet and do not depict all the cabling from the antenna canister to the equipment and between the equipment on the Bracket. Additionally, the Applicant did not provide photo simulations from a face-on angle depicting all the proposed installations on the Pole. II. Discussion of Design Elements and Alternatives Even when an applicant claims a significant gap, as the Applicant claims it in its “Community Need for Small Cells” section of the Project Description for Cluster 1 (dated September 8, 2017), the Telecom Act does not grant the applicant rights to build whatever design or site it chooses. A jurisdiction may require a wireless applicant claiming a significant gap to construct a site using the “least intrusive means” to achieve their coverage objectives.1 This balances the national interest in deploying wireless services with the local interest in planned and orderly development. In the Ninth Circuit, the least intrusive means refers to the technically feasible and potentially available alternative design and location that most closely conforms to the local values a permit denial would otherwise serve.2 The Palo Alto Municipal Code (“PAMC”) Section 18.42.110 et seq expresses the local values that form the analytical baseline for considering approval of Wireless Communication Facilities (“WCF”). Based on PAMC 18.42.110(c)(3) the instant projects qualifies as a Tier 3 because it does not qualify under either Tier 1 project (eligible facilities request under Section 6409(a)) or Tier 2 project (a modification request that does not fit within the parameters of Tier 1). PAMC Section 18.42.110(d)(8) requires that an applicant show the maximum potential physical expansion of its site if approved. Pursuant to the FCC’s October 2014 Broadband Order interpreting 47 U.S.C. § 1455(a), once a wireless site exists, FCC rules allow for limited modifications and expansion of the wireless site. There are many federal and state factors that have to be considered to determine the possible future maximum expansion. Those factors include the type and design of the existing site to be modified, and the way the applicant wishes to modify the existing site. State regulations place additional physical safety limitations on the types of permissible modifications and expansions. For these reasons, it is not reasonably or usefully possible to take the current inchoate design to try and estimate possible but perhaps unlikely modifications and expansions. Finally, TLF has reviewed the Applicant’s response to PAMC Section 18.42.110(d)(8) (Attachment J – Statement 1 See, e.g., American Tower Corp., 763 F.3d at 1056. 2 See id.; see also T-Mobile USA, Inc. v. City of Anacortes, 572 F.3d 987, 995 (9th Cir. 2009). 2.e Packet Pg. 240 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 138 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 9 of 18 Telecom Law Firm PC Regarding Spectrum Act of the Applicant’s Project Description for Cluster 1 document dated September 8, 2017). Attachment J, Sections 1 and 2 echo TLF’s assessments above. TLF has no comment on Attachment J, Sections 3 and 4. TLF recommends this evaluation be revisited once the final design is settled. To be approved under PAMC 18.42.110(h) Tier 3, the process (h)(1) and findings (h)(2) required are: (1) A Tier 3 WCF Permit shall be reviewed by the Director. The Director's decision shall be appealable pursuant to the process for architectural review set forth in Section 18.77.070 and the process for conditional use permits set forth in Section 18.77.060. (2) The Director or Council on appeal shall grant a Tier 3 WCF Permit provided the proposed WCF complies with the development standards in Section 18.42.110(i) and the conditions of approval in Section 18.42.110(j), and all of the architectural review findings in Section 18.76.020(d) and the conditional use permit findings in Section 18.76.010(c) can be made. To be approved, the relevant findings for “Development Standards” in Section 18.42.110(i) must be made (our analysis is embedded in italics in each subsection): (1) Shall utilize the smallest footprint possible; “Footprint” is not a defined term in the PAMC Section 18.42.110(b). As proposed, this Pole- mounted project is likely to occupy the smallest “footprint” of ground space since the Pole width at ground level will not increase. (2) Shall be designed to minimize the overall height, mass, and size of the cabinet and enclosure structure; The overall height for a Pole-top antenna is controlled by CPUC GO 95 for separation from existing electrical power conductors. As proposed, this project’s mass and size of the equipment on the Bracket is not minimized because portions of the transmission equipment on the Bracket can be located underground adjacent to the Pole. Although TLF has recommended undergrounding, should that solution not be adopted, there remain additional visual mitigations that may be applied, such as reducing the bulk and stand- off distance of the Bracket and equipment attached to the Bracket. 2.e Packet Pg. 241 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 138 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 10 of 18 Telecom Law Firm PC (3) Shall be screened from public view; As proposed, this project is not screened from public view. Additionally, the direction that equipment faces, and accordingly the supporting Bracket, is a local decision. That said, GO 95 also impacts that face that may be used during to potential conflicts with a pole’s required climbing space. These are case-by-case issues, and there is not government standard to consider. Relatedly, if the bulk of the equipment is placed underground, then the size of the Bracket and the offset from the pole will be reduced thereby allowing greater orientation and placement options. (4) Shall be architecturally compatible with the existing site; This is a determination to be made by the Director as set out in the PAMC. (5) Shall be placed at a location that would not require the removal of any required landscaping or would reduce the quantity of landscaping to a level of noncompliance with the Zoning Code; This is a determination to be made by the Director as set out in the PAMC. Additionally, TLF is aware that the Applicant has discussed planting trees in a cohesive design intended to interrupt direct views of the equipment on the Bracket. (6) An antenna, base station, or tower shall be designed to minimize its visibility from off-site locations and shall be of a "camouflaged" or "stealth" design, including concealment, screening, and other techniques to hide or blend the antenna, base station, or tower into the surrounding area; As proposed, this project, other than the antenna canister, is not “designed to minimize its visibility from off-site locations and shall be of a ‘camouflaged’ or ‘stealth’ design, including concealment, screening, and other techniques to hide or blend the antenna, base station, or tower into the surrounding area.” The mass of the equipment located on the Bracket, which is offset from the Pole, is not camouflaged, screened, or stealthed merely by painting that mass a color similar to the Pole. When TLF conducted the site visits, the mock-up site across from 1350 Newell Road was also visited. TLF believes that the proposed shroud—while slightly improving the aesthetics of only the equipment on the Bracket, but not the Bracket itself—results in an increase in the visual bulk of the design. A true minimization of the visibility of the project from off-site locations will occur by undergrounding most of the transmission equipment (RRU-32s with PSU, RRU-11 with PSU, diplexers and fiber demarcation box) in a flush-to-grade sidewalk vault adjacent to the Pole. The equipment that would remain on the Pole would be associated with the electrical AC power 2.e Packet Pg. 242 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 138 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 11 of 18 Telecom Law Firm PC service panel and the Pole-top bayonet extension supporting the antenna canister. See Figure 6. Undergrounding of equipment in flush-to-grade vaults will not increase the footprint of the site. (7) A building-mounted antenna, base station, or tower shall be architecturally compatible with the existing building on which the antenna, base station, or tower is attached; This finding is not applicable to the proposed project. (8) For any Tier 2 or Tier 3 WCF proposed to be attached on an historic structure/site, as designated by Chapter 16.49, historic review shall also be required; Although this project is for a Tier 3 WCF, it does not appear that the project site (a wood pole) is a historic structure/site. (9) Except as otherwise permitted by the Spectrum Act, a building-mounted WCF may extend fifteen (15) feet beyond the permitted height of the building in the zone district; This finding is not applicable to the proposed project. (10) Except as otherwise permitted by the Spectrum Act, a tower or other stand-alone Tier 3 WCF Project shall not exceed sixty-five (65) feet in height; and The proposed project does not exceed 65 feet in height. (11) A tower or other stand-alone Tier 3 WCF may encroach into the interior/street side and rear setback. This finding is not applicable to the proposed project. [Balance of page intentionally left blank] 2.e Packet Pg. 243 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 138 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 12 of 18 Telecom Law Firm PC Figure 6: Minimization of the visibility of Pole mounted antenna associated equipment to be removed from the Pole, such as the two RRU32s, RRU11, and fiber demarcation box (marked with red “x”) and be placed in a flush- to-grade sidewalk vault adjacent to the Pole (Source: Applicant photo simulations, annotated by Dr. J. Kramer). Proposed antenna canister to remain on Pole Proposed bayonet to remain on Pole Proposed AC power distribution Panel to remain on Pole Potential underground vault location 2.e Packet Pg. 244 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 138 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 13 of 18 Telecom Law Firm PC TLF measured the width of the sidewalk on the November 2, 2017 during the site visit. The width of the sidewalk is 5 feet. The utility vault manufacturing industry has been adapting existing vault designs to the small volumetric needs of small cells. TLF understands that vaults from leading vault manufacturers can be readily provided for the volume of equipment the Applicant is proposing. Whatever vault size is preferred, TLF recommends that the vault be placed beneath the existing sidewalk wherever possible and utilize flush-to-grade vents. Based on Plans and the equipment that TLF believes may be undergrounded, and considering that this sidewalk is 5 feet in width, a 10 to 15 cubic foot vault would seem to be both reasonable and sufficient. Dimensions obtained from Plans page D-1 • Two remote radio unit 32 (“RRU-32s”) (27.2” H x 12” W x 7” D) with a power supply unit (“PSU”). • One remote radio unit 11 (“RRU-11”) (19.67” H x 16.97” W x 7.2” D) with PSU. • Two antenna signal Diplexers (8.3” H x 4.6” W x 1.8” D) • One fiber demarcation box (Aria Tech dimensions(8.54”H x10”W x2.88”D) Based on the Plans, the applicant proposes to install equipment (other than the antennas, the DC power disconnect switch, and the equipment Bracket) occupying approximately 7.25 to 10 cubic feet of space. TLF believes the equipment occupying up to 10 cubic feet should be placed in a flush-to-grade vault. No over excavations are foreseen at this time by TLF. If one or more underground vaults are approved by the City, TLF recommends that the vault be placed outside of the drip line of adjacent trees, and the vault lid be: • Non-skid material. • Painted to match the sidewalk to minimize visual impact. • Locked at all time unless active maintenance is occurring. III. Planned RF Compliance Evaluation Under the Telecom Act, the FCC completely occupies the field with respect to RF emissions regulation. The FCC established comprehensive rules for human exposure to RF emissions (the “FCC Guidelines”).3 State and local governments cannot regulate wireless facilities based on environmental effects from RF emissions to the extent that the emissions comply with the FCC Guidelines.4 3 See 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(iv); see also 47 C.F.R. § 1.1307 et seq.; FCC Office of Engineering and Technology, Evaluating Compliance with FCC Guidelines for Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields, OET Bulletin 65, ed. 97-01 (1997). 4 See 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(iv). 2.e Packet Pg. 245 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 138 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 14 of 18 Telecom Law Firm PC Although localities cannot establish their own standards for RF exposure, local officials may require wireless applicants to demonstrate compliance with the FCC Guidelines.5 Such demonstrations usually involve a predictive calculation because the site has not yet been built. i. FCC Guidelines, Categorical Exclusions and Exposure Mitigation Measures FCC Guidelines regulate exposure rather than emissions.6 Although the FCC establishes a maximum permissible exposure (“MPE”) limit, it does not mandate any specific limitations on power levels applicable to all antennas and requires the antenna operator to adopt exposure- mitigation measures only to the extent that certain persons might become exposed to the emissions. Thus, a relatively low-powered site in proximity to the general population might require more comprehensive mitigation measures than a relatively high-powered site in a remote location accessible only to trained personnel. The MPE limit also differentiates between members of “general population” and “occupational” wireless site workers. Virtually all people fall into the general population class, which includes anyone who either does not know about potential exposure or knows about the exposure but cannot exert control over the transmitters.7 The narrower occupational class includes persons knowingly exposed to RF fields through their employment and are able to exert control over their exposure.8 The MPE limit for the general population is five times lower than the MPE limit for the occupational class. Lastly, the FCC “categorically excludes” certain antennas from routine environmental review when either (1) the antennas create exposures in areas virtually inaccessible to humans or (2) the antennas operate at extreme low power. As a general rule, a wireless site qualified for a categorical exclusion when mounted on a structure built solely or primarily to support FCC- licensed or authorized equipment (i.e., a tower) and such that the lowest point on the lowest transmitter is more than 10 meters (32.8 feet) above ground.9 Categorical exclusions establish a presumption that the emissions from the antennas will not significantly impact humans or the human environment. Such antennas are exempt from routine compliance evaluations but not exempt from actual compliance. Under some circumstances, such as a heavily collocated tower or when in close proximity to general population members, even a categorically excluded site will require additional analysis. ii. Planned Compliance Evaluation and Recommendations 5 See In re Procedures for Reviewing Requests for Relief from State and Local Regulations Pursuant to Section 332(c)(7)(B)(iv) of the Communications Act of 1934, Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd. 22821, 22828–22829 (Nov. 13, 2000) (declining to adopt rules that limit local authority to require compliance demonstrations). 6 See generally Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Fields: Guidelines for Cellular and PCS Sites, Consumer Guide, FCC (Oct. 22, 2014), available at https://www.fcc.gov/guides/human-exposure-rf-fields-guidelines-cellular-and-pcs- sites (discussing in general terms how wireless sites transmit and how the FCC regulates the emissions). 7 See 47 C.F.R. § 1.1310, Note 2. 8 See id. 9 See id. § 1.1307(b)(1). 2.e Packet Pg. 246 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 138 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 15 of 18 Telecom Law Firm PC The FCC Guidelines do not categorically exclude Verizon’s proposal because Verizon proposes to mount the antenna canister on an existing Pole that was constructed primarily to transport legacy utilities. Therefore, an additional analysis is necessary to determine whether the proposed antenna will demonstrate planned compliance with the FCC Guidelines. TLF notes that Verizon submitted an FCC LSGAC Optional Checklist (“LSGAC”) which discloses that the site is categorically excluded (Box 16 is checked off). This check-off is incorrect because, as mentioned above, this site is not a categorically excluded site. However, in addition to the LSGAC, the Applicant submitted a Statement of Hammett & Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers dated September 8, 2017 (the “RF Report”). The RF Report discloses that: • Verizon proposes to install one Amphenol Model CUUT070X12Fxyz0 tri-directional antenna, but Verizon proposes to activate only one direction of the antenna. • The antenna will employ up to 12° of signal transmission downtilt. • The single sector of transmissions (Sector A in the Plans) will be oriented towards 60° TN. See Figure 7. • The maximum effective radiated power (“ERP”) will be 7,700 watts (representing simultaneous operation at 3,680 watts for AWS, 3,320 watts for PCS and 700 watts for 700 MHz service). • No other wireless base stations are reported within 100 feet of the site. • For a person anywhere at ground, the maximum RF exposure level is calculated to be 0.011 mW/cm2 which is 1.8% of the applicable FCC general population public exposure limit. • The maximum calculated level at the second-floor elevation of any nearby residence is 2.6% of the public exposure limit, occurring at the residence at 848 Colorado Avenue about 80 feet away (distance scaled in the RF Report from Sheet A 1.1 of the drawings). • The maximum calculated level at the second-floor elevation of the nearest residence, located about 30 feet away at 842 Colorado Avenue is 0.57% of the applicable FCC general population limit (Note that due to the directionality of the antenna, calculated levels at the nearest residence are lower). (TLF notes that the proposed node orientation is also away from the 2 story residence at 836 Colorado Avenue.) The RF Report finds that the RF exposure from the Verizon antenna will comply with the prevailing standards for limiting public exposure to radio frequency energy, and therefore, will not for this reason cause a significant impact on the environment. TLF agrees with this finding. The RF Report contains the basic RF emissions data needed to independently evaluate planned compliance. Based on the power output levels and operating frequencies provided, Verizon’s antennas would create a controlled access zone that extends approximately 34.4 feet from the face of the antenna at approximately 53 feet AGL. TLF calculated the far-field controlled access zone using RF effective radiated power per band information provided in the H&E report, and inserted those data into the FCC-approved formulae in FCC OET Bulletin 65 (No. 4 on page 19 and No. 5 on page 20). Given the sectorization of the 2.e Packet Pg. 247 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 138 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 16 of 18 Telecom Law Firm PC RF emissions, TLF also considered structures along each transmission sector to the extent of the controlled zone. The controlled access zone extends horizontally from the antenna at the height of the antenna with as much as a 12° downtilt, with very little emissions that stray in any other direction, including towards ground level. In this case, the controlled access zone will be located within publically-inaccessible airspace. Figure 7: Direction and orientation of the active emissions (Source: Plans page A-2, Panel 1). The fact that a site creates a controlled access zone does not necessarily mean that it violates the FCC Guidelines. Rather, a controlled access zone means that the applicant must affirmatively restrict public access to that area so that members of the general population (including trespassers) cannot unknowingly enter and be exposed to radio emissions in excess of the limits prescribed by the FCC. As discussed above, the FCC imposes an affirmative obligation on site operators to prevent unknowing overexposure to the general public, including trespassers that could potentially climb the Pole and bayonet and enter the controlled access zone at 60° TN in front of the canister antenna. 2.e Packet Pg. 248 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 138 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 17 of 18 Telecom Law Firm PC Accordingly, the Applicant will be able to demonstrate planned compliance with the FCC Rules by applying the signage conditions shown in the RF Report, specifically: Signs should comply with OET-65 color, symbol, and content recommendations. Contact information should be provided (e.g., a telephone number) to arrange for access to restricted areas. The selection of language(s) is not an engineering matter, and guidance from the landlord, local zoning or health authority, or appropriate professionals may be required. Signage may also need to comply with the requirements of California Public Utilities Commission General Order No. 95. Practically, the Applicant proposes to situate a radio frequency (“RF”) warning sign 3-feet below the antenna, facing the climbing space. TLF proposes the following conditions to be included in any permit of approval for this project: 1. Permittee shall install and at all times maintain in good condition an “RF Notice” and network operations center contact information sign on the Pole immediately below the Bracket. Permittee shall install the signs required under this condition so that a person may clearly see the signs as he or she approaches the Pole. 2. Permittee shall install and at all times maintain in good condition an “RF Caution” on the bayonet three feet (3’) below the canister antenna so that a person may clearly see the sign as he or she approaches the canister antenna. 3. Permittee shall ensure that all radio frequency signage complies with FCC OET Bulletin 65 or ANSI C95.2 for color, symbol, and content conventions. All such signage shall at all times provide a working local or toll-free telephone number to its network operations center, and such telephone number shall be able to reach a live person who can exert transmitter power-down control over this site as required by the FCC. /JLK 2.e Packet Pg. 249 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 138 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 18 of 18 Telecom Law Firm PC EXHIBIT A List of Applicant-provided documents, received by the City on September 12, 2017, that were reviewed by TLF in preparation for this memorandum: 1. Plans dated August 29, 2017. 2. Photo Simulations. 3. Project Description for Cluster 1 dated September 8, 2017 that included the “Community Need for Small Cells”. 4. LSGAC Optional Checklist. 5. Statement of Hammett & Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers dated September 8, 2017. 2.e Packet Pg. 250 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 2001 S. Barrington Ave. • Suite 306 • Los Angeles • CA 90025 • T 310-312-9900 6986 La Jolla Boulevard • Suite 204 • La Jolla • CA 92037 • T 619-272-6200 TelecomLawFirm.com WIRELESS PLANNING MEMORANDUM TO: Ms. Rebecca Atkinson FROM: Dr. Jonathan Kramer DATE: November 29, 2017 RE: New Proposed Wireless Facility in the Public Right-of-Way adjacent to 450 Loma Verde Avenue- Cluster 1 (17PLN-00169) APPLICANT: Vinculums Services for Verizon Wireless APPLICANT’S ID: SF PALO ALTO 140 ADJ. APN: 132-15-077 UTILITY POLE ID: 3971 LOCATION CODE: 425244 CONFIGURATION: # 3 The City of Palo Alto (the “City”) requested that Telecom Law Firm, PC (“TLF”) review the Vinculums Services on behalf of GTE Mobilnet dba Verizon Wireless (“Applicant”) application on behalf of Verizon Wireless (“Verizon”) to operate a new wireless site on an existing down guy (“Pole”), owned and operated by the City of Palo Alto Utilities (“CPAU”) located in the public right-of-way (“ROW”) adjacent to 450 Loma Verde Avenue. The Applicant references that this Pole is an existing utility pole with existing primary power line. See Figure 1. Figure 1: Existing primary power line depicted on the existing Southwest elevation (Source: Plans page A-3, panel 2; annotated by Dr. J. Kramer). 2.e Packet Pg. 251 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 140 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 2 of 20 Telecom Law Firm PC Based on the site visit conducted by TLF on November 2, 2017, this Pole is simply used for down guy purposes and has neither primary nor secondary power existing on the Pole. This memorandum reviews the application received by the City from the Applicant on September 12, 2017 that are listed in Exhibit A of this memorandum. This memorandum provides a project description, analysis and discussion of project design and design alternatives, planner compliance with federal radio frequency exposure guidelines established by the Federal Communications Commission. Although many technical issues implicate legal issues, the analysis and recommendations contained in this memorandum do not constitute legal advice. I. Project Description This section describes the proposed application as depicted in the plans dated August 29, 2017 (“Plans”) and submitted with the permit application, and described in Figure 2. The project description is inconsistent within itself and within the remaining pages of the Plans. The project description references that: • Applicant proposes to install a new pole to replace the existing pole; • It is an existing down guy pole; • New AC power cables will be installed from point of contact (“POC”). Figure 2: Project description with inconsistencies noted (Source: Plans; annotated by Dr. J. Kramer). 2.e Packet Pg. 252 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 140 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 3 of 20 Telecom Law Firm PC Based on the Plans, page A-3, panel 1, on top of the Pole, the Applicant proposes to install a 7- foot tall bayonet extension arm (“Arm”) to support a 5-foot 1-inch tall canister antenna and cable cage affixed to the top of the Arm. The overall height of the Pole will remain at 33’6” above ground level (“AGL”), but the overall height of the final structure will increase to 45’7” AGL. The 7-foot Arm will separate the antenna from the to-be-installed secondary power by 7-feet, which meets the requirements of the California Public Utilities Commission (“CPUC”), General Order 95 (“GO 95”). The centerline of the proposed Verizon antenna is proposed to be at 43’6” AGL and the bottom of the canister antenna is at 41’6” AGL. This is a three sector site aimed at Sector A at 0° True North (“TN”), Sector B at 120° TN and Sector C at 240° TN with a beam down-tilt of 12° (“Sector A, B and C” shown in the Plans). On the Pole, the Applicant proposes to install a 6” W x 11’ L aluminum channel mounting assembly bracket (“Bracket”) (top being at 19’ 9” AGL and bottom being at 9 feet AGL, with a 6” standoff from the Pole) to support radio transmission and powering equipment on the Pole. On the Bracket the Applicant proposes to mount the following: • Two remote radio unit 32 (“RRU-32s”) with a power supply unit (“PSU”). • One remote radio unit 11 (“RRU-11”) with PSU. • Two antenna signal Diplexers. • One AC power Distribution Panel (with power shutdown and signage). • One fiber demarcation box (manufactured by Aria Tech or another vendor). The Plans depict that all Bracket mounted equipment will be above the CPUC GO-95 required 8- foot clearance from the ground. The Bracket and equipment, cables, and conduits on the Bracket will be painted “Railroad Ties” by Kelly Moore Railroad Ties KMA67 to blend in with the existing Pole. Additionally, the disconnect switch can be painted brown to reduce its visibility on the Pole. Page E-1, Panel 7 of the Plans depicts the entire grounding system from the antenna through the Bracket and associated equipment, down to and including the ground rod located in a new ground well adjacent to the Pole. [Balance of page intentionally left blank] 2.e Packet Pg. 253 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 140 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 4 of 20 Telecom Law Firm PC Figure 3 and Figure 4 are current photos of the existing pole without the proposed node. Figure 3: Current pole without proposed node (Source: TLF site visit on November 2, 2017). 2.e Packet Pg. 254 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 140 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 5 of 20 Telecom Law Firm PC Figure 4: Close-up photo of existing pole depicting no power and no fiber (Source: TLF site visit on November 2, 2017; annotated by Dr. J. Kramer). This is a pole-to-pole down guy wire, not a power line. 2.e Packet Pg. 255 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 140 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 6 of 20 Telecom Law Firm PC Figure 5 depicts the overall design proposed by the Applicant of this Configuration 3 project. Figure 5: Canister antenna, bayonet extension, RF signage, Bracket, a total of three RRUs, DC converter and diplexers (Source: Plans page A-3.1, panel 1). 2.e Packet Pg. 256 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 140 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 7 of 20 Telecom Law Firm PC Figure 6 depict the photo simulation of the overall design proposed by the Applicant of this Configuration 3 project. Figure 6: Photo simulation of proposed project (Source: Applicant’s Photo Sims). TLF notes that the photo simulations provided by the Applicant, including the photo simulation in Figure 5, underrepresent and misrepresent the actual visual impact of the proposed site. For example, the photo simulation fails to depict the necessary secondary power line, necessary fiber 2.e Packet Pg. 257 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 140 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 8 of 20 Telecom Law Firm PC optic cable, and RF signage on the bayonet and also omit depiction of all the cabling from the antenna canister to the equipment and between the equipment on the Bracket. II. Discussion of Design Elements and Alternatives Even when an applicant claims a significant gap, as the Applicant claims it in its “Community Need for Small Cells” section of the Project Description for Cluster 1 (dated September 8, 2017), the Telecom Act does not grant the applicant rights to build whatever site or design it chooses. A jurisdiction may require a wireless applicant claiming a significant gap to construct a site using the “least intrusive means” to achieve their coverage objectives.1 This balances the national interest in deploying wireless services with the local interest in planned and orderly development. In the Ninth Circuit, the least intrusive means refers to the technically feasible and potentially available alternative design and location that most closely conforms to the local values a permit denial would otherwise serve.2 The Palo Alto Municipal Code (“PAMC”) Section 18.42.110 et seq expresses the local values that form the analytical baseline for considering approval of Wireless Communication Facilities (“WCF”). Based on PAMC 18.42.110(c)(3) the instant projects qualifies as a Tier 3 because it does not qualify under either Tier 1 project (eligible facilities request under Section 6409(a)) or Tier 2 project (a modification request that does not fit within the parameters of Tier 1). PAMC Section 18.42.110(d)(8) requires that an applicant show the maximum potential physical expansion of its site if approved. Pursuant to the FCC’s October 2014 Broadband Order interpreting 47 U.S.C. § 1455(a), once a wireless site exists, FCC rules allow for limited modifications and expansion of the wireless site. There are many federal and state factors that have to be considered to determine the possible future maximum expansion. Those factors include the type and design of the existing site to be modified, and the way the applicant wishes to modify the existing site. State regulations place additional physical safety limitations on the types of permissible modifications and expansions. For these reasons, it is not reasonably or usefully possible to take the current inchoate design to try and estimate possible but perhaps unlikely modifications and expansions. Finally, TLF has reviewed the Applicant’s response to PAMC Section 18.42.110(d)(8) (Attachment J – Statement Regarding Spectrum Act of the Applicant’s Project Description for Cluster 1 document dated September 8, 2017). Attachment J, Sections 1 and 2 echo TLF’s assessments above. TLF has no comment on Attachment J, Sections 3 and 4. TLF recommends this evaluation be revisited once the final design is settled. 1 See, e.g., American Tower Corp., 763 F.3d at 1056. 2 See id.; see also T-Mobile USA, Inc. v. City of Anacortes, 572 F.3d 987, 995 (9th Cir. 2009). 2.e Packet Pg. 258 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 140 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 9 of 20 Telecom Law Firm PC To be approved under PAMC 18.42.110(h) Tier 3, the process (h)(1) and findings (h)(2) required are: (1) A Tier 3 WCF Permit shall be reviewed by the Director. The Director's decision shall be appealable pursuant to the process for architectural review set forth in Section 18.77.070 and the process for conditional use permits set forth in Section 18.77.060. (2) The Director or Council on appeal shall grant a Tier 3 WCF Permit provided the proposed WCF complies with the development standards in Section 18.42.110(i) and the conditions of approval in Section 18.42.110(j), and all of the architectural review findings in Section 18.76.020(d) and the conditional use permit findings in Section 18.76.010(c) can be made. To be approved, the relevant findings for “Development Standards” in Section 18.42.110(i) must be made (our analysis is embedded in italics in each subsection): (1) Shall utilize the smallest footprint possible; “Footprint” is not a defined term in the PAMC Section 18.42.110(b). As proposed, this Pole- mounted project is likely to occupy the smallest “footprint” of ground space since the Pole width at ground level will not increase. (2) Shall be designed to minimize the overall height, mass, and size of the cabinet and enclosure structure; The overall height for a Pole-top antenna is controlled by CPUC GO 95 for separation from existing electrical power conductors. As proposed, this project’s mass and size of the equipment on the Bracket is not minimized because portions of the transmission equipment on the Bracket should be located underground adjacent to the Pole. Although TLF has recommended undergrounding, should that solution not be adopted, there remain additional visual mitigations that may be applied, such as reducing the bulk and stand- off distance of the Bracket and equipment attached to the Bracket. (3) Shall be screened from public view; As proposed, this project is not screened from public view. Additionally, the direction that equipment faces, and accordingly the supporting Bracket, is a local decision. That said, GO 95 also impacts that face that may be used during to potential conflicts with a pole’s required climbing space. These are case-by-case issues, and there is not government standard to consider. Relatedly, if the bulk of the equipment is placed underground, then the size of the 2.e Packet Pg. 259 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 140 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 10 of 20 Telecom Law Firm PC Bracket and the offset from the pole will be reduced thereby allowing greater orientation and placement options. (4) Shall be architecturally compatible with the existing site; This is a determination to be made by the Director as set out in the PAMC. (5) Shall be placed at a location that would not require the removal of any required landscaping or would reduce the quantity of landscaping to a level of noncompliance with the Zoning Code; This is a determination to be made by the Director as set out in the PAMC. Additionally, TLF is aware that the Applicant has discussed planting trees in a cohesive design intended to interrupt direct views of the equipment on the Bracket. (6) An antenna, base station, or tower shall be designed to minimize its visibility from off-site locations and shall be of a "camouflaged" or "stealth" design, including concealment, screening, and other techniques to hide or blend the antenna, base station, or tower into the surrounding area; As proposed, this project, other than the antenna canister, is not “designed to minimize its visibility from off-site locations and shall be of a ‘camouflaged’ or ‘stealth’ design, including concealment, screening, and other techniques to hide or blend the antenna, base station, or tower into the surrounding area.” The mass of the equipment located on the Bracket, which is offset from the Pole, is not camouflaged, screened, or stealthed merely by painting that mass a color similar to the Pole. When TLF conducted the site visits, the mock-up site across from 1350 Newell Road was also visited. TLF believes that the proposed shroud—while slightly improving the aesthetics of only the equipment on the Bracket, but not the Bracket itself—results in an increase in the visual bulk of the design. A true minimization of the visibility of the project from off-site locations will occur by undergrounding most of the transmission equipment (RRU-32s with PSU, RRU-11 with PSU, diplexers and fiber demarcation box) in one or more flush-to-grade sidewalk vaults adjacent to the Pole. The equipment that would remain on the Pole would be associated with the electrical AC power service panel and the Pole-top bayonet extension supporting the antenna canister. See Figure 7 and Figure 8. Undergrounding of equipment in flush-to-grade vaults will not increase the footprint of the site. (7) A building-mounted antenna, base station, or tower shall be architecturally compatible with the existing building on which the antenna, base station, or tower is attached; 2.e Packet Pg. 260 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 140 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 11 of 20 Telecom Law Firm PC This finding is not applicable to the proposed project. (8) For any Tier 2 or Tier 3 WCF proposed to be attached on an historic structure/site, as designated by Chapter 16.49, historic review shall also be required; Although this project is for a Tier 3 WCF, it does not appear that the project site (a wood pole) is a historic structure/site. (9) Except as otherwise permitted by the Spectrum Act, a building-mounted WCF may extend fifteen (15) feet beyond the permitted height of the building in the zone district; This finding is not applicable to the proposed project. (10) Except as otherwise permitted by the Spectrum Act, a tower or other stand-alone Tier 3 WCF Project shall not exceed sixty-five (65) feet in height; and The proposed project does not exceed 65 feet in height. (11) A tower or other stand-alone Tier 3 WCF may encroach into the interior/street side and rear setback. This finding is not applicable to the proposed project. [Balance of page intentionally left blank] 2.e Packet Pg. 261 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 140 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 12 of 20 Telecom Law Firm PC Figure 7: Reduction of the visibility of Pole mounted antenna associated equipment to be removed from the Pole, such as the two RRU32s, RRU11 and fiber demarcation box to be placed in a flush-to-grade sidewalk vault adjacent to the Pole (Source: Applicant photo simulations, annotated by Dr. J. Kramer). Proposed antenna canister to remain on Pole Proposed bayonet to remain on Pole Proposed AC panel to remain on Pole 2.e Packet Pg. 262 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 140 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 13 of 20 Telecom Law Firm PC Figure 8: Potential location of underground vault (Source: TLF site visit on November 2, 2017; annotated by Dr. J. Kramer). Potential Underground Vault Location 2.e Packet Pg. 263 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 140 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 14 of 20 Telecom Law Firm PC TLF measured the width of the sidewalk on the November 2, 2017 during the site visit. The width of the sidewalk is 5 feet. The utility vault manufacturing industry has been adapting existing vault designs to the small volumetric needs of small cells. TLF understands that vaults from leading vault manufacturers can be readily provided for the volume of equipment the Applicant is proposing. Whatever vault size is preferred, TLF recommends that the vault be placed beneath the existing sidewalk wherever possible and utilize flush-to-grade vents. Based on Plans and the equipment that TLF believes may be undergrounded, and considering that this sidewalk is 5 feet in width, a 10 to 15 cubic foot vault would seem to be both reasonable and sufficient. Dimensions obtained from Plans page D-1 • Two remote radio unit 32 (“RRU-32s”) (27.2” H x 12” W x 7” D) with a power supply unit (“PSU”). • One remote radio unit 11 (“RRU-11”) (19.67” H x 16.97” W x 7.2” D) with PSU. • Two antenna signal Diplexers (8.3” H x 4.6” W x 1.8” D) • One fiber demarcation box (Aria Tech dimensions(8.54”H x10”W x2.88”D) Based on the Plans, the applicant proposes to install equipment (other than the antennas, the DC power disconnect switch, and the equipment Bracket) occupying approximately 7.25 to 10 cubic feet of space. TLF believes the equipment occupying up to 10 cubic feet should be placed in a flush-to-grade vault. No over excavations are foreseen at this time by TLF. If one or more underground vaults are approved by the City, TLF recommends that the vault be placed outside of the drip line of adjacent trees, and the vault lid be: • Non-skid material. • Painted to match the sidewalk to minimize visual impact. • Locked at all time unless active maintenance is occurring. III. Planned RF Compliance Evaluation Under the Telecom Act, the FCC completely occupies the field with respect to RF emissions regulation. The FCC established comprehensive rules for human exposure to RF emissions (the “FCC Guidelines”).3 State and local governments cannot regulate wireless facilities based on environmental effects from RF emissions to the extent that the emissions comply with the FCC Guidelines.4 3 See 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(iv); see also 47 C.F.R. § 1.1307 et seq.; FCC Office of Engineering and Technology, Evaluating Compliance with FCC Guidelines for Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields, OET Bulletin 65, ed. 97-01 (1997). 4 See 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(iv). 2.e Packet Pg. 264 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 140 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 15 of 20 Telecom Law Firm PC Although localities cannot establish their own standards for RF exposure, local officials may require wireless applicants to demonstrate compliance with the FCC Guidelines.5 Such demonstrations usually involve a predictive calculation because the site has not yet been built. i. FCC Guidelines, Categorical Exclusions and Exposure Mitigation Measures FCC Guidelines regulate exposure rather than emissions.6 Although the FCC establishes a maximum permissible exposure (“MPE”) limit, it does not mandate any specific limitations on power levels applicable to all antennas and requires the antenna operator to adopt exposure- mitigation measures only to the extent that certain persons might become exposed to the emissions. Thus, a relatively low-powered site in proximity to the general population might require more comprehensive mitigation measures than a relatively high-powered site in a remote location accessible only to trained personnel. The MPE limit also differentiates between members of “general population” and “occupational” wireless site workers. Virtually all people fall into the general population class, which includes anyone who either does not know about potential exposure or knows about the exposure but cannot exert control over the transmitters.7 The narrower occupational class includes persons knowingly exposed to RF fields through their employment and are able to exert control over their exposure.8 The MPE limit for the general population is five times lower than the MPE limit for the occupational class. Lastly, the FCC “categorically excludes” certain antennas from routine environmental review when either (1) the antennas create exposures in areas virtually inaccessible to humans or (2) the antennas operate at extreme low power. As a general rule, a wireless site qualified for a categorical exclusion when mounted on a structure built solely or primarily to support FCC- licensed or authorized equipment (i.e., a tower) and such that the lowest point on the lowest transmitter is more than 10 meters (32.8 feet) above ground.9 Categorical exclusions establish a presumption that the emissions from the antennas will not significantly impact humans or the human environment. Such antennas are exempt from routine compliance evaluations but not exempt from actual compliance. Under some circumstances, such as a heavily collocated tower or when the transmissions are in close proximity to general population members, even a categorically excluded site will require additional analysis. 5 See In re Procedures for Reviewing Requests for Relief from State and Local Regulations Pursuant to Section 332(c)(7)(B)(iv) of the Communications Act of 1934, Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd. 22821, 22828–22829 (Nov. 13, 2000) (declining to adopt rules that limit local authority to require compliance demonstrations). 6 See generally Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Fields: Guidelines for Cellular and PCS Sites, Consumer Guide, FCC (Oct. 22, 2014), available at https://www.fcc.gov/guides/human-exposure-rf-fields-guidelines-cellular-and-pcs- sites (discussing in general terms how wireless sites transmit and how the FCC regulates the emissions). 7 See 47 C.F.R. § 1.1310, Note 2. 8 See id. 9 See id. § 1.1307(b)(1). 2.e Packet Pg. 265 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 140 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 16 of 20 Telecom Law Firm PC ii. Planned Compliance Evaluation and Recommendations The FCC Guidelines do not categorically exclude Verizon’s proposal because Verizon proposes to mount the antenna canister on an existing pole that was constructed primarily to transport legacy non-wireless utilities. Therefore, an additional analysis is necessary to determine whether the proposed antenna will demonstrate planned compliance with the FCC Guidelines. TLF notes that Verizon submitted an FCC LSGAC Optional Checklist (“LSGAC”) which discloses that the site is categorically excluded (Box 16 is checked off). This check-off is incorrect because, as mentioned above, this site is not a categorically excluded site. However, in addition to the LSGAC, the Applicant submitted a Statement of Hammett & Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers dated September 8, 2017 (the “RF Report”). The RF Report discloses that: • Verizon proposes to install one Amphenol Model CUUT360X12Fxyz0 tri-directional antenna. • The antenna will employ up to 12° of signal transmission downtilt. • Three sector of transmissions (Sector A, B and C in the Plans) will be oriented towards Sector A at 0° TN, Sector B at 120° TN and Sector C at 240° TN. See Figure 9. • The maximum effective radiated power (“ERP”), in any direction, will be 1,470 watts (representing simultaneous operation at 700 watts for AWS, 620 watts for PCS and 150 watts for 700 MHz service). • There are no other reported wireless base stations within 100 feet of the site. (TLF notes that there is an existing AT&T site, seen in Figure 10, nearby but farther than 100 feet away. Therefore the RF Report presumes that existing RF exposure levels are well below the FCC limit.) • For a person anywhere at ground, the maximum RF exposure level is calculated to be 0.0030 mW/cm2 which is 0.61 % of the applicable FCC general population public exposure limit. • The maximum calculated level at the second-floor elevation of any nearby residence is 1.3 % of the public exposure limit, occurring at the residence at 450 Loma Verde Avenue about 17 feet away (distance scaled in the RF Report from Sheet A-1.1 of the drawings). The RF Report finds that the RF exposure from the Verizon antenna will comply with the prevailing standards for limiting public exposure to radio frequency energy, and therefore, will not for this reason cause a significant impact on the environment. TLF agrees with this finding. The RF Report contains the basic RF emissions data needed to independently evaluate planned compliance. Based on the power output levels and operating frequencies provided, Verizon’s antennas would create a controlled access zone that extends approximately 15.1 feet from the face of the antenna at approximately 41’6” feet AGL. TLF calculated the far-field controlled access zone using RF effective radiated power per band information provided in the H&E report, and inserted those data into the FCC-approved formulae in FCC OET Bulletin 65 (No. 4 on page 19 and No. 5 on page 20). Given the sectorization of the 2.e Packet Pg. 266 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 140 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 17 of 20 Telecom Law Firm PC RF emissions, TLF also considered structures along each transmission sector to the extent of the controlled zone. The controlled access zone extends horizontally from the antenna at the height of the antenna with as much as a 12° downtilt, with very little emissions that stray in any other direction, including towards ground level. In this case, the controlled access zone will be located entirely within publically-inaccessible airspace. Figure 9: Direction and orientation of the active emissions (Source: Plans page A-2, Panel 1). 2.e Packet Pg. 267 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 140 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 18 of 20 Telecom Law Firm PC Figure 10: Existing AT&T wireless site farther than 100 feet away on Kipling Street (side of 452 Loma Verde Avenue house) (Source: Photos from site visit November 2, 2017; annotated by Dr. J. Kramer). The fact that a site creates a controlled access zone does not necessarily mean that it violates the FCC Guidelines. Rather, a controlled access zone means that the applicant must affirmatively restrict public access to that area so that members of the general population (including trespassers) cannot unknowingly enter and be exposed to radio emissions in excess of the limits prescribed by the FCC. 2.e Packet Pg. 268 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 140 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 19 of 20 Telecom Law Firm PC As discussed above, the FCC imposes an affirmative obligation on site operators to prevent unknowing overexposure to the general public, including trespassers that could potentially climb the Pole and bayonet and enter the controlled access zone at 0°TN, 120°TN and 240° TN in front of the canister antenna. Accordingly, the Applicant will be able to demonstrate planned compliance with the FCC Rules by applying the signage conditions shown in the RF Report, specifically: Signs should comply with OET-65 color, symbol, and content recommendations. Contact information should be provided (e.g., a telephone number) to arrange for access to restricted areas. The selection of language(s) is not an engineering matter, and guidance from the landlord, local zoning or health authority, or appropriate professionals may be required. Signage may also need to comply with the requirements of California Public Utilities Commission General Order No. 95. Practically, the Applicant proposes to situate a radio frequency (“RF”) warning sign 3-feet below the antenna, facing the climbing space. TLF proposes the following conditions to be included in any permit of approval for this project: 1. Permittee shall install and at all times maintain in good condition an “RF Notice” and network operations center contact information sign on the Pole immediately below the Bracket. Permittee shall install the signs required under this condition so that a person may clearly see the signs as he or she approaches the Pole. 2. Permittee shall install and at all times maintain in good condition an “RF Caution” on the bayonet three feet (3’) below the canister antenna so that a person may clearly see the sign as he or she approaches the canister antenna. 3. Permittee shall ensure that all radio frequency signage complies with FCC OET Bulletin 65 or ANSI C95.2 for color, symbol, and content conventions. All such signage shall at all times provide a working local or toll-free telephone number to its network operations center, and such telephone number shall be able to reach a live person who can exert transmitter power-down control over this site as required by the FCC. /JLK 2.e Packet Pg. 269 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 140 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 20 of 20 Telecom Law Firm PC EXHIBIT A List of Applicant-provided documents, received by the City on September 12, 2017, that were reviewed by TLF in preparation for this memorandum: 1. Plans dated August 29, 2017. 2. Photo Simulations. 3. Project Description for Cluster 1 dated September 8, 2017 that included the “Community Need for Small Cells”. 4. LSGAC Optional Checklist. 5. Statement of Hammett & Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers dated September 8, 2017. 2.e Packet Pg. 270 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 2001 S. Barrington Ave. • Suite 306 • Los Angeles • CA 90025 • T 310-312-9900 6986 La Jolla Boulevard • Suite 204 • La Jolla • CA 92037 • T 619-272-6200 TelecomLawFirm.com WIRELESS PLANNING MEMORANDUM TO: Ms. Rebecca Atkinson FROM: Dr. Jonathan Kramer DATE: November 29, 2017 RE: New Proposed Wireless Facility in the Public Right-of-Way adjacent to 2801 South Court- Cluster 1 (17PLN-00169) APPLICANT: Vinculums Services for Verizon Wireless APPLICANT’S ID: SF PALO ALTO 141 ADJ. APN: 132-14-023 UTILITY POLE ID: 2669 LOCATION CODE: 425245 CONFIGURATION: # 3 The City of Palo Alto (the “City”) requested that Telecom Law Firm, PC (“TLF”) review the Vinculums Services on behalf of GTE Mobilnet dba Verizon Wireless (“Applicant”) application on behalf of Verizon Wireless (“Verizon”) to operate a new wireless site on an existing wood utility pole (“Pole”), owned and operated by the City of Palo Alto Utilities (“CPAU”) located in the public right-of-way (“ROW”) adjacent to 2801 South Court. This memorandum reviews the application and related materials received by the City from the Applicant on September 12, 2017 that are listed in Exhibit A of this memorandum. This memorandum provides a project description, analysis and discussion of project design and design alternatives, planner compliance with federal radio frequency exposure guidelines established by the Federal Communications Commission. Although many technical issues implicate legal issues, the analysis and recommendations contained in this memorandum do not constitute legal advice. I. Project Description This section describes the proposed application as depicted in the plans dated August 29, 2017 (“Plans”) and submitted with the permit application, and described in Figure 1. [Balance of page intentionally left blank] 2.e Packet Pg. 271 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 141 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 2 of 19 Telecom Law Firm PC Figure 1: Project description (Source: Plans). On top of the Pole, the Applicant proposes to install a 7-foot tall bayonet extension arm (“Arm”) to support a 5-foot 1-inch tall canister antenna and cable cage affixed to the top of the Arm. The overall height of the Pole will remain at 38’9” above ground level (“AGL”), but the overall height of the final structure, including the Arm and the canister, will increase to 51’10” AGL. The 7-foot Arm will separate the antenna from the highest existing primary power line by 7-feet, which meets the requirements of the California Public Utilities Commission (“CPUC”), General Order 95 (“GO 95”). The centerline of the proposed Verizon antenna is proposed to be at 48’9” AGL and the bottom of the canister antenna is at 46’9” AGL. This is a three sector site aimed at Sector A at 0° True North (“TN”), Sector B at 120° TN and Sector C at 240° TN with a beam down-tilt of 12° (“Sector A, B and C” shown in the Plans). On the Pole, the Applicant proposes to install a 6” W x 10’8” L aluminum channel mounting assembly bracket (“Bracket”) (top being at 19’ 8” AGL and bottom being at 9 feet AGL, with a 7.5” standoff from the Pole) to support radio transmission and powering equipment on the Pole. 2.e Packet Pg. 272 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 141 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 3 of 19 Telecom Law Firm PC On the Bracket the Applicant proposes to mount the following: • Two remote radio unit 32 (“RRU-32s”) with a power supply unit (“PSU”). • One remote radio unit 11 (“RRU-11”) with PSU. • Two antenna signal Diplexers. • One AC power Distribution Panel (with power shutdown and signage). • One fiber demarcation box (manufactured by Aria Tech or another vendor). The Plans depict that all Bracket mounted equipment will be above the CPUC GO-95 required 8- foot clearance from the ground. The Bracket and equipment, cables, and conduits on the Bracket will be painted “Log Cabin” by Kelly Moore KMA76 to blend in with the existing Pole. Additionally, the disconnect switch can be painted brown to reduce its visibility on the Pole. Page E-1, Panel 7 of the Plans depicts the entire grounding system from the antenna through the Bracket and associated equipment, down to and including the ground rod located in a new ground well adjacent to the Pole. [Balance of page intentionally left blank] 2.e Packet Pg. 273 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 141 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 4 of 19 Telecom Law Firm PC Figure 2 is a current photo of the existing pole without the proposed node. Figure 2: Current pole without proposed node (Source: TLF site visit on November 2, 2017). 2.e Packet Pg. 274 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 141 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 5 of 19 Telecom Law Firm PC Figure 3 shows the overall design proposed by the Applicant of this Configuration 3 project. Figure 3: Canister antenna, bayonet extension, RF signage, Bracket, a total of three RRUs, DC converter and diplexers (Source: Plans page A-3.1, panel 1). 2.e Packet Pg. 275 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 141 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 6 of 19 Telecom Law Firm PC Figure 4 is a photo simulation of overall design proposed by the Applicant of this Configuration 3 project. Figure 4: Photo simulation of proposed project and Pole (Source: Applicant’s Photo Sims). 2.e Packet Pg. 276 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 141 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 7 of 19 Telecom Law Firm PC TLF notes that the photo simulations provided by the Applicant, including the photo simulation in Figure 4, underrepresent the actual visual impact of the proposed site. For example, they do not depict the RF signage on the bayonet and do not depict all the cabling from the antenna canister to the equipment and between the equipment on the Bracket. II. Discussion of Design Elements and Alternatives Even when an applicant claims a significant gap, as the Applicant claims it in its “Community Need for Small Cells” section of the Project Description for Cluster 1 (dated September 8, 2017), the Telecom Act does not grant the applicant rights to build whatever site or design it chooses. A jurisdiction may require a wireless applicant claiming a significant gap to construct a site using the “least intrusive means” to achieve their coverage objectives.1 This balances the national interest in deploying wireless services with the local interest in planned and orderly development. In the Ninth Circuit, the least intrusive means refers to the technically feasible and potentially available alternative design and location that most closely conforms to the local values a permit denial would otherwise serve.2 The Palo Alto Municipal Code (“PAMC”) Section 18.42.110 et seq expresses the local values that form the analytical baseline for considering approval of Wireless Communication Facilities (“WCF”). Based on PAMC 18.42.110(c)(3) the instant projects qualifies as a Tier 3 because it does not qualify under either Tier 1 project (eligible facilities request under Section 6409(a)) or Tier 2 project (a modification request that does not fit within the parameters of Tier 1). PAMC Section 18.42.110(d)(8) requires that an applicant show the maximum potential physical expansion of its site if approved. Pursuant to the FCC’s October 2014 Broadband Order interpreting 47 U.S.C. § 1455(a), once a wireless site exists, FCC rules allow for limited modifications and expansion of the wireless site. There are many federal and state factors that have to be considered to determine the possible future maximum expansion. Those factors include the type and design of the existing site to be modified, and the way the applicant wishes to modify the existing site. State regulations place additional physical safety limitations on the types of permissible modifications and expansions. For these reasons, it is not reasonably or usefully possible to take the current inchoate design to try and estimate possible but perhaps unlikely modifications and expansions. Finally, TLF has reviewed the Applicant’s response to PAMC Section 18.42.110(d)(8) (Attachment J – Statement Regarding Spectrum Act of the Applicant’s Project Description for Cluster 1 document dated September 8, 2017). Attachment J, Sections 1 and 2 echo TLF’s assessments above. TLF has 1 See, e.g., American Tower Corp., 763 F.3d at 1056. 2 See id.; see also T-Mobile USA, Inc. v. City of Anacortes, 572 F.3d 987, 995 (9th Cir. 2009). 2.e Packet Pg. 277 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 141 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 8 of 19 Telecom Law Firm PC no comment on Attachment J, Sections 3 and 4. TLF recommends this evaluation be revisited once the final design is settled. To be approved under PAMC 18.42.110(h) Tier 3, the process (h)(1) and findings (h)(2) required are: (1) A Tier 3 WCF Permit shall be reviewed by the Director. The Director's decision shall be appealable pursuant to the process for architectural review set forth in Section 18.77.070 and the process for conditional use permits set forth in Section 18.77.060. (2) The Director or Council on appeal shall grant a Tier 3 WCF Permit provided the proposed WCF complies with the development standards in Section 18.42.110(i) and the conditions of approval in Section 18.42.110(j), and all of the architectural review findings in Section 18.76.020(d) and the conditional use permit findings in Section 18.76.010(c) can be made. To be approved, the relevant findings for “Development Standards” in Section 18.42.110(i) must be made (our analysis is embedded in italics in each subsection): (1) Shall utilize the smallest footprint possible; “Footprint” is not a defined term in the PAMC Section 18.42.110(b). As proposed, this Pole- mounted project is likely to occupy the smallest “footprint” of ground space since the Pole width at ground level will not increase. (2) Shall be designed to minimize the overall height, mass, and size of the cabinet and enclosure structure; The overall height for a Pole-top antenna is controlled by CPUC GO 95 for separation from existing electrical power conductors. As proposed, this project’s mass and size of the equipment on the Bracket is not minimized because portions of the transmission equipment on the Bracket can be located underground adjacent to the Pole. Although TLF has recommended undergrounding, should that solution not be adopted, there remain additional visual mitigations that may be applied, such as reducing the bulk and stand- off distance of the Bracket and equipment attached to the Bracket. (3) Shall be screened from public view; As proposed, this project is not screened from public view. Additionally, the direction that equipment faces, and accordingly the supporting Bracket, is a local decision. That said, GO 95 2.e Packet Pg. 278 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 141 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 9 of 19 Telecom Law Firm PC also impacts that face that may be used during to potential conflicts with a pole’s required climbing space. These are case-by-case issues, and there is not government standard to consider. Relatedly, if the bulk of the equipment is placed underground, then the size of the Bracket and the offset from the pole will be reduced thereby allowing greater orientation and placement options. (4) Shall be architecturally compatible with the existing site; This is a determination to be made by the Director as set out in the PAMC. (5) Shall be placed at a location that would not require the removal of any required landscaping or would reduce the quantity of landscaping to a level of noncompliance with the Zoning Code; This is a determination to be made by the Director as set out in the PAMC. Additionally, TLF is aware that the Applicant has discussed planting trees in a cohesive design intended to interrupt direct views of the equipment on the Bracket. (6) An antenna, base station, or tower shall be designed to minimize its visibility from off-site locations and shall be of a "camouflaged" or "stealth" design, including concealment, screening, and other techniques to hide or blend the antenna, base station, or tower into the surrounding area; As proposed, this project, other than the antenna canister, is not “designed to minimize its visibility from off-site locations and shall be of a ‘camouflaged’ or ‘stealth’ design, including concealment, screening, and other techniques to hide or blend the antenna, base station, or tower into the surrounding area.” The mass of the equipment located on the Bracket, which is offset from the Pole, is not camouflaged, screened, or stealth-ed merely by painting that mass a color similar to the Pole. When TLF conducted the site visits, the mock-up site across from 1350 Newell Road was also visited. TLF believes that the proposed shroud—while slightly improving the aesthetics of only the equipment on the Bracket, but not the Bracket itself—results in an increase in the visual bulk of the design. A true minimization of the visibility of the project from off-site locations will occur by undergrounding most of the transmission equipment (RRU-32s, RRU-11 with PSU, diplexers and fiber demarcation box) in one or more flush-to-grade sidewalk vaults adjacent to the Pole. The equipment that would remain on the Pole would be associated with the electrical AC power service panel and the Pole-top bayonet extension supporting the antenna canister. See Figure 5 and Figure 6. Undergrounding of equipment in flush-to-grade vaults will not increase the footprint of the site. 2.e Packet Pg. 279 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 141 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 10 of 19 Telecom Law Firm PC (7) A building-mounted antenna, base station, or tower shall be architecturally compatible with the existing building on which the antenna, base station, or tower is attached; This finding is not applicable to the proposed project. (8) For any Tier 2 or Tier 3 WCF proposed to be attached on an historic structure/site, as designated by Chapter 16.49, historic review shall also be required; Although this project is for a Tier 3 WCF, it does not appear that the project site (a wood pole) is a historic structure/site. (9) Except as otherwise permitted by the Spectrum Act, a building-mounted WCF may extend fifteen (15) feet beyond the permitted height of the building in the zone district; This finding is not applicable to the proposed project. (10) Except as otherwise permitted by the Spectrum Act, a tower or other stand-alone Tier 3 WCF Project shall not exceed sixty-five (65) feet in height; and The proposed project does not exceed 65 feet in height. (11) A tower or other stand-alone Tier 3 WCF may encroach into the interior/street side and rear setback. This finding is not applicable to the proposed project. [Balance of page intentionally left blank] 2.e Packet Pg. 280 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 141 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 11 of 19 Telecom Law Firm PC Figure 6: Reduction of the visibility of Pole mounted antenna associated equipment to be removed from the Pole, such as the two RRU32s, RRU11 and fiber demarcation box (marked with red “x”) and be placed in a flush-to-grade sidewalk vault adjacent to the Pole (Source: Applicant photo simulations, annotated by Dr. J. Kramer). Proposed Antenna Canister to remain on Pole Proposed bayonet to remain on Pole Proposed AC power distribution panel to remain on Pole 2.e Packet Pg. 281 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 141 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 12 of 19 Telecom Law Firm PC Figure 7: Proposed location of underground vault (Source: TLF site visit on November 2, 2017). TLF measured the width of the sidewalk on the November 2, 2017 during the site visit. The width of the sidewalk is 5 feet. The utility vault manufacturing industry has been adapting existing vault designs to the small volumetric needs of small cells. TLF understands that vaults from leading vault manufacturers can be readily provided for the volume of equipment the Applicant is proposing. Whatever vault size is preferred, TLF recommends that the vault be placed beneath the existing sidewalk wherever possible and utilize flush-to-grade vents. Based on Plans and the equipment that TLF Potential Underground Vault Location 2.e Packet Pg. 282 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 141 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 13 of 19 Telecom Law Firm PC believes may be undergrounded, and considering that this sidewalk is 5 feet in width, a 10 to 15 cubic foot vault would seem to be both reasonable and sufficient. Dimensions obtained from Plans page D-1 • Two remote radio unit 32 (“RRU-32s”) (27.2” H x 12” W x 7” D) with a power supply unit (“PSU”). • One remote radio unit 11 (“RRU-11”) (19.67” H x 16.97” W x 7.2” D) with PSU. • Two antenna signal Diplexers (8.3” H x 4.6” W x 1.8” D) • One fiber demarcation box (Aria Tech dimensions(8.54”H x10”W x2.88”D) Based on the Plans, the applicant proposes to install equipment (other than the antennas, the DC power disconnect switch, and the equipment Bracket) occupying approximately 7.25 to 10 cubic feet of space. TLF believes the equipment occupying up to 10 cubic feet should be placed in a flush-to-grade vault. No over excavations are foreseen at this time by TLF. If one or more underground vaults are approved by the City, TLF recommends that the vault be placed outside of the drip line of adjacent trees, and the vault lid be: • Non-skid material. • Painted to match the sidewalk to minimize visual impact. • Locked at all time unless active maintenance is occurring. III. Planned RF Compliance Evaluation Under the Telecom Act, the FCC completely occupies the field with respect to RF emissions regulation. The FCC established comprehensive rules for human exposure to RF emissions (the “FCC Guidelines”).3 State and local governments cannot regulate wireless facilities based on environmental effects from RF emissions to the extent that the emissions comply with the FCC Guidelines.4 Although localities cannot establish their own standards for RF exposure, local officials may require wireless applicants to demonstrate compliance with the FCC Guidelines.5 Such demonstrations usually involve a predictive calculation because the site has not yet been built. i. FCC Guidelines, Categorical Exclusions and Exposure Mitigation Measures 3 See 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(iv); see also 47 C.F.R. § 1.1307 et seq.; FCC Office of Engineering and Technology, Evaluating Compliance with FCC Guidelines for Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields, OET Bulletin 65, ed. 97-01 (1997). 4 See 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(iv). 5 See In re Procedures for Reviewing Requests for Relief from State and Local Regulations Pursuant to Section 332(c)(7)(B)(iv) of the Communications Act of 1934, Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd. 22821, 22828–22829 (Nov. 13, 2000) (declining to adopt rules that limit local authority to require compliance demonstrations). 2.e Packet Pg. 283 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 141 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 14 of 19 Telecom Law Firm PC FCC Guidelines regulate exposure rather than emissions.6 Although the FCC establishes a maximum permissible exposure (“MPE”) limit, it does not mandate any specific limitations on power levels applicable to all antennas and requires the antenna operator to adopt exposure- mitigation measures only to the extent that certain persons might become exposed to the emissions. Thus, a relatively low-powered site in proximity to the general population might require more comprehensive mitigation measures than a relatively high-powered site in a remote location accessible only to trained personnel. The MPE limit also differentiates between members of “general population” and “occupational” wireless site workers. Virtually all people fall into the general population class, which includes anyone who either does not know about potential exposure or knows about the exposure but cannot exert control over the transmitters.7 The narrower occupational class includes persons knowingly exposed to RF fields through their employment and are able to exert control over their exposure.8 The MPE limit for the general population is five times lower than the MPE limit for the occupational class. Lastly, the FCC “categorically excludes” certain antennas from routine environmental review when either (1) the antennas create exposures in areas virtually inaccessible to humans or (2) the antennas operate at extreme low power. As a general rule, a wireless site qualified for a categorical exclusion when mounted on a structure built solely or primarily to support FCC- licensed or authorized equipment (i.e., a tower) and such that the lowest point on the lowest transmitter is more than 10 meters (32.8 feet) above ground.9 Categorical exclusions establish a presumption that the emissions from the antennas will not significantly impact humans or the human environment. Such antennas are exempt from routine compliance evaluations but not exempt from actual compliance. Under some circumstances, such as a heavily collocated tower or when the transmissions are in close proximity to general population members, even a categorically excluded site will require additional analysis. ii. Planned Compliance Evaluation and Recommendations The FCC Guidelines do not categorically exclude Verizon’s proposal because Verizon proposes to mount the antenna canister on an existing pole that was constructed primarily to transport legacy non-wireless utilities. Therefore, an additional analysis is necessary to determine whether the proposed antenna will demonstrate planned compliance with the FCC Guidelines. TLF notes that Verizon submitted an FCC LSGAC Optional Checklist (“LSGAC”) which discloses that the site is categorically excluded (Box 16 is checked off). This check-off is 6 See generally Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Fields: Guidelines for Cellular and PCS Sites, Consumer Guide, FCC (Oct. 22, 2014), available at https://www.fcc.gov/guides/human-exposure-rf-fields-guidelines-cellular-and-pcs- sites (discussing in general terms how wireless sites transmit and how the FCC regulates the emissions). 7 See 47 C.F.R. § 1.1310, Note 2. 8 See id. 9 See id. § 1.1307(b)(1). 2.e Packet Pg. 284 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 141 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 15 of 19 Telecom Law Firm PC incorrect because, as mentioned above, this site is not a categorically excluded site. However, in addition to the LSGAC, the Applicant submitted a Statement of Hammett & Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers dated September 8, 2017 (the “RF Report”). The RF Report discloses that: • Verizon proposes to install one Amphenol Model CUUT360X12Fxyz0 tri-directional antenna. • The antenna will employ up to 12° of signal transmission downtilt. • Three sector of transmissions (Sector A, B and C in the Plans) will be oriented towards Sector A at 0° TN, Sector B at 120° TN and Sector C at 240° TN. See Figure 8. • The maximum effective radiated power (“ERP”), in any direction, will be 1,470 watts (representing simultaneous operation at 700 watts for AWS, 620 watts for PCS and 150 watts for 700 MHz service). • There are other reported wireless base stations within 100 feet of the site. See Figure 9. The RF Report discloses “A similar antenna for use by an unidentified wireless carrier is mounted above the adjacent utility pole to the northeast, about 95 feet away (distance scaled in the RF Report from Sheet A 1.1 of the drawings). The additive impact on RF exposure levels from this and similar small cells at any distance would not be significant in terms of compliance with that standard.” • For a person anywhere at ground, the maximum RF exposure level is calculated to be 0.0023 mW/cm2 which is 0.48 % of the applicable FCC general population public exposure limit. • The maximum calculated level at the second-floor elevation of any nearby residence is 0.90 % of the public exposure limit, occurring at the residence at 2801 South Court about 17 feet away (distance scaled in the RF Report from Sheet A 1.1 of the drawings). The RF Report finds that the RF exposure from the Verizon antenna will comply with the prevailing standards for limiting public exposure to radio frequency energy, and therefore, will not for this reason cause a significant impact on the environment. TLF agrees with this finding. The RF Report contains the basic RF emissions data needed to independently evaluate planned compliance. Based on the power output levels and operating frequencies provided, Verizon’s antennas would create a controlled access zone that extends approximately 15.1 feet from the face of the antenna at approximately 46’9” AGL. TLF calculated the far-field controlled access zone using RF effective radiated power per band information provided in the H&E report, and inserted those data into the FCC-approved formulae in FCC OET Bulletin 65 (No. 4 on page 19 and No. 5 on page 20). Given the sectorization of the RF emissions, TLF also considered structures along each transmission sector to the extent of the controlled zone. 2.e Packet Pg. 285 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 141 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 16 of 19 Telecom Law Firm PC The controlled access zone extends horizontally from the antenna at the height of the antenna with as much as a 12° downtilt, with very little emissions that stray in any other direction, including towards ground level. In this case, the controlled access zone will be located entirely within publically-inaccessible airspace. Figure 8: Direction and orientation of the active emissions (Source: Plans page A-2, Panel 1). The fact that a site creates a controlled access zone does not necessarily mean that it violates the FCC Guidelines. Rather, a controlled access zone means that the applicant must affirmatively restrict public access to that area so that members of the general population (including trespassers) cannot unknowingly enter and be exposed to radio emissions in excess of the limits prescribed by the FCC. TLF notes that this is a three sector site, with the emissions aimed at 0° TN, 120° TN, and 240° TN. Given the limit of the controlled zone (about 15.1 feet from the face of the antennas at an elevation of nearly 47 feet AGL), the controlled zone for the 0° TN and 240° TN sectors end 2.e Packet Pg. 286 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 141 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 17 of 19 Telecom Law Firm PC over the roadway, and the controlled zone for the 120° TN sector aimed away from the adjacent structure. This site, as designed, will fully comply with the FCC’s RF emissions safety rules. Figure 9: Existing site in the area approximately 95 feet away (Source: Photos from site visit November 2, 2017; annotated by Dr. J. Kramer). Accordingly, the Applicant will be able to demonstrate planned compliance with the FCC Rules by applying the signage conditions shown in the RF Report, specifically: 2.e Packet Pg. 287 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 141 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 18 of 19 Telecom Law Firm PC Signs should comply with OET-65 color, symbol, and content recommendations. Contact information should be provided (e.g., a telephone number) to arrange for access to restricted areas. The selection of language(s) is not an engineering matter, and guidance from the landlord, local zoning or health authority, or appropriate professionals may be required. Signage may also need to comply with the requirements of California Public Utilities Commission General Order No. 95. Practically, the Applicant proposes to situate a radio frequency (“RF”) warning sign 3-feet below the antenna, facing the climbing space. TLF proposes the following conditions to be included in any permit of approval for this project: 1. Permittee shall install and at all times maintain in good condition an “RF Notice” and network operations center contact information sign on the Pole immediately below the Bracket. Permittee shall install the signs required under this condition so that a person may clearly see the signs as he or she approaches the Pole. 2. Permittee shall install and at all times maintain in good condition an “RF Caution” on the bayonet three feet (3’) below the canister antenna so that a person may clearly see the sign as he or she approaches the canister antenna. 3. Permittee shall ensure that all radio frequency signage complies with FCC OET Bulletin 65 or ANSI C95.2 for color, symbol, and content conventions. All such signage shall at all times provide a working local or toll-free telephone number to its network operations center, and such telephone number shall be able to reach a live person who can exert transmitter power-down control over this site as required by the FCC. /JLK 2.e Packet Pg. 288 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 141 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 19 of 19 Telecom Law Firm PC EXHIBIT A List of Applicant-provided documents, received by the City on September 12, 2017, that were reviewed by TLF in preparation for this memorandum: 1. Plans dated August 29, 2017. 2. Photo Simulations. 3. Project Description for Cluster 1 dated September 8, 2017 that included the “Community Need for Small Cells”. 4. LSGAC Optional Checklist. 5. Statement of Hammett & Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers dated September 8, 2017. 2.e Packet Pg. 289 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 2001 S. Barrington Ave. • Suite 306 • Los Angeles • CA 90025 • T 310-312-9900 6986 La Jolla Boulevard • Suite 204 • La Jolla • CA 92037 • T 619-272-6200 TelecomLawFirm.com WIRELESS PLANNING MEMORANDUM TO: Ms. Rebecca Atkinson FROM: Dr. Jonathan Kramer DATE: November 29, 2017 RE: New Proposed Wireless Facility in the Public Right-of-Way adjacent to 419 El Verano Avenue- Cluster 1 (17PLN-00169) APPLICANT: Vinculums Services for Verizon Wireless APPLICANT’S ID: SF PALO ALTO 143 ADJ. APN: 132-15-017 UTILITY POLE ID: 3867 LOCATION CODE: 425247 CONFIGURATION: # 1 (Charles Cube Cabinet) The City of Palo Alto (the “City”) requested that Telecom Law Firm, PC (“TLF”) review the Vinculums Services on behalf of GTE Mobilnet dba Verizon Wireless (“Applicant”) application on behalf of Verizon Wireless (“Verizon”) to operate a new wireless site on an existing wood utility pole (“Pole”), owned and operated by the City of Palo Alto Utilities (“CPAU”) located in the public right-of-way (“ROW”) adjacent to 419 El Verano Avenue. This memorandum reviews the application and related materials received by the City from the Applicant on September 12, 2017 that are listed in Exhibit A of this memorandum. This memorandum provides a project description, analysis and discussion of project design and design alternatives, planner compliance with federal radio frequency exposure guidelines established by the Federal Communications Commission. Although many technical issues implicate legal issues, the analysis and recommendations contained in this memorandum do not constitute legal advice. I. Project Description This section describes the proposed application as depicted in the plans dated August 30, 2017 (“Plans”) and submitted with the permit application, and described in Figure 1. [Balance of page intentionally left blank] 2.e Packet Pg. 290 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 143 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 2 of 18 Telecom Law Firm PC Figure 1: Project description (Source: Plans). On top of the Pole, the Applicant proposes to install a 7-foot tall bayonet extension arm (“Arm”) to support a 5-foot 1-inch tall canister antenna and cable cage affixed to the top of the Arm. The overall height of the Pole will remain at 38’3” feet above ground level (“AGL”), but the overall height of the final Pole structure with the canister will increase to 50’4” AGL. The 7-foot Arm will separate the antenna from the highest existing primary power line by 7-feet, which meets the requirements of the California Public Utilities Commission (“CPUC”), General Order 95 (“GO 95”). The centerline of the proposed Verizon antenna is proposed to be at 48’3” AGL and the bottom of the canister antenna is at 46’3” AGL. This is a single sector site aimed at 100° True North with a beam down-tilt of 12° (“Sector A” shown in the Plans). On the Pole, the Applicant proposes to install a 6” W x 11’ L aluminum channel mounting assembly bracket (“Bracket”) (with top being at 18’6” AGL and bottom being at 8 feet AGL, with a 7.5” standoff from the Pole) to support radio transmission and powering equipment on the Pole. 2.e Packet Pg. 291 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 143 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 3 of 18 Telecom Law Firm PC On the Bracket the Applicant proposes to mount the following: • Two remote radio unit 32 (“RRU-32s”) with a power supply unit (“PSU”). • One remote radio unit 11 (“RRU-11”) with PSU. • Two antenna signal Diplexers. • DC disconnect switch with shut-down instructions signage. The Plans depict that all Bracket mounted equipment will be above the CPUC GO-95 required 8- foot clearance from the ground. The Bracket and equipment, cables, and conduits on the Bracket will be painted “Log Cabin” by Kelly Moore KMA76 to blend in with the Pole. Additionally, the disconnect switch can be painted brown to reduce its visibility on the Pole. Moreover, the Plans depict that the Applicant proposes to install a new ground mounted Charles Cube-RL21221AB1 Cabinet (“Cabinet”), with dimensions 54”H x 34”W x 24.9”D, to enclose DC power supply and battery back-up. A heat exchanger will be mounted on the proposed Cabinet and the shutdown info sign on AC load will be posted on the center of the Cabinet. The cabinet is proposed to be mounted on a concrete pad at grade, will be painted ‘Lone Pine’ by Kelly Moore KM4798 to blend with the surrounding planter strip. Conduits will run underground from the Cabinet to the Pole. The equipment proposed to be located within the Cabinet is associated with providing this node with direct current (“DC”) power to operate the transmission equipment. TLF notes that the Plans disclose that “Existing shrubs to be cut back and/or removed to make room for BBU.” Page E-2, Panel 1 of the Plans depicts the entire grounding system from the antenna through the Bracket and associated equipment, down to and including the ground rod located in a new ground well adjacent to the Pole. The Plans state that the proposed fiber will be fed from an existing service at the communications level on the Pole to the planned demarcation box, which is to be placed in a new flush-to-grade vault. Additionally, the page A-1, panel 1 of the Plans discloses that: “Fiber work to be completed by others under separate contract.” Verizon also proposes to install a flush-to- grade vault to serve as the interface between the fiber optic cables on the Pole and the fiber optic cables to be provided by others. [Balance of page intentionally left blank] 2.e Packet Pg. 292 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 143 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 4 of 18 Telecom Law Firm PC Figure 2 is a current photo of the existing pole. Figure 2: Current pole. (Source: TLF site visit on November 2, 2017). 2.e Packet Pg. 293 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 143 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 5 of 18 Telecom Law Firm PC Figure 3 depicts the overall design proposed by the Applicant of this project. Figure 3: Canister antenna, RF signage, Bracket, a total of three RRUs, DC disconnect and diplexers. Additional ground mounted Cabinet. (Source: Plans page A-3.1, panel 1). 2.e Packet Pg. 294 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 143 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 6 of 18 Telecom Law Firm PC Figure 4 is a photo simulation of the overall design Figure 4: Photo simulation of proposed project (Source: Applicant’s Photo Sims). 2.e Packet Pg. 295 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 143 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 7 of 18 Telecom Law Firm PC TLF notes that the photo simulations provided by the Applicant, including the photo simulation in Figure 4, are underrepresented as to the actual visual impact of the proposed site. For example, they do not depict the RF signage on the bayonet and do not depict all the cabling from the antenna canister to the equipment and between the equipment on the Bracket. Further, the vehicle in the photos blocks the depiction of the proposed Cabinet. The Applicant should provide photo simulations from various angles depicting all the proposed installations on the Pole, above ground, and flush to grade. II. Discussion of Design Elements and Alternatives Even when an applicant claims a significant gap, as the Applicant claims it in its “Community Need for Small Cells” section of the Project Description for Cluster 1 (dated September 8, 2017), the Telecom Act does not grant the applicant rights to build whatever site and design it chooses. A jurisdiction may require a wireless applicant claiming a significant gap to construct a site using the “least intrusive means” to achieve their coverage objectives.1 This balances the national interest in deploying wireless services with the local interest in planned and orderly development. In the Ninth Circuit, the least intrusive means refers to the technically feasible and potentially available alternative design and location that most closely conforms to the local values a permit denial would otherwise serve.2 The Palo Alto Municipal Code (“PAMC”) Section 18.42.110 et seq expresses the local values that form the analytical baseline for considering approval of Wireless Communication Facilities (“WCF”). Based on PAMC 18.42.110(c)(3) the instant projects qualifies as a Tier 3 because it does not qualify under either Tier 1 project (eligible facilities request under Section 6409(a)) or Tier 2 project (a modification request that does not fit within the parameters of Tier 1). PAMC Section 18.42.110(d)(8) requires that an applicant show the maximum potential physical expansion of its site if approved. Pursuant to the FCC’s October 2014 Broadband Order interpreting 47 U.S.C. § 1455(a), once a wireless site exists, FCC rules allow for limited modifications and expansion of the wireless site. There are many federal and state factors that have to be considered to determine the possible future maximum expansion. Those factors include the type and design of the existing site to be modified, and the way the applicant wishes to modify the existing site. State regulations place additional physical safety limitations on the types of permissible modifications and expansions. For these reasons, it is not reasonably or usefully possible to take the current inchoate design to try and estimate possible but perhaps unlikely modifications and expansions. Finally, TLF has 1 See, e.g., American Tower Corp., 763 F.3d at 1056. 2 See id.; see also T-Mobile USA, Inc. v. City of Anacortes, 572 F.3d 987, 995 (9th Cir. 2009). 2.e Packet Pg. 296 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 143 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 8 of 18 Telecom Law Firm PC reviewed the Applicant’s response to PAMC Section 18.42.110(d)(8) (Attachment J – Statement Regarding Spectrum Act of the Applicant’s Project Description for Cluster 1 document dated September 8, 2017). Attachment J, Sections 1 and 2 echo TLF’s assessments above. TLF has no comment on Attachment J, Sections 3 and 4. TLF recommends this evaluation be revisited once the final design is settled. To be approved under PAMC 18.42.110(h) Tier 3, the process (h)(1) and findings (h)(2) required are: (1) A Tier 3 WCF Permit shall be reviewed by the Director. The Director's decision shall be appealable pursuant to the process for architectural review set forth in Section 18.77.070 and the process for conditional use permits set forth in Section 18.77.060. (2) The Director or Council on appeal shall grant a Tier 3 WCF Permit provided the proposed WCF complies with the development standards in Section 18.42.110(i) and the conditions of approval in Section 18.42.110(j), and all of the architectural review findings in Section 18.76.020(d) and the conditional use permit findings in Section 18.76.010(c) can be made. To be approved, the relevant findings for “Development Standards” in Section 18.42.110(i) must be made (our analysis is embedded in italics in each subsection): (1) Shall utilize the smallest footprint possible; “Footprint” is not a defined term in the PAMC Section 18.42.110(b). As proposed, this Pole and ground mounted project does not occupy the smallest “footprint” of ground space since the Cabinet installed on the ground increases the publicly accessible right-of-way area occupied at ground level. (2) Shall be designed to minimize the overall height, mass, and size of the cabinet and enclosure structure; The overall height for a Pole-top antenna is controlled by CPUC GO 95 for separation from existing electrical power conductors. As proposed, this project’s mass and size of the equipment on the Bracket is not minimized because portions of the transmission equipment on the Bracket can be located underground adjacent to the Pole. Additionally, the Cabinet can be eliminated by placing its contents, along with other project elements, in a flush-to-grade vault or vaults. Although TLF has recommended undergrounding, should that solution not be adopted, there remain additional visual mitigations that may be applied, such as reducing the bulk and stand-off distance of the Bracket and equipment attached to the Bracket. 2.e Packet Pg. 297 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 143 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 9 of 18 Telecom Law Firm PC (3) Shall be screened from public view; As proposed, this project is not screened from public view. Additionally, the direction that equipment faces, and accordingly the supporting Bracket, is a local decision. That said, GO 95 also impacts that face that may be used during to potential conflicts with a pole’s required climbing space. These are case-by-case issues, and there is not government standard to consider. Relatedly, if the bulk of the equipment is placed underground, then the size of the Bracket and the offset from the pole will be reduced thereby allowing greater orientation and placement options. (4) Shall be architecturally compatible with the existing site; This is a determination to be made by the Director as set out in the PAMC. (5) Shall be placed at a location that would not require the removal of any required landscaping or would reduce the quantity of landscaping to a level of noncompliance with the Zoning Code; This is a determination to be made by the Director as set out in the PAMC. Additionally, TLF is aware that the Applicant has discussed planting trees in a cohesive design intended to interrupt direct views of the equipment on the Bracket. (6) An antenna, base station, or tower shall be designed to minimize its visibility from off-site locations and shall be of a "camouflaged" or "stealth" design, including concealment, screening, and other techniques to hide or blend the antenna, base station, or tower into the surrounding area; As proposed, this project, other than the antenna canister, is not “designed to minimize its visibility from off-site locations and shall be of a ‘camouflaged’ or ‘stealth’ design, including concealment, screening, and other techniques to hide or blend the antenna, base station, or tower into the surrounding area.” The mass of the equipment located on the Bracket, which is offset from the Pole, is not camouflaged, screened, or stealthed merely by painting that mass a color similar to the Pole. When TLF conducted the site visits, the mock-up site across from 1350 Newell Road was also visited. TLF believes that the proposed shroud—while slightly improving the aesthetics of only the equipment on the Bracket, but not the Bracket itself—results in an increase in the visual bulk of the design. A true minimization of the visibility of the project from off-site locations will occur by undergrounding most of the transmission equipment (RRU-32s with PSU, RRU-11 with PSU DC disconnect and diplexers) in a flush-to-grade sidewalk vault adjacent to the Pole. The equipment that would remain on the Pole would be associated with the electrical AC power service panel 2.e Packet Pg. 298 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 143 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 10 of 18 Telecom Law Firm PC and the Pole-top bayonet extension supporting the antenna canister. See Figure 5 and Figure 6. Undergrounding of equipment in flush-to-grade vaults will not increase the footprint of the site. (7) A building-mounted antenna, base station, or tower shall be architecturally compatible with the existing building on which the antenna, base station, or tower is attached; This finding is not applicable to the proposed project. (8) For any Tier 2 or Tier 3 WCF proposed to be attached on an historic structure/site, as designated by Chapter 16.49, historic review shall also be required; Although this project is for a Tier 3 WCF, it does not appear that the project site (a wood pole) is a historic structure/site. (9) Except as otherwise permitted by the Spectrum Act, a building-mounted WCF may extend fifteen (15) feet beyond the permitted height of the building in the zone district; This finding is not applicable to the proposed project. (10) Except as otherwise permitted by the Spectrum Act, a tower or other stand-alone Tier 3 WCF Project shall not exceed sixty-five (65) feet in height; and The proposed project does not exceed 65 feet in height. (11) A tower or other stand-alone Tier 3 WCF may encroach into the interior/street side and rear setback. This finding is not applicable to the proposed project. [Balance of page intentionally left blank] 2.e Packet Pg. 299 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 143 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 11 of 18 Telecom Law Firm PC Figure 5: Reduction of the visibility of Pole mounted antenna associated equipment to be removed from the Pole, such as the two RRU32s, RRU11, (marked with red “x”) and be placed in a flush-to-grade sidewalk vault adjacent to the Pole (Source: Applicant photo simulations, annotated by Dr. J. Kramer). Proposed antenna canister to remain on Pole Proposed AC disconnect to remain on Pole Proposed ground mounted Cabinet to be removed Proposed bayonet to remain on Pole 2.e Packet Pg. 300 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 143 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 12 of 18 Telecom Law Firm PC Figure 6: Proposed location of underground vault to situate the two RRU32s, RRU11, diplexers, (Source: Site visit photo taken on November 2, 2017; annotated by Dr. J. Kramer). Potential location on underground vault. 2.e Packet Pg. 301 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 143 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 13 of 18 Telecom Law Firm PC TLF measured the width of the sidewalk on the November 2, 2017 during the site visit. The width of the sidewalk is 5 feet. The utility vault manufacturing industry has been adapting existing vault designs to the small volumetric needs of small cells. TLF understands that vaults from leading vault manufacturers can be readily provided for the volume of equipment the Applicant is proposing. Whatever vault size is preferred, TLF recommends that the vault be placed beneath the existing sidewalk wherever possible and utilize flush-to-grade vents. Based on Plans and the equipment that TLF believes may be undergrounded, and considering that this sidewalk is 5 feet in width, a 10 to 15 cubic foot vault would seem to be both reasonable and sufficient. Dimensions obtained from Plans page D-1 and D-2 • Two remote radio unit 32 (“RRU-32s”) (27.2” H x 12” W x 7” D) with a power supply unit (“PSU”). • One remote radio unit 11 (“RRU-11”) (19.67” H x 16.97” W x 7.2” D) with PSU. • Two antenna signal Diplexers (8.3” H x 4.6” W x 1.8” D) • One fiber demarcation box (8.54”H x10”W x2.88”D) This node being a configuration 1, it includes the Cabinet with dimensions (54”H x 34”W x 24.9”D) to enclose a DC power supply and battery back-up system. TLF recommends that the DC power supply be moved to the pole on the Bracket and the battery backup system to be situated within the proposed potential vault or vaults. Based on the Plans, the applicant proposes to install equipment (other than the antennas, the DC power disconnect switch, and the equipment Bracket) occupying approximately 7.25 to 10 cubic feet of space. TLF believes the equipment occupying up to 10 cubic feet should be placed in a flush-to-grade vault. The exact size of the backup battery vault cannot be estimated without more information from the Applicant. No over excavations are foreseen at this time by TLF. If one or more underground vaults are approved by the City, TLF recommends that the vault be placed outside of the drip line of adjacent trees, and the vault lid be: If one or more underground vaults are approved by the City, TLF recommends that the vault lid to be: • Non-skid material. • Painted to match the sidewalk to minimize visual impact. • Locked at all time unless active maintenance is occurring. III. Planned RF Compliance Evaluation Under the Telecom Act, the FCC completely occupies the field with respect to RF emissions regulation. The FCC established comprehensive rules for human exposure to RF emissions (the 2.e Packet Pg. 302 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 143 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 14 of 18 Telecom Law Firm PC “FCC Guidelines”).3 State and local governments cannot regulate wireless facilities based on environmental effects from RF emissions to the extent that the emissions comply with the FCC Guidelines.4 Although localities cannot establish their own standards for RF exposure, local officials may require wireless applicants to demonstrate compliance with the FCC Guidelines.5 Such demonstrations usually involve a predictive calculation because the site has not yet been built. i. FCC Guidelines, Categorical Exclusions and Exposure Mitigation Measures FCC Guidelines regulate exposure rather than emissions.6 Although the FCC establishes a maximum permissible exposure (“MPE”) limit, it does not mandate any specific limitations on power levels applicable to all antennas and requires the antenna operator to adopt exposure- mitigation measures only to the extent that certain persons might become exposed to the emissions. Thus, a relatively low-powered site in proximity to the general population might require more comprehensive mitigation measures than a relatively high-powered site in a remote location accessible only to trained personnel. The MPE limit also differentiates between members of “general population” and “occupational” wireless site workers. Virtually all people fall into the general population class, which includes anyone who either does not know about potential exposure or knows about the exposure but cannot exert control over the transmitters.7 The narrower occupational class includes persons knowingly exposed to RF fields through their employment and are able to exert control over their exposure.8 The MPE limit for the general population is five times lower than the MPE limit for the occupational class. Lastly, the FCC “categorically excludes” certain antennas from routine environmental review when either (1) the antennas create exposures in areas virtually inaccessible to humans or (2) the antennas operate at extreme low power. As a general rule, a wireless site qualified for a categorical exclusion when mounted on a structure built solely or primarily to support FCC- licensed or authorized equipment (i.e., a tower) and such that the lowest point on the lowest transmitter is more than 10 meters (32.8 feet) above ground.9 3 See 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(iv); see also 47 C.F.R. § 1.1307 et seq.; FCC Office of Engineering and Technology, Evaluating Compliance with FCC Guidelines for Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields, OET Bulletin 65, ed. 97-01 (1997). 4 See 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(iv). 5 See In re Procedures for Reviewing Requests for Relief from State and Local Regulations Pursuant to Section 332(c)(7)(B)(iv) of the Communications Act of 1934, Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd. 22821, 22828–22829 (Nov. 13, 2000) (declining to adopt rules that limit local authority to require compliance demonstrations). 6 See generally Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Fields: Guidelines for Cellular and PCS Sites, Consumer Guide, FCC (Oct. 22, 2014), available at https://www.fcc.gov/guides/human-exposure-rf-fields-guidelines-cellular-and-pcs- sites (discussing in general terms how wireless sites transmit and how the FCC regulates the emissions). 7 See 47 C.F.R. § 1.1310, Note 2. 8 See id. 9 See id. § 1.1307(b)(1). 2.e Packet Pg. 303 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 143 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 15 of 18 Telecom Law Firm PC Categorical exclusions establish a presumption that the emissions from the antennas will not significantly impact humans or the human environment. Such antennas are exempt from routine compliance evaluations but not exempt from actual compliance. Under some circumstances, such as a heavily collocated tower or when the transmissions from the proposed antenna(s) are at or just above proximity to general population members, even a categorically excluded site will require additional analysis. ii. Planned Compliance Evaluation and Recommendations The FCC Guidelines do not categorically exclude Verizon’s proposal because Verizon proposes to mount the antenna canister on an existing Pole that was constructed primarily to transport legacy non-wireless utilities. Therefore, an additional analysis is necessary to determine whether the proposed antenna will demonstrate planned compliance with the FCC Guidelines. TLF notes that Verizon submitted an FCC LSGAC Optional Checklist (“LSGAC”) which discloses that the site is categorically excluded (Box 16 is checked off). This check-off is incorrect because, as mentioned above, this site is not a categorically excluded site. However, in addition to the LSGAC, the Applicant submitted a Statement of Hammett & Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers dated September 8, 2017 (the “RF Report”). The RF Report discloses that: • Verizon proposes to install one Amphenol Model CUUT070X12Fxyz0 tri-directional antenna, but Verizon proposes to activate only one direction of the antenna. • The antenna will employ up to 12° of signal transmission downtilt. • The single sector of transmissions (Sector A in the Plans) will be oriented towards 100° TN. See Figure 7. • The maximum effective radiated power (“ERP”) will be 7,700 watts (representing simultaneous operation at 3,680 watts for AWS, 3,320 watts for PCS and 700 watts for 700 MHz service). • No other wireless base stations are reported within 100 feet of the site. • For a person anywhere at ground, the maximum RF exposure level is calculated to be 0.014 mW/cm2 which is 2.2% of the applicable FCC general population public exposure limit. • The maximum calculated level at the second-floor elevation of any nearby residence is 4.3% of the public exposure limit, occurring at the residence at 416 El Verano Avenue 70 feet away (distance scaled in the RF Report from Sheet A 1.1 of the drawings). • The maximum calculated level at the second-floor elevation of the nearest residence, located about 25 feet away (distance scaled in the RF Report from Sheet A 1.1 of the drawings) at 419 El Verano Avenue is 0.011% of the applicable FCC general population limit. The RF Report finds that the RF exposure from the Verizon antenna will comply with the prevailing standards for limiting public exposure to radio frequency energy, and therefore, will not for this reason cause a significant impact on the environment. TLF agrees with this finding. 2.e Packet Pg. 304 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 143 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 16 of 18 Telecom Law Firm PC The RF Report contains the basic RF emissions data needed to independently evaluate planned compliance. Based on the power output levels and operating frequencies provided, Verizon’s antennas would create a controlled access zone that extends approximately 34.4 feet from the face of the antenna at approximately 46’3”AGL. TLF calculated the far-field controlled access zone using RF effective radiated power per band information provided in the H&E report, and inserted those data into the FCC-approved formulae in FCC OET Bulletin 65 (No. 4 on page 19 and No. 5 on page 20). Given the sectorization of the RF emissions, TLF also considered structures along each transmission sector to the extent of the controlled zone. The controlled access zone extends horizontally from the antenna at the height of the antenna with as much as a 12° downtilt, with very little emissions that stray in any other direction, including towards ground level. In this case, the controlled access zone will be located entirely within publically-inaccessible airspace. Figure 7: Direction and orientation of the active emission (Source: Plans page A-2, Panel 1). The fact that a site creates a controlled access zone does not necessarily mean that it violates the FCC Guidelines. Rather, a controlled access zone means that the applicant must affirmatively 2.e Packet Pg. 305 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 143 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 17 of 18 Telecom Law Firm PC restrict public access to that area so that members of the general population (including trespassers) cannot unknowingly enter and be exposed to radio emissions in excess of the limits prescribed by the FCC. As discussed above, the FCC imposes an affirmative obligation on site operators to prevent unknowing overexposure to the general public, including trespassers that could potentially climb the Pole and bayonet and enter the controlled access zone at 100° TN in front of the canister antenna. Accordingly, the Applicant will be able to demonstrate planned compliance with the FCC Rules by applying the signage conditions shown in the RF Report, specifically: Signs should comply with OET-65 color, symbol, and content recommendations. Contact information should be provided (e.g., a telephone number) to arrange for access to restricted areas. The selection of language(s) is not an engineering matter, and guidance from the landlord, local zoning or health authority, or appropriate professionals may be required. Signage may also need to comply with the requirements of California Public Utilities Commission General Order No. 95. Practically, the Applicant proposes to situate a radio frequency (“RF”) warning sign 3-feet below the antenna, facing the climbing space. TLF proposes the following conditions to be included in any permit of approval for this project: 1. Permittee shall install and at all times maintain in good condition an “RF Notice” and network operations center contact information sign on the Pole immediately below the Bracket. Permittee shall install the signs required under this condition so that a person may clearly see the signs as he or she approaches the Pole. 2. Permittee shall install and at all times maintain in good condition an “RF Caution” sign on the bayonet three feet (3’) below the canister antenna so that a person may clearly see the sign as he or she approaches the canister antenna. 3. Permittee shall ensure that all radio frequency signage complies with FCC OET Bulletin 65 or ANSI C95.2 for color, symbol, and content conventions. All such signage shall at all times provide a working local or toll-free telephone number to its network operations center, and such telephone number shall be able to reach a live person who can exert transmitter power-down control over this site as required by the FCC. /JLK 2.e Packet Pg. 306 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 143 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 18 of 18 Telecom Law Firm PC EXHIBIT A List of Applicant-provided documents, received by the City on September 12, 2017, that were reviewed by TLF in preparation for this memorandum: 1. Plans dated August 30, 2017. 2. Photo Simulations. 3. Project Description for Cluster 1 dated September 8, 2017 that included the “Community Need for Small Cells”. 4. LSGAC Optional Checklist. 5. Statement of Hammett & Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers dated September 8, 2017. 2.e Packet Pg. 307 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 2001 S. Barrington Ave. • Suite 306 • Los Angeles • CA 90025 • T 310-312-9900 6986 La Jolla Boulevard • Suite 204 • La Jolla • CA 92037 • T 619-272-6200 TelecomLawFirm.com WIRELESS PLANNING MEMORANDUM TO: Ms. Rebecca Atkinson FROM: Dr. Jonathan Kramer DATE: November 29, 2017 RE: New Proposed Wireless Facility in the Public Right-of-Way adjacent to 201 Loma Verde Avenue- Cluster 1 (17PLN-00169) APPLICANT: Vinculums Services for Verizon Wireless APPLICANT’S ID: SF PALO ALTO 144 ADJ. APN: 132-48-015 UTILITY POLE ID: 1506 LOCATION CODE: 425248 CONFIGURATION: # 3 The City of Palo Alto (the “City”) requested that Telecom Law Firm, PC (“TLF”) review the Vinculums Services on behalf of GTE Mobilnet dba Verizon Wireless (“Applicant”) application on behalf of Verizon Wireless (“Verizon”) to operate a new wireless site on an existing wood utility pole (“Pole”), owned and operated by the City of Palo Alto Utilities (“CPAU”) located in the public right-of-way (“ROW”) adjacent to 201 Loma Verde Avenue. This memorandum reviews the application and related materials received by the City from the Applicant on September 12, 2017 that are listed in Exhibit A of this memorandum. This memorandum provides a project description, analysis and discussion of project design and design alternatives, planner compliance with federal radio frequency exposure guidelines established by the Federal Communications Commission. Although many technical issues implicate legal issues, the analysis and recommendations contained in this memorandum do not constitute legal advice. I. Project Description This section describes the proposed application as depicted in the plans dated August 30, 2017 (“Plans”) and submitted with the permit application, and described in Figure 1. [Balance of page intentionally left blank] 2.e Packet Pg. 308 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 144 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 2 of 18 Telecom Law Firm PC Figure 1: Project description (Source: Plans). On top of the Pole, the Applicant proposes to install a 7-foot tall bayonet extension arm (“Arm”) to support a 5-foot 1-inch tall canister antenna and cable cage affixed to the top of the Arm. The overall height of the Pole will remain at 42’10” above ground level (“AGL”), but the overall height of the final structure, including the Arm and the canister, will increase to 53’11” AGL. The 7-foot Arm will separate the antenna from the highest existing primary power line by 7-feet, which meets the requirements of the California Public Utilities Commission (“CPUC”), General Order 95 (“GO 95”). The centerline of the proposed Verizon antenna is proposed to be at 51’10” AGL and the bottom of the canister antenna is at 49’10” AGL. This is a three sector site aimed at Sector A at 0° True North (“TN”), Sector B at 120° TN and Sector C at 240° TN with a beam down-tilt of 12° (“Sector A, B and C” shown in the Plans). On the Pole, the Applicant proposes to install a 6” W x 11’ L aluminum channel mounting assembly bracket (“Bracket”) (top being at 19’ 9” AGL and bottom being at 9 feet AGL, with a 6” standoff from the Pole) to support radio transmission and powering equipment on the Pole. 2.e Packet Pg. 309 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 144 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 3 of 18 Telecom Law Firm PC On the Bracket the Applicant proposes to mount the following: • Two remote radio unit 32 (“RRU-32s”) with a power supply unit (“PSU”). • One remote radio unit 11 (“RRU-11”) with PSU. • Two antenna signal Diplexers. • One AC power Distribution Panel (with power shutdown and signage). • One fiber demarcation box (manufactured by Aria Tech or another vendor). The Plans depict that all Bracket mounted equipment will be above the CPUC GO-95 required 8- foot clearance from the ground. The Bracket and equipment, cables, and conduits on the Bracket will be painted “Log Cabin” by Kelly Moore Railroad Ties KMA76 to blend in with the existing Pole. Additionally, the disconnect switch can be painted brown to reduce its visibility on the Pole. Page E-1, Panel 7 of the Plans depicts the entire grounding system from the antenna through the Bracket and associated equipment, down to and including the ground rod located in a new ground well adjacent to the Pole. This project does not include the fiber optic cable, but there appears to be fiber on the Pole (see Plans, Page A-3, panels 1-2. [Balance of page intentionally left blank] 2.e Packet Pg. 310 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 144 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 4 of 18 Telecom Law Firm PC Figure 2 is a current photo of the existing pole without the proposed node. Figure 2: Current pole without proposed node (Source: TLF site visit on November 2, 2017). 2.e Packet Pg. 311 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 144 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 5 of 18 Telecom Law Firm PC Figure 3 depicts the overall design proposed by the Applicant of this Configuration 3 project. Figure 3: Canister antenna, bayonet extension, RF signage, Bracket, a total of three RRUs, DC converter and diplexers (Source: Plans page A-3.1, panel 1). 2.e Packet Pg. 312 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 144 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 6 of 18 Telecom Law Firm PC Figure 4 is a photo simulation of the design proposed by the Applicant of this Configuration 3 project. Figure 4: Photo simulation of proposed project (Source: Applicant’s Photo Sims). 2.e Packet Pg. 313 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 144 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 7 of 18 Telecom Law Firm PC TLF notes that the photo simulations provided by the Applicant, including the photo simulation in Figure 4, are underrepresented as to the actual visual impact of the proposed site. For example, they do not depict the RF signage on the bayonet and do not depict all the cabling from the antenna canister to the equipment and between the equipment on the Bracket. Additionally, the Applicant did not provide photo simulations from a face-on angle depicting all the proposed installations on the Pole. II. Discussion of Design Elements and Alternatives Even when an applicant claims a significant gap, as the Applicant claims it in its “Community Need for Small Cells” section of the Project Description for Cluster 1 (dated September 8, 2017), the Telecom Act does not grant the applicant rights to build whatever site or design it chooses. A jurisdiction may require a wireless applicant claiming a significant gap to construct a site using the “least intrusive means” to achieve their coverage objectives.1 This balances the national interest in deploying wireless services with the local interest in planned and orderly development. In the Ninth Circuit, the least intrusive means refers to the technically feasible and potentially available alternative design and location that most closely conforms to the local values a permit denial would otherwise serve.2 The Palo Alto Municipal Code (“PAMC”) Section 18.42.110 et seq expresses the local values that form the analytical baseline for considering approval of Wireless Communication Facilities (“WCF”). Based on PAMC 18.42.110(c)(3) the instant projects qualifies as a Tier 3 because it does not qualify under either Tier 1 project (eligible facilities request under Section 6409(a)) or Tier 2 project (a modification request that does not fit within the parameters of Tier 1). PAMC Section 18.42.110(d)(8) requires that an applicant show the maximum potential physical expansion of its site if approved. Pursuant to the FCC’s October 2014 Broadband Order interpreting 47 U.S.C. § 1455(a), once a wireless site exists, FCC rules allow for limited modifications and expansion of the wireless site. There are many federal and state factors that have to be considered to determine the possible future maximum expansion. Those factors include the type and design of the existing site to be modified, and the way the applicant wishes to modify the existing site. State regulations place additional physical safety limitations on the types of permissible modifications and expansions. For these reasons, it is not reasonably or usefully possible to take the current inchoate design to try and estimate possible but perhaps unlikely modifications and expansions. Finally, TLF has reviewed the Applicant’s response to PAMC Section 18.42.110(d)(8) (Attachment J – Statement 1 See, e.g., American Tower Corp., 763 F.3d at 1056. 2 See id.; see also T-Mobile USA, Inc. v. City of Anacortes, 572 F.3d 987, 995 (9th Cir. 2009). 2.e Packet Pg. 314 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 144 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 8 of 18 Telecom Law Firm PC Regarding Spectrum Act of the Applicant’s Project Description for Cluster 1 document dated September 8, 2017). Attachment J, Sections 1 and 2 echo TLF’s assessments above. TLF has no comment on Attachment J, Sections 3 and 4. TLF recommends this evaluation be revisited once the final design is settled. To be approved under PAMC 18.42.110(h) Tier 3, the process (h)(1) and findings (h)(2) required are: (1) A Tier 3 WCF Permit shall be reviewed by the Director. The Director's decision shall be appealable pursuant to the process for architectural review set forth in Section 18.77.070 and the process for conditional use permits set forth in Section 18.77.060. (2) The Director or Council on appeal shall grant a Tier 3 WCF Permit provided the proposed WCF complies with the development standards in Section 18.42.110(i) and the conditions of approval in Section 18.42.110(j), and all of the architectural review findings in Section 18.76.020(d) and the conditional use permit findings in Section 18.76.010(c) can be made. To be approved, the relevant findings for “Development Standards” in Section 18.42.110(i) must be made (our analysis is embedded in italics in each subsection): (1) Shall utilize the smallest footprint possible; “Footprint” is not a defined term in the PAMC Section 18.42.110(b). As proposed, this Pole- mounted project is likely to occupy the smallest “footprint” of ground space since the Pole width at ground level will not increase. (2) Shall be designed to minimize the overall height, mass, and size of the cabinet and enclosure structure; The overall height for a Pole-top antenna is controlled by CPUC GO 95 for separation from existing electrical power conductors. As proposed, this project’s mass and size of the equipment on the Bracket is not minimized because portions of the transmission equipment on the Bracket should be located underground adjacent to the Pole. Although TLF has recommended undergrounding, should that solution not be adopted, there remain additional visual mitigations that may be applied, such as reducing the bulk and stand- off distance of the Bracket and equipment attached to the Bracket. 2.e Packet Pg. 315 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 144 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 9 of 18 Telecom Law Firm PC (3) Shall be screened from public view; As proposed, this project is not screened from public view. Additionally, the direction that equipment faces, and accordingly the supporting Bracket, is a local decision. That said, GO 95 also impacts that face that may be used during to potential conflicts with a pole’s required climbing space. These are case-by-case issues, and there is not government standard to consider. Relatedly, if the bulk of the equipment is placed underground, then the size of the Bracket and the offset from the pole will be reduced thereby allowing greater orientation and placement options. (4) Shall be architecturally compatible with the existing site; This is a determination to be made by the Director as set out in the PAMC. (5) Shall be placed at a location that would not require the removal of any required landscaping or would reduce the quantity of landscaping to a level of noncompliance with the Zoning Code; This is a determination to be made by the Director as set out in the PAMC. Additionally, TLF is aware that the Applicant has discussed planting trees in a cohesive design intended to interrupt direct views of the equipment on the Bracket. (6) An antenna, base station, or tower shall be designed to minimize its visibility from off-site locations and shall be of a "camouflaged" or "stealth" design, including concealment, screening, and other techniques to hide or blend the antenna, base station, or tower into the surrounding area; As proposed, this project, other than the antenna canister, is not “designed to minimize its visibility from off-site locations and shall be of a ‘camouflaged’ or ‘stealth’ design, including concealment, screening, and other techniques to hide or blend the antenna, base station, or tower into the surrounding area.” The mass of the equipment located on the Bracket, which is offset from the Pole, is not camouflaged, screened, or stealth-ed merely by painting that mass a color similar to the Pole. When TLF conducted the site visits, the mock-up site across from 1350 Newell Road was also visited. TLF believes that the proposed shroud—while slightly improving the aesthetics of only the equipment on the Bracket, but not the Bracket itself—results in an increase in the visual bulk of the design. A true minimization of the visibility of the project from off-site locations will occur by undergrounding most of the transmission equipment (RRU-32s with PSU, RRU-11 with PSU, diplexers and fiber demarcation box) in a flush-to-grade sidewalk vault adjacent to the Pole. The equipment that would remain on the Pole would be associated with the electrical AC power 2.e Packet Pg. 316 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 144 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 10 of 18 Telecom Law Firm PC service panel and the Pole-top bayonet extension supporting the antenna canister. See Figure 5. Undergrounding of equipment in flush-to-grade vaults will not increase the footprint of the site. (7) A building-mounted antenna, base station, or tower shall be architecturally compatible with the existing building on which the antenna, base station, or tower is attached; This finding is not applicable to the proposed project. (8) For any Tier 2 or Tier 3 WCF proposed to be attached on an historic structure/site, as designated by Chapter 16.49, historic review shall also be required; Although this project is for a Tier 3 WCF, it does not appear that the project site (a wood pole) is a historic structure/site. (9) Except as otherwise permitted by the Spectrum Act, a building-mounted WCF may extend fifteen (15) feet beyond the permitted height of the building in the zone district; This finding is not applicable to the proposed project. (10) Except as otherwise permitted by the Spectrum Act, a tower or other stand-alone Tier 3 WCF Project shall not exceed sixty-five (65) feet in height; and The proposed project does not exceed 65 feet in height. (11) A tower or other stand-alone Tier 3 WCF may encroach into the interior/street side and rear setback. This finding is not applicable to the proposed project. [Balance of page intentionally left blank] 2.e Packet Pg. 317 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 144 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 11 of 18 Telecom Law Firm PC Figure 5: Reduction of the visibility of Pole mounted antenna associated equipment to be removed from the Pole, such as the two RRU32s, RRU11, and fiber demarcation enclosure (marked with red “x”s) to be placed in a flush- to-grade sidewalk vault adjacent to the Pole (Source: Applicant photo simulations, annotated by Dr. J. Kramer). Proposed antenna canister to remain on Pole Proposed bayonet to remain on Pole Proposed AC power distribution panel to remain Potential underground vault location 2.e Packet Pg. 318 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 144 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 12 of 18 Telecom Law Firm PC TLF measured the width of the sidewalk on the November 2, 2017 during the site visit. The width of the sidewalk is 5 feet. The utility vault manufacturing industry has been adapting existing vault designs to the small volumetric needs of small cells. TLF understands that vaults from leading vault manufacturers can be readily provided for the volume of equipment the Applicant is proposing. Whatever vault size is preferred, TLF recommends that the vault be placed beneath the existing sidewalk wherever possible and utilize flush-to-grade vents. Based on Plans and the equipment that TLF believes may be undergrounded, and considering that this sidewalk is 5 feet in width, a 10 to 15 cubic foot vault would seem to be both reasonable and sufficient. Dimensions obtained from Plans page D-1 • Two remote radio unit 32 (“RRU-32s”) (27.2” H x 12” W x 7” D) with a power supply unit (“PSU”). • One remote radio unit 11 (“RRU-11”) (19.67” H x 16.97” W x 7.2” D) with PSU. • Two antenna signal Diplexers (8.3” H x 4.6” W x 1.8” D) • One fiber demarcation box (Aria Tech dimensions(8.54”H x10”W x2.88”D) Based on the Plans, the applicant proposes to install equipment (other than the antennas, the DC power disconnect switch, and the equipment Bracket) occupying approximately 7.25 to 10 cubic feet of space. TLF believes the equipment occupying up to 10 cubic feet should be placed in a flush-to-grade vault. No over excavations are foreseen at this time by TLF. If one or more underground vaults are approved by the City, TLF recommends that the vault be placed outside of the drip line of adjacent trees, and the vault lid be: • Non-skid material. • Painted to match the sidewalk to minimize visual impact. • Locked at all time unless active maintenance is occurring. III. Planned RF Compliance Evaluation Under the Telecom Act, the FCC completely occupies the field with respect to RF emissions regulation. The FCC established comprehensive rules for human exposure to RF emissions (the “FCC Guidelines”).3 State and local governments cannot regulate wireless facilities based on environmental effects from RF emissions to the extent that the emissions comply with the FCC Guidelines.4 3 See 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(iv); see also 47 C.F.R. § 1.1307 et seq.; FCC Office of Engineering and Technology, Evaluating Compliance with FCC Guidelines for Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields, OET Bulletin 65, ed. 97-01 (1997). 4 See 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(iv). 2.e Packet Pg. 319 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 144 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 13 of 18 Telecom Law Firm PC Although localities cannot establish their own standards for RF exposure, local officials may require wireless applicants to demonstrate compliance with the FCC Guidelines.5 Such demonstrations usually involve a predictive calculation because the site has not yet been built. i. FCC Guidelines, Categorical Exclusions and Exposure Mitigation Measures FCC Guidelines regulate exposure rather than emissions.6 Although the FCC establishes a maximum permissible exposure (“MPE”) limit, it does not mandate any specific limitations on power levels applicable to all antennas and requires the antenna operator to adopt exposure- mitigation measures only to the extent that certain persons might become exposed to the emissions. Thus, a relatively low-powered site in proximity to the general population might require more comprehensive mitigation measures than a relatively high-powered site in a remote location accessible only to trained personnel. The MPE limit also differentiates between members of “general population” and “occupational” wireless site workers. Virtually all people fall into the general population class, which includes anyone who either does not know about potential exposure or knows about the exposure but cannot exert control over the transmitters.7 The narrower occupational class includes persons knowingly exposed to RF fields through their employment and are able to exert control over their exposure.8 The MPE limit for the general population is five times lower than the MPE limit for the occupational class. Lastly, the FCC “categorically excludes” certain antennas from routine environmental review when either (1) the antennas create exposures in areas virtually inaccessible to humans or (2) the antennas operate at extreme low power. As a general rule, a wireless site qualified for a categorical exclusion when mounted on a structure built solely or primarily to support FCC- licensed or authorized equipment (i.e., a tower) and such that the lowest point on the lowest transmitter is more than 10 meters (32.8 feet) above ground.9 Categorical exclusions establish a presumption that the emissions from the antennas will not significantly impact humans or the human environment. Such antennas are exempt from routine compliance evaluations but not exempt from actual compliance. Under some circumstances, such as a heavily collocated tower or when in close proximity to general population members, even a categorically excluded site will require additional analysis. 5 See In re Procedures for Reviewing Requests for Relief from State and Local Regulations Pursuant to Section 332(c)(7)(B)(iv) of the Communications Act of 1934, Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd. 22821, 22828–22829 (Nov. 13, 2000) (declining to adopt rules that limit local authority to require compliance demonstrations). 6 See generally Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Fields: Guidelines for Cellular and PCS Sites, Consumer Guide, FCC (Oct. 22, 2014), available at https://www.fcc.gov/guides/human-exposure-rf-fields-guidelines-cellular-and-pcs- sites (discussing in general terms how wireless sites transmit and how the FCC regulates the emissions). 7 See 47 C.F.R. § 1.1310, Note 2. 8 See id. 9 See id. § 1.1307(b)(1). 2.e Packet Pg. 320 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 144 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 14 of 18 Telecom Law Firm PC ii. Planned Compliance Evaluation and Recommendations The FCC Guidelines do not categorically exclude Verizon’s proposal because Verizon proposes to mount the antenna canister on an existing Pole that was constructed primarily to transport legacy utilities. Therefore, an additional analysis is necessary to determine whether the proposed antenna will demonstrate planned compliance with the FCC Guidelines. TLF notes that Verizon submitted an FCC LSGAC Optional Checklist (“LSGAC”) which discloses that the site is categorically excluded (Box 16 is checked off). This check-off is incorrect because, as mentioned above, this site is not a categorically excluded site. However, in addition to the LSGAC, the Applicant submitted a Statement of Hammett & Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers dated September 8, 2017 (the “RF Report”). The RF Report discloses that: • Verizon proposes to install one Amphenol Model CUUT360X12Fxyz0 tri-directional antenna. • The antenna will employ up to 12° of signal transmission downtilt. • Three sector of transmissions (Sector A, B and C in the Plans) will be oriented towards Sector A at 0° TN, Sector B at 120° TN and Sector C at 240° TN. See Figure 6. • The maximum effective radiated power (“ERP”), in any direction, will be 1,470 watts (representing simultaneous operation at 700 watts for AWS, 620 watts for PCS and 150 watts for 700 MHz service). • There are no other reported wireless base stations within 100 feet of the site. (TLF notes that there is an existing AT&T site, seen in Figure 7, nearby but farther than 100 feet away. Therefore the RF Report presumes that existing RF exposure levels are well below the FCC limit.) • For a person anywhere at ground, the maximum RF exposure level is calculated to be 0.0020 mW/cm2 which is 0.42 % of the applicable FCC general population public exposure limit. • The maximum calculated level at the second-floor elevation of any nearby residence is 0.75 % of the public exposure limit, occurring at the residence at 201 Loma Verde Avenue about 45 feet away (distance scaled in the RF Report from Sheet A-1.1 of the drawings). The RF Report finds that the RF exposure from the Verizon antenna will comply with the prevailing standards for limiting public exposure to radio frequency energy, and therefore, will not for this reason cause a significant impact on the environment. TLF agrees with this finding. The RF Report contains the basic RF emissions data needed to independently evaluate planned compliance. Based on the power output levels and operating frequencies provided, Verizon’s antennas would create a controlled access zone that extends approximately 15.1 feet from the face of the antenna at approximately 51 feet AGL. TLF calculated the far-field controlled access zone using RF effective radiated power per band information provided in the H&E report, and inserted those data into the FCC-approved formulae in FCC OET Bulletin 65 (No. 4 on page 19 and No. 5 on page 20). Given the sectorization of the 2.e Packet Pg. 321 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 144 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 15 of 18 Telecom Law Firm PC RF emissions, TLF also considered structures along each transmission sector to the extent of the controlled zone. The controlled access zone extends horizontally from the antenna at the height of the antenna with as much as a 12° downtilt, with very little emissions that stray in any other direction, including towards ground level. In this case, the controlled access zone will be located within publically-inaccessible airspace. Figure 6: Direction and orientation of the active emissions (Source: Plans page A-2, Panel 1). [Balance of page intentionally left blank] 2.e Packet Pg. 322 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 144 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 16 of 18 Telecom Law Firm PC Figure 7: Existing AT&T wireless site farther than 100 feet away (Source: Photos from site visit November 2, 2017; annotated by Dr. J. Kramer). The fact that a site creates a controlled access zone does not necessarily mean that it violates the FCC Guidelines. Rather, a controlled access zone means that the applicant must affirmatively restrict public access to that area so that members of the general population (including Existing AT&T site- farther than 100 feet Pole 2.e Packet Pg. 323 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 144 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 17 of 18 Telecom Law Firm PC trespassers) cannot unknowingly enter and be exposed to radio emissions in excess of the limits prescribed by the FCC. As discussed above, the FCC imposes an affirmative obligation on site operators to prevent unknowing overexposure to the general public, including trespassers that could potentially climb the Pole and bayonet and enter the controlled access zone at 0°TN, 120°TN and 240° TN in front of the canister antenna. Accordingly, the Applicant will be able to demonstrate planned compliance with the FCC Rules by applying the signage conditions shown in the RF Report, specifically: Signs should comply with OET-65 color, symbol, and content recommendations. Contact information should be provided (e.g., a telephone number) to arrange for access to restricted areas. The selection of language(s) is not an engineering matter, and guidance from the landlord, local zoning or health authority, or appropriate professionals may be required. Signage may also need to comply with the requirements of California Public Utilities Commission General Order No. 95. Practically, the Applicant proposes to situate a radio frequency (“RF”) warning sign 3-feet below the antenna, facing the climbing space. TLF proposes the following conditions to be included in any permit of approval for this project: 1. Permittee shall install and at all times maintain in good condition an “RF Notice” and network operations center contact information sign on the Pole immediately below the Bracket. Permittee shall install the signs required under this condition so that a person may clearly see the signs as he or she approaches the Pole. 2. Permittee shall install and at all times maintain in good condition an “RF Caution” on the bayonet three feet (3’) below the canister antenna so that a person may clearly see the sign as he or she approaches the canister antenna. 3. Permittee shall ensure that all radio frequency signage complies with FCC OET Bulletin 65 or ANSI C95.2 for color, symbol, and content conventions. All such signage shall at all times provide a working local or toll-free telephone number to its network operations center, and such telephone number shall be able to reach a live person who can exert transmitter power-down control over this site as required by the FCC. /JLK 2.e Packet Pg. 324 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 144 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 18 of 18 Telecom Law Firm PC EXHIBIT A List of Applicant-provided documents, received by the City on September 12, 2017, that were reviewed by TLF in preparation for this memorandum: 1. Plans dated August 30, 2017. 2. Photo Simulations. 3. Project Description for Cluster 1 dated September 8, 2017 that included the “Community Need for Small Cells”. 4. LSGAC Optional Checklist. 5. Statement of Hammett & Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers dated September 8, 2017. 2.e Packet Pg. 325 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 2001 S. Barrington Ave. • Suite 306 • Los Angeles • CA 90025 • T 310-312-9900 6986 La Jolla Boulevard • Suite 204 • La Jolla • CA 92037 • T 619-272-6200 TelecomLawFirm.com WIRELESS PLANNING MEMORANDUM TO: Ms. Rebecca Atkinson FROM: Dr. Jonathan Kramer DATE: November 29, 2017 RE: New Proposed Wireless Facility in the Public Right-of-Way adjacent to 737 Loma Verde- Cluster 1 (17PLN-00169) APPLICANT: Vinculums Services for Verizon Wireless APPLICANT’S ID: SF PALO ALTO 145 ADJ. APN: 127-64-039 UTILITY POLE ID: 3288 LOCATION CODE: 425249 CONFIGURATION: # 3 The City of Palo Alto (the “City”) requested that Telecom Law Firm, PC (“TLF”) review the Vinculums Services on behalf of GTE Mobilnet dba Verizon Wireless (“Applicant”) application on behalf of Verizon Wireless (“Verizon”) to operate a new wireless site on an existing wood utility pole (“Pole”), owned and operated by the City of Palo Alto Utilities (“CPAU”) located in the public right-of-way (“ROW”) adjacent to 737 Loma Verde Avenue1. This memorandum reviews the application and related materials received by the City from the Applicant on September 12, 2017 that are listed in Exhibit A of this memorandum. This memorandum provides a project description, analysis and discussion of project design and design alternatives, planner compliance with federal radio frequency exposure guidelines established by the Federal Communications Commission. Although many technical issues implicate legal issues, the analysis and recommendations contained in this memorandum do not constitute legal advice. I. Project Description This section describes the proposed application as depicted in the plans dated August 30, 2017 (“Plans”) and submitted with the permit application, and described in Figure 1. The project description is inconsistent with the remaining pages of the Plans. The project description references that the Applicant proposes to install a new pole and does not reference the addition of a bayonet extension; however on the remaining pages of the Plans the Applicant references an existing wood utility pole to which it intends to add a bayonet extension. [Balance of page intentionally left blank] 1 TLF notes that Title page T-1 of the Plans project description mentions a new pole, however the remaining pages of the Plans depict an extension on the same existing pole. 2.e Packet Pg. 326 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 145 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 2 of 21 Telecom Law Firm PC Figure 1: Project description (Source: Plans; annotated by Dr. J. Kramer). As shown on the Plans at Page A-3, panel 1, at top of the Pole the Applicant proposes to install a 7-foot tall bayonet extension arm (“Arm”) to support a 5-foot 1-inch tall canister antenna and cable cage affixed to the top of the Arm. The overall height of the Pole will remain at 43’5” above ground level (“AGL”), but the overall height of the final structure, including the Arm and canister, will increase to 55’4” AGL. The 7-foot Arm will separate the antenna from the highest existing primary power line by 7-feet, which meets the requirements of the California Public Utilities Commission (“CPUC”), General Order 95 (“GO 95”). The centerline of the proposed Verizon antenna is proposed to be at 53’3” AGL and the bottom of the canister antenna is at 51’3” AGL. This is a single sector site aimed at 170° True North with a beam down-tilt of 12° (“Sector A” shown in the Plans). On the Pole, the Applicant proposes to install a 6” W x 11’ L aluminum channel mounting assembly bracket (“Bracket”) (top being at 19’ 8” AGL and bottom being at 9 feet AGL, with a 7.5” standoff from the Pole) to support radio transmission and powering equipment on the Pole. 2.e Packet Pg. 327 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 145 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 3 of 21 Telecom Law Firm PC On the Bracket the Applicant proposes to mount the following: • Two remote radio unit 32 (“RRU-32s”) with a power supply unit (“PSU”). • One remote radio unit 11 (“RRU-11”) with PSU. • Two antenna signal Diplexers. • One AC power Distribution Panel (with power shutdown and signage). • One fiber demarcation box (manufactured by Aria Tech or another vendor). The Plans depict that all Bracket mounted equipment will be above the CPUC GO-95 required 8- foot clearance from the ground. The Bracket and equipment, cables, and conduits on the Bracket will be painted “Log Cabin” by Kelly Moore Railroad Ties KMA76 to blend in with the existing Pole. Additionally, the disconnect switch can be painted brown to reduce its visibility on the Pole. Page E-1, Panel 7 of the Plans depicts the entire grounding system from the antenna through the Bracket and associated equipment, down to and including the ground rod located in a new ground well adjacent to the Pole. 2.e Packet Pg. 328 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 145 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 4 of 21 Telecom Law Firm PC Figure 2 and Figure 3 are current photos of the existing pole without the proposed node. Figure 2: Current pole (Source: TLF site visit on November 2, 2017). 2.e Packet Pg. 329 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 145 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 5 of 21 Telecom Law Firm PC Figure 3: Close-up photo of the existing pole (Source: TLF site visit on November 2, 2017). 2.e Packet Pg. 330 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 145 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 6 of 21 Telecom Law Firm PC Figure 4 illustrates the overall design proposed by the Applicant of this Configuration 3 project. Figure 4: Canister antenna, bayonet extension, RF signage, Bracket, a total of three RRUs, DC converter and diplexers (Source: Plans page A-3.1, panel 1). 2.e Packet Pg. 331 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 145 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 7 of 21 Telecom Law Firm PC Figure 5 is a photo simulation of the overall design proposed by the Applicant of this Configuration 3 project. Figure 5: Photo simulation of proposed project (Source: Applicant’s Photo Sims). 2.e Packet Pg. 332 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 145 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 8 of 21 Telecom Law Firm PC TLF notes that the photo simulations provided by the Applicant, including the photo simulation in Figure 5, are underrepresented as to the actual visual impact of the proposed site. For example, they do not depict the RF signage on the bayonet and do not depict all the cabling from the antenna canister to the equipment and between the equipment on the Bracket. II. Discussion of Design Elements and Alternatives Even when an applicant claims a significant gap, as the Applicant claims it in its “Community Need for Small Cells” section of the Project Description for Cluster 1 (dated September 8, 2017), the Telecom Act does not grant the applicant rights to build whatever site or design it chooses. A jurisdiction may require a wireless applicant claiming a significant gap to construct a site using the “least intrusive means” to achieve their coverage objectives.2 This balances the national interest in deploying wireless services with the local interest in planned and orderly development. In the Ninth Circuit, the least intrusive means refers to the technically feasible and potentially available alternative design and location that most closely conforms to the local values a permit denial would otherwise serve.3 The Palo Alto Municipal Code (“PAMC”) Section 18.42.110 et seq expresses the local values that form the analytical baseline for considering approval of Wireless Communication Facilities (“WCF”). Based on PAMC 18.42.110(c)(3) the instant projects qualifies as a Tier 3 because it does not qualify under either Tier 1 project (eligible facilities request under Section 6409(a)) or Tier 2 project (a modification request that does not fit within the parameters of Tier 1). PAMC Section 18.42.110(d)(8) requires that an applicant show the maximum potential physical expansion of its site if approved. Pursuant to the FCC’s October 2014 Broadband Order interpreting 47 U.S.C. § 1455(a), once a wireless site exists, FCC rules allow for limited modifications and expansion of the wireless site. There are many federal and state factors that have to be considered to determine the possible future maximum expansion. Those factors include the type and design of the existing site to be modified, and the way the applicant wishes to modify the existing site. State regulations place additional physical safety limitations on the types of permissible modifications and expansions. For these reasons, it is not reasonably or usefully possible to take the current inchoate design to try and estimate possible but perhaps unlikely modifications and expansions. Finally, TLF has reviewed the Applicant’s response to PAMC Section 18.42.110(d)(8) (Attachment J – Statement Regarding Spectrum Act of the Applicant’s Project Description for Cluster 1 document dated September 8, 2017). Attachment J, Sections 1 and 2 echo TLF’s assessments above. TLF has 2 See, e.g., American Tower Corp., 763 F.3d at 1056. 3 See id.; see also T-Mobile USA, Inc. v. City of Anacortes, 572 F.3d 987, 995 (9th Cir. 2009). 2.e Packet Pg. 333 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 145 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 9 of 21 Telecom Law Firm PC no comment on Attachment J, Sections 3 and 4. TLF recommends this evaluation be revisited once the final design is settled. To be approved under PAMC 18.42.110(h) Tier 3, the process (h)(1) and findings (h)(2) required are: (1) A Tier 3 WCF Permit shall be reviewed by the Director. The Director's decision shall be appealable pursuant to the process for architectural review set forth in Section 18.77.070 and the process for conditional use permits set forth in Section 18.77.060. (2) The Director or Council on appeal shall grant a Tier 3 WCF Permit provided the proposed WCF complies with the development standards in Section 18.42.110(i) and the conditions of approval in Section 18.42.110(j), and all of the architectural review findings in Section 18.76.020(d) and the conditional use permit findings in Section 18.76.010(c) can be made. To be approved, the relevant findings for “Development Standards” in Section 18.42.110(i) must be made (our analysis is embedded in italics in each subsection): (1) Shall utilize the smallest footprint possible; “Footprint” is not a defined term in the PAMC Section 18.42.110(b). As proposed, this Pole-mounted project is likely to occupy the smallest “footprint” of ground space since the Pole width at ground level will not increase. (2) Shall be designed to minimize the overall height, mass, and size of the cabinet and enclosure structure; The overall height for a Pole-top antenna is controlled by CPUC GO 95 for separation from existing electrical power conductors. As proposed, this project’s mass and size of the equipment on the Bracket is not minimized because portions of the transmission equipment on the Bracket should be located underground adjacent to the Pole. Although TLF has recommended undergrounding, should that solution not be adopted, there remain additional visual mitigations that may be applied, such as reducing the bulk and stand-off distance of the Bracket and equipment attached to the Bracket. (3) Shall be screened from public view; As proposed, this project is not screened from public view. Additionally, the direction that equipment faces, and accordingly the supporting Bracket, is a local decision. That said, GO 95 also impacts that face that may be used during to potential conflicts with a pole’s required 2.e Packet Pg. 334 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 145 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 10 of 21 Telecom Law Firm PC climbing space. These are case-by-case issues, and there is not government standard to consider. Relatedly, if the bulk of the equipment is placed underground, then the size of the Bracket and the offset from the pole will be reduced thereby allowing greater orientation and placement options. (4) Shall be architecturally compatible with the existing site; This is a determination to be made by the Director as set out in the PAMC. (5) Shall be placed at a location that would not require the removal of any required landscaping or would reduce the quantity of landscaping to a level of noncompliance with the Zoning Code; This is a determination to be made by the Director as set out in the PAMC. Additionally, TLF is aware that the Applicant has discussed planting trees in a cohesive design intended to interrupt direct views of the equipment on the Bracket. (6) An antenna, base station, or tower shall be designed to minimize its visibility from off-site locations and shall be of a "camouflaged" or "stealth" design, including concealment, screening, and other techniques to hide or blend the antenna, base station, or tower into the surrounding area; As proposed, this project, other than the antenna canister, is not “designed to minimize its visibility from off-site locations and shall be of a ‘camouflaged’ or ‘stealth’ design, including concealment, screening, and other techniques to hide or blend the antenna, base station, or tower into the surrounding area.” The mass of the equipment located on the Bracket, which is offset from the Pole, is not camouflaged, screened, or stealth-ed merely by painting that mass a color similar to the Pole. When TLF conducted the site visits, the mock-up site across from 1350 Newell Road was also visited. TLF believes that the proposed shroud—while slightly improving the aesthetics of only the equipment on the Bracket, but not the Bracket itself—results in an increase in the visual bulk of the design. A true minimization of the visibility of the project from off-site locations will occur by undergrounding most of the transmission equipment (RRU-32s with PSU, RRU-11 with PSU, diplexers and fiber demarcation box) in one or more flush-to-grade sidewalk vaults adjacent to the Pole. The equipment that would remain on the Pole would be associated with the electrical AC power service panel and the Pole-top bayonet extension supporting the antenna canister. See Figure 6 and Figure 7. Undergrounding of equipment in flush-to-grade vaults will not increase the footprint of the site. 2.e Packet Pg. 335 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 145 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 11 of 21 Telecom Law Firm PC (7) A building-mounted antenna, base station, or tower shall be architecturally compatible with the existing building on which the antenna, base station, or tower is attached; This finding is not applicable to the proposed project. (8) For any Tier 2 or Tier 3 WCF proposed to be attached on an historic structure/site, as designated by Chapter 16.49, historic review shall also be required; Although this project is for a Tier 3 WCF, it does not appear that the project site (a wood pole) is a historic structure/site. (9) Except as otherwise permitted by the Spectrum Act, a building-mounted WCF may extend fifteen (15) feet beyond the permitted height of the building in the zone district; This finding is not applicable to the proposed project. (10) Except as otherwise permitted by the Spectrum Act, a tower or other stand-alone Tier 3 WCF Project shall not exceed sixty-five (65) feet in height; and The proposed project does not exceed 65 feet in height. (11) A tower or other stand-alone Tier 3 WCF may encroach into the interior/street side and rear setback. This finding is not applicable to the proposed project. [Balance of page intentionally left blank] 2.e Packet Pg. 336 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 145 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 12 of 21 Telecom Law Firm PC Figure 6: Reduction of the visibility of Pole mounted antenna associated equipment to be removed from the Pole, such as the two RRU32s, RRU11, and fiber demarcation enclosure (marked with red “x”s) to be placed in a flush- to-grade sidewalk vault adjacent to the Pole (Source: Applicant photo simulations, annotated by Dr. J. Kramer). Proposed antenna canister to remain on Pole Proposed bayonet to remain on Pole Proposed AC power distribution panel to stay on Pole 2.e Packet Pg. 337 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 145 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 13 of 21 Telecom Law Firm PC Figure 7: Potential location of underground vault (Source: TLF site visit on November 2, 2017; annotated by Dr. J. Kramer). TLF measured the width of the sidewalk on the November 2, 2017 during the site visit. The width of the sidewalk is 5 feet. The utility vault manufacturing industry has been adapting existing vault designs to the small volumetric needs of small cells. TLF understands that vaults from leading vault manufacturers can be readily provided for the volume of equipment the Applicant is proposing. Whatever vault Potential Underground Vault 2.e Packet Pg. 338 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 145 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 14 of 21 Telecom Law Firm PC size is preferred, TLF recommends that the vault be placed beneath the existing sidewalk wherever possible and utilize flush-to-grade vents. Based on Plans and the equipment that TLF believes may be undergrounded, and considering that this sidewalk is 5 feet in width, a 10 to 15 cubic foot vault would seem to be both reasonable and sufficient. Dimensions obtained from Plans page D-1 • Two remote radio unit 32 (“RRU-32s”) (27.2” H x 12” W x 7” D) with a power supply unit (“PSU”). • One remote radio unit 11 (“RRU-11”) (19.67” H x 16.97” W x 7.2” D) with PSU. • Two antenna signal Diplexers (8.3” H x 4.6” W x 1.8” D) • One fiber demarcation box (Aria Tech dimensions(8.54”H x10”W x2.88”D) Based on the Plans, the applicant proposes to install equipment (other than the antennas, the DC power disconnect switch, and the equipment Bracket) occupying approximately 7.25 to 10 cubic feet of space. TLF believes the equipment occupying up to 10 cubic feet should be placed in a flush-to-grade vault. No over excavations are foreseen at this time by TLF. If one or more underground vaults are approved by the City, TLF recommends that the vault be placed outside of the drip line of adjacent trees, and the vault lid be: • Non-skid material. • Painted to match the sidewalk to minimize visual impact. • Locked at all time unless active maintenance is occurring. III. Planned RF Compliance Evaluation Under the Telecom Act, the FCC completely occupies the field with respect to RF emissions regulation. The FCC established comprehensive rules for human exposure to RF emissions (the “FCC Guidelines”).4 State and local governments cannot regulate wireless facilities based on environmental effects from RF emissions to the extent that the emissions comply with the FCC Guidelines.5 Although localities cannot establish their own standards for RF exposure, local officials may require wireless applicants to demonstrate compliance with the FCC Guidelines.6 Such demonstrations usually involve a predictive calculation because the site has not yet been built. i. FCC Guidelines, Categorical Exclusions and Exposure Mitigation Measures 4 See 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(iv); see also 47 C.F.R. § 1.1307 et seq.; FCC Office of Engineering and Technology, Evaluating Compliance with FCC Guidelines for Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields, OET Bulletin 65, ed. 97-01 (1997). 5 See 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(iv). 6 See In re Procedures for Reviewing Requests for Relief from State and Local Regulations Pursuant to Section 332(c)(7)(B)(iv) of the Communications Act of 1934, Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd. 22821, 22828–22829 (Nov. 13, 2000) (declining to adopt rules that limit local authority to require compliance demonstrations). 2.e Packet Pg. 339 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 145 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 15 of 21 Telecom Law Firm PC FCC Guidelines regulate exposure rather than emissions.7 Although the FCC establishes a maximum permissible exposure (“MPE”) limit, it does not mandate any specific limitations on power levels applicable to all antennas and requires the antenna operator to adopt exposure- mitigation measures only to the extent that certain persons might become exposed to the emissions. Thus, a relatively low-powered site in proximity to the general population might require more comprehensive mitigation measures than a relatively high-powered site in a remote location accessible only to trained personnel. The MPE limit also differentiates between members of “general population” and “occupational” wireless site workers. Virtually all people fall into the general population class, which includes anyone who either does not know about potential exposure or knows about the exposure but cannot exert control over the transmitters.8 The narrower occupational class includes persons knowingly exposed to RF fields through their employment and are able to exert control over their exposure.9 The MPE limit for the general population is five times lower than the MPE limit for the occupational class. Lastly, the FCC “categorically excludes” certain antennas from routine environmental review when either (1) the antennas create exposures in areas virtually inaccessible to humans or (2) the antennas operate at extreme low power. As a general rule, a wireless site qualified for a categorical exclusion when mounted on a structure built solely or primarily to support FCC- licensed or authorized equipment (i.e., a tower) and such that the lowest point on the lowest transmitter is more than 10 meters (32.8 feet) above ground.10 Categorical exclusions establish a presumption that the emissions from the antennas will not significantly impact humans or the human environment. Such antennas are exempt from routine compliance evaluations but not exempt from actual compliance. Under some circumstances, such as a heavily collocated tower or when the transmissions are in close proximity to general population members, even a categorically excluded site will require additional analysis. ii. Planned Compliance Evaluation and Recommendations The FCC Guidelines do not categorically exclude Verizon’s proposal because Verizon proposes to mount the antenna canister on an existing pole that was constructed primarily to transport legacy non-wireless utilities. Therefore, an additional analysis is necessary to determine whether the proposed antenna will demonstrate planned compliance with the FCC Guidelines. TLF notes that Verizon submitted an FCC LSGAC Optional Checklist (“LSGAC”) which discloses that the site is categorically excluded (Box 16 is checked off). This check-off is 7 See generally Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Fields: Guidelines for Cellular and PCS Sites, Consumer Guide, FCC (Oct. 22, 2014), available at https://www.fcc.gov/guides/human-exposure-rf-fields-guidelines-cellular-and-pcs- sites (discussing in general terms how wireless sites transmit and how the FCC regulates the emissions). 8 See 47 C.F.R. § 1.1310, Note 2. 9 See id. 10 See id. § 1.1307(b)(1). 2.e Packet Pg. 340 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 145 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 16 of 21 Telecom Law Firm PC incorrect because, as mentioned above, this site is not a categorically excluded site. However, in addition to the LSGAC, the Applicant submitted a Statement of Hammett & Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers dated September 8, 2017 (the “RF Report”). The RF Report discloses that: • Verizon proposes to install one Amphenol Model CUUT070X12Fxyz0 tri-directional antenna. • The antenna will employ up to 12° of signal transmission downtilt. • The single sector of transmissions (Sector A in the Plans) will be oriented towards 170° TN. See Figure 8. • The maximum effective radiated power (“ERP”) will be 7,700 watts (representing simultaneous operation at 3,680 watts for AWS, 3,320 watts for PCS and 700 watts for 700 MHz service). • There are other reported wireless base stations within 100 feet of the site. The RF Report discloses “A similar antenna for use by an unidentified wireless carrier is mounted above the adjacent utility pole to the northeast, about 100 feet away (distance scaled in the RF Report from Sheet A 1.1 of the drawings). The additive impact on RF exposure levels from this and similar small cells at any distance would not be significant in terms of compliance with that standard.” (See Figure 9. TLF agrees with the statement just quoted from the RF Report given the distance between the existing site and this proposed project, as well as the antenna heights and emissions orientations.) • For a person anywhere at ground, the maximum RF exposure level is calculated to be 0.0011 mW/cm2 which is 1.8 % of the applicable FCC general population public exposure limit. • The maximum calculated level at the second-floor elevation of any nearby residence is 3.2 % of the public exposure limit, occurring at the residence at 734 Loma Verde Avenue about 70 feet away (distance scaled in the RF Report from Sheet A 1.1 of the drawings). • The maximum calculated level at the third-floor elevation of any nearby residence is 0.0070 % of the public exposure limit, occurring at the residence at 737 Loma Verde Avenue about 40 feet away (distance scaled in the RF Report from Sheet A 1.1 of the drawings). The RF Report finds that the RF exposure from the Verizon antenna will comply with the prevailing standards for limiting public exposure to radio frequency energy, and therefore, will not for this reason cause a significant impact on the environment. TLF agrees with this finding. The RF Report contains the basic RF emissions data needed to independently evaluate planned compliance. Based on the power output levels and operating frequencies provided, Verizon’s 2.e Packet Pg. 341 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 145 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 17 of 21 Telecom Law Firm PC antennas would create a controlled access zone that extends approximately 34.4 feet from the face of the antenna at approximately 41.3 feet AGL. TLF calculated the far-field controlled access zone using RF effective radiated power per band information provided in the H&E report, and inserted those data into the FCC-approved formulae in FCC OET Bulletin 65 (No. 4 on page 19 and No. 5 on page 20). Given the sectorization of the RF emissions, TLF also considered structures along each transmission sector to the extent of the controlled zone. The controlled access zone extends horizontally from the antenna at the height of the antenna with as much as a 12° downtilt, with very little emissions that stray in any other direction, including towards ground level. In this case, the controlled access zone will be entirely located within publically-inaccessible airspace. TLF notes that this is a single sector site, with the emissions aimed at 170° TN. The emissions are oriented in nearly the opposite direction from 737 Loma Verde Avenue, and substantially over the roof of 734 Loma Verde Avenue. In fact, the controlled zone for the signal aimed towards 737 Loma Verde Avenue ends before the curb line, and considering the antenna down tilt, is entirely contained in inaccessible airspace above ground level. This site, as designed, will fully comply with the FCC’s RF emissions safety rules. [Balance of page intentionally left blank] 2.e Packet Pg. 342 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 145 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 18 of 21 Telecom Law Firm PC Figure 8: Direction and orientation of the active emissions (Source: Plans page A-2, Panel 1). [Balance of page intentionally left blank] 2.e Packet Pg. 343 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 145 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 19 of 21 Telecom Law Firm PC Figure 9: Existing site in the area about 100 feet away (Source: Photos from site visit November 2, 2017; annotated by Dr. J. Kramer). 2.e Packet Pg. 344 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 145 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 20 of 21 Telecom Law Firm PC The fact that a site creates a controlled access zone does not necessarily mean that it violates the FCC Guidelines. Rather, a controlled access zone means that the applicant must affirmatively restrict public access to that area so that members of the general population (including trespassers) cannot unknowingly enter and be exposed to radio emissions in excess of the limits prescribed by the FCC. Accordingly, the Applicant will be able to demonstrate planned compliance with the FCC Rules by applying the signage conditions shown in the RF Report, specifically: Signs should comply with OET-65 color, symbol, and content recommendations. Contact information should be provided (e.g., a telephone number) to arrange for access to restricted areas. The selection of language(s) is not an engineering matter, and guidance from the landlord, local zoning or health authority, or appropriate professionals may be required. Signage may also need to comply with the requirements of California Public Utilities Commission General Order No. 95. Practically, the Applicant proposes to situate a radio frequency (“RF”) warning sign 3-feet below the antenna, facing the climbing space. TLF proposes the following conditions to be included in any permit of approval for this project: 1. Permittee shall install and at all times maintain in good condition an “RF Notice” and network operations center contact information sign on the Pole immediately below the Bracket. Permittee shall install the signs required under this condition so that a person may clearly see the signs as he or she approaches the Pole. 2. Permittee shall install and at all times maintain in good condition an “RF Caution” on the bayonet three feet (3’) below the canister antenna so that a person may clearly see the sign as he or she approaches the canister antenna. 3. Permittee shall ensure that all radio frequency signage complies with FCC OET Bulletin 65 or ANSI C95.2 for color, symbol, and content conventions. All such signage shall at all times provide a working local or toll-free telephone number to its network operations center, and such telephone number shall be able to reach a live person who can exert transmitter power-down control over this site as required by the FCC. /JLK 2.e Packet Pg. 345 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 145 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 21 of 21 Telecom Law Firm PC EXHIBIT A List of Applicant-provided documents, received by the City on September 12, 2017, that were reviewed by TLF in preparation for this memorandum: 1. Plans dated August 30, 2017. 2. Photo Simulations. 3. Project Description for Cluster 1 dated September 8, 2017 that included the “Community Need for Small Cells”. 4. LSGAC Optional Checklist. 5. Statement of Hammett & Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers dated September 8, 2017. 2.e Packet Pg. 346 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 2001 S. Barrington Ave. • Suite 306 • Los Angeles • CA 90025 • T 310-312-9900 6986 La Jolla Boulevard • Suite 204 • La Jolla • CA 92037 • T 619-272-6200 TelecomLawFirm.com WIRELESS PLANNING MEMORANDUM TO: Ms. Rebecca Atkinson FROM: Dr. Jonathan Kramer DATE: November 29, 2017 RE: New Proposed Wireless Facility in the Public Right-of-Way adjacent to 181 El Verano Avenue- Cluster 1 (17PLN-00169) APPLICANT: Vinculums Services for Verizon Wireless APPLICANT’S ID: SF PALO ALTO 147 ADJ. APN: 132-27-072 UTILITY POLE ID: 1494 LOCATION CODE: 425251 CONFIGURATION: # 3 The City of Palo Alto (the “City”) requested that Telecom Law Firm, PC (“TLF”) review the Vinculums Services on behalf of GTE Mobilnet dba Verizon Wireless (“Applicant”) application on behalf of Verizon Wireless (“Verizon”) to operate a new wireless site on an existing wood utility pole (“Pole”), owned and operated by the City of Palo Alto Utilities (“CPAU”) located in the public right-of-way (“ROW”) adjacent to181 El Verano Avenue1. This memorandum reviews the application and related materials received by the City from the Applicant on September 12, 2017 that are listed in Exhibit A of this memorandum. This memorandum provides a project description, analysis and discussion of project design and design alternatives, planner compliance with federal radio frequency exposure guidelines established by the Federal Communications Commission. Although many technical issues implicate legal issues, the analysis and recommendations contained in this memorandum do not constitute legal advice. I. Project Description This section describes the proposed application as depicted in the plans dated August 30, 2017 (“Plans”) and submitted with the permit application, and described in Figure 1. The project description is inconsistent with the remaining pages of the Plans. The project description references that the Applicant proposes to install a new pole and does not reference the addition of a bayonet extension; however on the remaining pages of the Plans the Applicant references an existing wood utility pole to which it intends to add a bayonet extension. [Balance of page intentionally left blank] 1 TLF notes that Title page T-1 of the Plans project description mentions a new pole, however the remaining pages of the Plans depict a bayonet extension on the same existing pole. 2.e Packet Pg. 347 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 147 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 2 of 20 Telecom Law Firm PC Figure 1: Project description (Source: Plans; annotated by Dr. J. Kramer). Not as shown in Figure 1, but as shown on the Plans at Page A-3, panel 1, at top of the Pole the Applicant proposes to install a 7-foot tall bayonet extension arm (“Arm”) to support a 5-foot 1- inch tall canister antenna and cable cage affixed to the top of the Arm. The overall height of the Pole will remain at 38’10” above ground level (“AGL”), but the overall height of the final structure, including the Arm and canister, will increase to 50’11” AGL. The 7-foot Arm will separate the antenna from the highest existing primary power line by 7-feet, which meets the requirements of the California Public Utilities Commission (“CPUC”), General Order 95 (“GO 95”). The centerline of the proposed Verizon antenna is proposed to be at 48’10” AGL and the bottom of the canister antenna is at 46’8” AGL. This is a single sector site aimed at 125° True North with a beam down-tilt of 12° (“Sector B” shown in the Plans). TLF notes that there is no Sector A for this site. This may tend to get confusing. TLF recommends that the single sector be remained to reflect Sector A instead of Sector B. On the Pole, the Applicant proposes to install a 6” W x 11’ L aluminum channel mounting assembly bracket (“Bracket”) (top being at 18’10” AGL and bottom being at 8’2” feet AGL, 2.e Packet Pg. 348 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 147 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 3 of 20 Telecom Law Firm PC with a 7.5” standoff from the Pole) to support radio transmission and powering equipment on the Pole. On the Bracket the Applicant proposes to mount the following: • Two remote radio unit 32 (“RRU-32s”) with a power supply unit (“PSU”). • One remote radio unit 11 (“RRU-11”) with PSU. • Two antenna signal Diplexers. • One AC power Distribution Panel (with power shutdown and signage). • One fiber demarcation box (manufactured by Aria Tech or another vendor). The Plans depict that all Bracket mounted equipment will be above the CPUC GO-95 required 8- foot clearance from the ground. The Bracket and equipment, cables, and conduits on the Bracket will be painted “Clay Bath” by Kelly Moore KM4595 to blend in with the existing Pole. Additionally, the disconnect switch can be painted brown to reduce its visibility on the Pole. Page E-1, Panel 7 of the Plans depicts the entire grounding system from the antenna through the Bracket and associated equipment, down to and including the ground rod located in a new ground well adjacent to the Pole. [Balance of page intentionally left blank] 2.e Packet Pg. 349 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 147 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 4 of 20 Telecom Law Firm PC Figure 2 and Figure 3 are current photos of the existing pole without the proposed node. Figure 2: Current pole (Source: TLF site visit on November 2, 2017). 2.e Packet Pg. 350 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 147 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 5 of 20 Telecom Law Firm PC Figure 3: Close-up photo of the existing pole (Source: TLF site visit on November 2, 2017). 2.e Packet Pg. 351 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 147 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 6 of 20 Telecom Law Firm PC Figure 4 illustrates the overall design proposed by the Applicant of this Configuration 3 project. Figure 4: Canister antenna, bayonet extension, RF signage, Bracket, a total of three RRUs, DC converter and diplexers (Source: Plans page A-3.1, panel 1). 2.e Packet Pg. 352 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 147 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 7 of 20 Telecom Law Firm PC Figure 5 is a photo simulation of the overall design proposed by the Applicant of this Configuration 3 project. Figure 5: Photo simulation of proposed project (Source: Applicant’s Photo Sims). 2.e Packet Pg. 353 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 147 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 8 of 20 Telecom Law Firm PC TLF notes that the photo simulations provided by the Applicant, including the photo simulation in Figure 5, are underrepresented as to the actual visual impact of the proposed site. For example, they do not depict the RF signage on the bayonet and do not depict all the cabling from the antenna canister to the equipment and between the equipment on the Bracket. From the width of the equipment on the Bracket and the equipment attached thereto, it appears highly likely that the upper levels of equipment on the Bracket, specifically the RRU-32 with PSU, will physically interfere with existing cables on the pole. The Plans omit details of the likely conflicts, especially on Page A-3, panel 1, and Page A-3.1, panel 1. Additionally, TLF notes that the thick shrubbery immediately surrounding the Pole is omitted in the photo simulation. TLF recommends that the City determine whether any or all of that shrubbery may be permanently removed for this project to proceed. II. Discussion of Design Elements and Alternatives Even when an applicant claims a significant gap, as the Applicant claims it in its “Community Need for Small Cells” section of the Project Description for Cluster 1 (dated September 8, 2017), the Telecom Act does not grant the applicant rights to build whatever site or design it chooses. A jurisdiction may require a wireless applicant claiming a significant gap to construct a site using the “least intrusive means” to achieve their coverage objectives.2 This balances the national interest in deploying wireless services with the local interest in planned and orderly development. In the Ninth Circuit, the least intrusive means refers to the technically feasible and potentially available alternative design and location that most closely conforms to the local values a permit denial would otherwise serve.3 The Palo Alto Municipal Code (“PAMC”) Section 18.42.110 et seq expresses the local values that form the analytical baseline for considering approval of Wireless Communication Facilities (“WCF”). Based on PAMC 18.42.110(c)(3) the instant projects qualifies as a Tier 3 because it does not qualify under either Tier 1 project (eligible facilities request under Section 6409(a)) or Tier 2 project (a modification request that does not fit within the parameters of Tier 1). PAMC Section 18.42.110(d)(8) requires that an applicant show the maximum potential physical expansion of its site if approved. Pursuant to the FCC’s October 2014 Broadband Order interpreting 47 U.S.C. § 1455(a), once a wireless site exists, FCC rules allow for limited modifications and expansion of the wireless site. 2 See, e.g., American Tower Corp., 763 F.3d at 1056. 3 See id.; see also T-Mobile USA, Inc. v. City of Anacortes, 572 F.3d 987, 995 (9th Cir. 2009). 2.e Packet Pg. 354 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 147 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 9 of 20 Telecom Law Firm PC There are many federal and state factors that have to be considered to determine the possible future maximum expansion. Those factors include the type and design of the existing site to be modified, and the way the applicant wishes to modify the existing site. State regulations place additional physical safety limitations on the types of permissible modifications and expansions. For these reasons, it is not reasonably or usefully possible to take the current inchoate design to try and estimate possible but perhaps unlikely modifications and expansions. Finally, TLF has reviewed the Applicant’s response to PAMC Section 18.42.110(d)(8) (Attachment J – Statement Regarding Spectrum Act of the Applicant’s Project Description for Cluster 1 document dated September 8, 2017). Attachment J, Sections 1 and 2 echo TLF’s assessments above. TLF has no comment on Attachment J, Sections 3 and 4. TLF recommends this evaluation be revisited once the final design is settled. To be approved under PAMC 18.42.110(h) Tier 3, the process (h)(1) and findings (h)(2) required are: (1) A Tier 3 WCF Permit shall be reviewed by the Director. The Director's decision shall be appealable pursuant to the process for architectural review set forth in Section 18.77.070 and the process for conditional use permits set forth in Section 18.77.060. (2) The Director or Council on appeal shall grant a Tier 3 WCF Permit provided the proposed WCF complies with the development standards in Section 18.42.110(i) and the conditions of approval in Section 18.42.110(j), and all of the architectural review findings in Section 18.76.020(d) and the conditional use permit findings in Section 18.76.010(c) can be made. To be approved, the relevant findings for “Development Standards” in Section 18.42.110(i) must be made (our analysis is embedded in italics in each subsection): (1) Shall utilize the smallest footprint possible; “Footprint” is not a defined term in the PAMC Section 18.42.110(b). As proposed, this Pole-mounted project is likely to occupy the smallest “footprint” of ground space since the Pole width at ground level will not increase. (2) Shall be designed to minimize the overall height, mass, and size of the cabinet and enclosure structure; The overall height for a Pole-top antenna is controlled by CPUC GO 95 for separation from existing electrical power conductors. As proposed, this project’s mass and size of the equipment on the Bracket is not minimized because portions of the transmission equipment on the Bracket should be located underground adjacent to the Pole. 2.e Packet Pg. 355 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 147 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 10 of 20 Telecom Law Firm PC Although TLF has recommended undergrounding, should that solution not be adopted, there remain additional visual mitigations that may be applied, such as reducing the bulk and stand-off distance of the Bracket and equipment attached to the Bracket. (3) Shall be screened from public view; As proposed, this project is not screened from public view. Additionally, the direction that equipment faces, and accordingly the supporting Bracket, is a local decision. That said, GO 95 also impacts that face that may be used during to potential conflicts with a pole’s required climbing space. These are case-by-case issues, and there is not government standard to consider. Relatedly, if the bulk of the equipment is placed underground, then the size of the Bracket and the offset from the pole will be reduced thereby allowing greater orientation and placement options. (4) Shall be architecturally compatible with the existing site; This is a determination to be made by the Director as set out in the PAMC. (5) Shall be placed at a location that would not require the removal of any required landscaping or would reduce the quantity of landscaping to a level of noncompliance with the Zoning Code; This is a determination to be made by the Director as set out in the PAMC. Additionally, TLF is aware that the Applicant has discussed planting trees in a cohesive design intended to interrupt direct views of the equipment on the Bracket. (6) An antenna, base station, or tower shall be designed to minimize its visibility from off-site locations and shall be of a "camouflaged" or "stealth" design, including concealment, screening, and other techniques to hide or blend the antenna, base station, or tower into the surrounding area; As proposed, this project, other than the antenna canister, is not “designed to minimize its visibility from off-site locations and shall be of a ‘camouflaged’ or ‘stealth’ design, including concealment, screening, and other techniques to hide or blend the antenna, base station, or tower into the surrounding area.” The mass of the equipment located on the Bracket, which is offset from the Pole, is not camouflaged, screened, or stealthed merely by painting that mass a color similar to the Pole. When TLF conducted the site visits, the mock-up site across from 1350 Newell Road was also visited. TLF believes that the proposed shroud—while slightly improving the aesthetics of only the equipment on the Bracket, but not the Bracket itself—results in an increase in the visual bulk of the design. 2.e Packet Pg. 356 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 147 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 11 of 20 Telecom Law Firm PC A true minimization of the visibility of the project from off-site locations will occur by undergrounding most of the transmission equipment (RRU-32s with PSU, RRU-11 with PSU, diplexers and fiber demarcation box) in one or more flush-to-grade sidewalk vaults adjacent to the Pole. The equipment that would remain on the Pole would be associated with the electrical AC power service panel and the Pole-top bayonet extension supporting the antenna canister. See Figure 6. Undergrounding of equipment in flush-to-grade vaults will not increase the footprint of the site. (7) A building-mounted antenna, base station, or tower shall be architecturally compatible with the existing building on which the antenna, base station, or tower is attached; This finding is not applicable to the proposed project. (8) For any Tier 2 or Tier 3 WCF proposed to be attached on an historic structure/site, as designated by Chapter 16.49, historic review shall also be required; Although this project is for a Tier 3 WCF, it does not appear that the project site (a wood pole) is a historic structure/site. (9) Except as otherwise permitted by the Spectrum Act, a building-mounted WCF may extend fifteen (15) feet beyond the permitted height of the building in the zone district; This finding is not applicable to the proposed project. (10) Except as otherwise permitted by the Spectrum Act, a tower or other stand-alone Tier 3 WCF Project shall not exceed sixty-five (65) feet in height; and The proposed project does not exceed 65 feet in height. (11) A tower or other stand-alone Tier 3 WCF may encroach into the interior/street side and rear setback. This finding is not applicable to the proposed project. [Balance of page intentionally left blank] 2.e Packet Pg. 357 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 147 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 12 of 20 Telecom Law Firm PC Figure 6: Reduction of the visibility of Pole mounted antenna associated equipment to be removed from the Pole, such as the two RRU32s, RRU11, and fiber demarcation enclosure (marked with red “x”s) to be placed in a flush- to-grade sidewalk vault adjacent to the Pole (Source: Applicant photo simulations, annotated by Dr. J. Kramer). TLF measured the width of the sidewalk on the November 2, 2017 during the site visit. The width of the sidewalk is 5 feet. However, TLF notes that there is overgrowth of plants on the sidewalk, See Figure 7. In the event that a potential underground vault is approved, TLF recommends that the City condition the maintenance of the plants on the sidewalk. Potential Underground Vault Proposed bayonet to remain on Pole Proposed AC power distribution panel to stay on Pole Proposed antenna canister to remain on Pole 2.e Packet Pg. 358 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 147 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 13 of 20 Telecom Law Firm PC As well as the substantial aesthetic improvements resulting from undergrounding at this site, that approach also resolves the likely equipment to cable conflict discussed above. The utility vault manufacturing industry has been adapting existing vault designs to the small volumetric needs of small cells. TLF understands that vaults from leading vault manufacturers can be readily provided for the volume of equipment the Applicant is proposing. Whatever vault size is preferred, TLF recommends that the vault be placed beneath the existing sidewalk wherever possible and utilize flush-to-grade vents. Based on Plans and the equipment that TLF believes may be undergrounded, and considering that this sidewalk is 5 feet in width, a 10 to 15 cubic foot vault would seem to be both reasonable and sufficient. Dimensions obtained from Plans page D-1 • Two remote radio unit 32 (“RRU-32s”) (27.2” H x 12” W x 7” D) with a power supply unit (“PSU”). • One remote radio unit 11 (“RRU-11”) (19.67” H x 16.97” W x 7.2” D) with PSU. • Two antenna signal Diplexers (8.3” H x 4.6” W x 1.8” D) • One fiber demarcation box (Aria Tech dimensions(8.54”H x10”W x2.88”D) Based on the Plans, the applicant proposes to install equipment (other than the antennas, the DC power disconnect switch, and the equipment Bracket) occupying approximately 7.25 to 10 cubic feet of space. TLF believes the equipment occupying up to 10 cubic feet should be placed in a flush-to-grade vault. No over excavations are foreseen at this time by TLF. If one or more underground vaults are approved by the City, TLF recommends that the vault be placed outside of the drip line of adjacent trees, and the vault lid be: • Non-skid material. • Painted to match the sidewalk to minimize visual impact. • Locked at all time unless active maintenance is occurring. 2.e Packet Pg. 359 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 147 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 14 of 20 Telecom Law Firm PC Figure 7: Overgrowth of plants on sidewalk (Source: TLF site visit November 2, 2017). III. Planned RF Compliance Evaluation Under the Telecom Act, the FCC completely occupies the field with respect to RF emissions regulation. The FCC established comprehensive rules for human exposure to RF emissions (the “FCC Guidelines”).4 State and local governments cannot regulate wireless facilities based on environmental effects from RF emissions to the extent that the emissions comply with the FCC Guidelines.5 4 See 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(iv); see also 47 C.F.R. § 1.1307 et seq.; FCC Office of Engineering and Technology, Evaluating Compliance with FCC Guidelines for Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields, OET Bulletin 65, ed. 97-01 (1997). 5 See 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(iv). 2.e Packet Pg. 360 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 147 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 15 of 20 Telecom Law Firm PC Although localities cannot establish their own standards for RF exposure, local officials may require wireless applicants to demonstrate compliance with the FCC Guidelines.6 Such demonstrations usually involve a predictive calculation because the site has not yet been built. i. FCC Guidelines, Categorical Exclusions and Exposure Mitigation Measures FCC Guidelines regulate exposure rather than emissions.7 Although the FCC establishes a maximum permissible exposure (“MPE”) limit, it does not mandate any specific limitations on power levels applicable to all antennas and requires the antenna operator to adopt exposure- mitigation measures only to the extent that certain persons might become exposed to the emissions. Thus, a relatively low-powered site in proximity to the general population might require more comprehensive mitigation measures than a relatively high-powered site in a remote location accessible only to trained personnel. The MPE limit also differentiates between members of “general population” and “occupational” wireless site workers. Virtually all people fall into the general population class, which includes anyone who either does not know about potential exposure or knows about the exposure but cannot exert control over the transmitters.8 The narrower occupational class includes persons knowingly exposed to RF fields through their employment and are able to exert control over their exposure.9 The MPE limit for the general population is five times lower than the MPE limit for the occupational class. Lastly, the FCC “categorically excludes” certain antennas from routine environmental review when either (1) the antennas create exposures in areas virtually inaccessible to humans or (2) the antennas operate at extreme low power. As a general rule, a wireless site qualified for a categorical exclusion when mounted on a structure built solely or primarily to support FCC- licensed or authorized equipment (i.e., a tower) and such that the lowest point on the lowest transmitter is more than 10 meters (32.8 feet) above ground.10 Categorical exclusions establish a presumption that the emissions from the antennas will not significantly impact humans or the human environment. Such antennas are exempt from routine compliance evaluations but not exempt from actual compliance. Under some circumstances, such as a heavily collocated tower or when the transmissions are in close proximity to general population members, even a categorically excluded site will require additional analysis. 6 See In re Procedures for Reviewing Requests for Relief from State and Local Regulations Pursuant to Section 332(c)(7)(B)(iv) of the Communications Act of 1934, Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd. 22821, 22828–22829 (Nov. 13, 2000) (declining to adopt rules that limit local authority to require compliance demonstrations). 7 See generally Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Fields: Guidelines for Cellular and PCS Sites, Consumer Guide, FCC (Oct. 22, 2014), available at https://www.fcc.gov/guides/human-exposure-rf-fields-guidelines-cellular- and-pcs-sites (discussing in general terms how wireless sites transmit and how the FCC regulates the emissions). 8 See 47 C.F.R. § 1.1310, Note 2. 9 See id. 10 See id. § 1.1307(b)(1). 2.e Packet Pg. 361 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 147 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 16 of 20 Telecom Law Firm PC ii. Planned Compliance Evaluation and Recommendations The FCC Guidelines do not categorically exclude Verizon’s proposal because Verizon proposes to mount the antenna canister on an existing pole that was constructed primarily to transport legacy non-wireless utilities. Therefore, an additional analysis is necessary to determine whether the proposed antenna will demonstrate planned compliance with the FCC Guidelines. TLF notes that Verizon submitted an FCC LSGAC Optional Checklist (“LSGAC”) which discloses that the site is categorically excluded (Box 16 is checked off). This check-off is incorrect because, as mentioned above, this site is not a categorically excluded site. However, in addition to the LSGAC, the Applicant submitted a Statement of Hammett & Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers dated September 8, 2017 (the “RF Report”). The RF Report discloses that: • Verizon proposes to install one Amphenol Model CUUT070X12Fxyz0 tri-directional antenna. • The antenna will employ up to 12° of signal transmission downtilt. • The single sector of transmissions (Sector B in the Plans) will be oriented towards 125° TN. See Figure 8. • The maximum effective radiated power (“ERP”) will be 7,700 watts (representing simultaneous operation at 3,680 watts for AWS, 3,320 watts for PCS and 700 watts for 700 MHz service). • There are no other reported wireless base stations within 100 feet of the site. • For a person anywhere at ground, the maximum RF exposure level is calculated to be 0.015 mW/cm2 which is 2.4% of the applicable FCC general population public exposure limit. • The maximum calculated level at the second-floor elevation of any nearby residence is 3.4 % of the public exposure limit, occurring at the residence at 180 El Verano Avenue about 60 feet away (distance scaled in the RF Report from Sheet A-1.1 of the drawings). • The maximum calculated level at the third-floor elevation of any nearby residence is 0.029 % of the public exposure limit, occurring at the residence at 181 El Verano Avenue about 20 feet away (distance scaled in the RF Report from Sheet A-1.1 of the drawings). The RF Report finds that the RF exposure from the Verizon antenna will comply with the prevailing standards for limiting public exposure to radio frequency energy, and therefore, will not for this reason cause a significant impact on the environment. TLF agrees with this finding. The RF Report contains the basic RF emissions data needed to independently evaluate planned compliance. Based on the power output levels and operating frequencies provided, Verizon’s antennas would create a controlled access zone that extends approximately 34.4 feet from the face of the antenna at approximately 46’10” feet AGL. TLF calculated the far-field controlled access zone using RF effective radiated power per band information provided in the H&E report, and inserted those data into the FCC-approved formulae 2.e Packet Pg. 362 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 147 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 17 of 20 Telecom Law Firm PC in FCC OET Bulletin 65 (No. 4 on page 19 and No. 5 on page 20). Given the sectorization of the RF emissions, TLF also considered structures along each transmission sector to the extent of the controlled zone. The controlled access zone extends horizontally from the antenna at the height of the antenna with as much as a 12° downtilt, with very little emissions that stray in any other direction, including towards ground level. In this case, the controlled access zone will be entirely located within publically-inaccessible airspace. TLF notes, as discussed above, that this is a single sector site, with the emissions aimed at 125° TN. The emissions are oriented in nearly the opposite direction from the 2-story residence at 3285-3297 Alma Street. This site, as designed, will fully comply with the FCC’s RF emissions safety rules. [Balance of page intentionally left blank] 2.e Packet Pg. 363 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 147 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 18 of 20 Telecom Law Firm PC Figure 8: Direction and orientation of the active emissions (Source: Plans page A-2, Panel 1). The fact that a site creates a controlled access zone does not necessarily mean that it violates the FCC Guidelines. Rather, a controlled access zone means that the applicant must affirmatively restrict public access to that area so that members of the general population (including trespassers) cannot unknowingly enter and be exposed to radio emissions in excess of the limits prescribed by the FCC. Accordingly, the Applicant will be able to demonstrate planned compliance with the FCC Rules by applying the signage conditions shown in the RF Report, specifically: 2.e Packet Pg. 364 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 147 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 19 of 20 Telecom Law Firm PC Signs should comply with OET-65 color, symbol, and content recommendations. Contact information should be provided (e.g., a telephone number) to arrange for access to restricted areas. The selection of language(s) is not an engineering matter, and guidance from the landlord, local zoning or health authority, or appropriate professionals may be required. Signage may also need to comply with the requirements of California Public Utilities Commission General Order No. 95. Practically, the Applicant proposes to situate a radio frequency (“RF”) warning sign 3-feet below the antenna, facing the climbing space. TLF proposes the following conditions to be included in any permit of approval for this project: 1. Permittee shall install and at all times maintain in good condition an “RF Notice” and network operations center contact information sign on the Pole immediately below the Bracket. Permittee shall install the signs required under this condition so that a person may clearly see the signs as he or she approaches the Pole. 2. Permittee shall install and at all times maintain in good condition an “RF Caution” on the bayonet three feet (3’) below the canister antenna so that a person may clearly see the sign as he or she approaches the canister antenna. 3. Permittee shall ensure that all radio frequency signage complies with FCC OET Bulletin 65 or ANSI C95.2 for color, symbol, and content conventions. All such signage shall at all times provide a working local or toll-free telephone number to its network operations center, and such telephone number shall be able to reach a live person who can exert transmitter power-down control over this site as required by the FCC. /JLK 2.e Packet Pg. 365 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson Node 147 (Vinculums for VZW) November 29, 2017 Page 20 of 20 Telecom Law Firm PC EXHIBIT A List of Applicant-provided documents, received by the City on September 12, 2017, that were reviewed by TLF in preparation for this memorandum: 1. Plans dated August 30, 2017. 2. Photo Simulations. 3. Project Description for Cluster 1 dated September 8, 2017 that included the “Community Need for Small Cells”. 4. LSGAC Optional Checklist. 5. Statement of Hammett & Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers dated September 8, 2017. 2.e Packet Pg. 366 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : T e l e c o m L a w F i r m P C M e m o r a n d u m s , d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Attachment F Project Plans Hardcopies of project plans are provided to ARB Members. These plans are available to the public online and by visiting the Planning and Community Environmental Department on the 5th floor of City Hall at 250 Hamilton Avenue. Directions to review Project plans online: 1. Go to: https://paloalto.buildingeye.com/planning 2. Search for “250 Hamilton Avenue” and open the record for 17PLN-00169 by clicking on the green dot 3. Review the record details and open the “more details” option 4. Use the “Records Info” drop down menu and select “Attachments” 5. Open the attachments named: “17PLN-00169 Cluster 1 Resubmittal Plans 09-12-17 1 of 5” “17PLN-00169 Cluster 1 Resubmittal Plans 09-12-17 2 of 5” “17PLN-00169 Cluster 1 Resubmittal Plans 09-12-17 3 of 5” “17PLN-00169 Cluster 1 Resubmittal Plans 09-12-17 4 of 5” “17PLN-00169 Cluster 1 Resubmittal Plans 09-12-17 5 of 5” More information can also be found on the City’s project webpage: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=3999&TargetID=319 Note: The address for this application 17PLN-00169 is listed in the City’s permit tracking system under 250 Hamilton Avenue because the utility poles and streetlights that are proposed to host the small cell deployment nodes are identified by unique pole numbers and do not have specific property addresses. 2.f Packet Pg. 367 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t F : P r o j e c t P l a n s S e p t e m b e r 1 2 2 0 1 7 ( 8 3 1 0 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 ( 1 s t F o r m a l ) ) Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 8595) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 12/7/2017 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 180 Hamilton Ave: Nobu Exterior Remodel (2nd Formal) Title: PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 180 Hamilton Avenue (17PLN-00171): Consideration of a Minor Architectural Review to Allow for Exterior Improvements to an Existing Hotel. The Proposed Changes Include: Replacing the Ground Floor Store Fronts Along the Hamilton Avenue and Emerson Street Entries, Replacing the Existing Awning at the Emerson Street Entry, New Façade, Finishes on the First Floor and Part of the Second Floor, and Sidewalk Improvements. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Guideline Section 15301 (Existing Facilities). Zoning District: CD-C(GF)(P) (Downtown Commercial). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Samuel Gutierrez at samuel.gutierrez@cityofpaloalto.org. From: Hillary Gitelman Recommendation Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) take the following action(s): 1. Recommend approval of the proposed project to the Director of Planning and Community Environment based on findings and subject to conditions of approval. Report Summary The subject project was previously reviewed by the ARB. An earlier staff report includes extensive background information, project analysis and evaluation to city codes and policies; that report is available online at http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/61811. A copy of the report without prior attachments is available in Attachment E. 3 Packet Pg. 368 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 The purpose of this report is to restate the comments made by the Board and detail the applicant’s response to those comments. The analysis section below builds upon the information contained in the earlier report and modifications to reflect recent project changes. Background On October 5, 2017 the ARB reviewed the project. A video recording of the Board’s meeting is available online at http://midpenmedia.org/architectural-review-board-71/. The Board’s comments and the applicant’s response are summarized in the following table: ARB Comments/Direction Applicant Response Consider improvements to the sidewalk and planting strip along Emerson within the overall project. New tree, landscaping, planter box, and sidewalk grade corrections have been included in the revised plan set. Fire rating of the proposed wood panels The plans have been revised to remove the previous teak material; the existing wood panels will remain unchanged. Provide a full rendering of the façade for both 180 Hamilton and 620 Emerson which depicts how the two facades will relate to one another. A rendering which includes both facades is provided in the plan set. Analysis1 The Board was generally supportive of the project and encouraged the applicant to explore sidewalk improvements to benefit the project and pedestrian movement. The updated plans reflect applicant and City departments’ interests to improve the sidewalk. The project now includes a planter box that wraps around the corner of the building at the Hamilton and Emerson intersection, as well as one replacement tree on Emerson and improved sidewalk along the building frontage on Emerson. The existing tree well will be reduced in width and length and the remaining area will have additional landscaping. A Board suggestion for tree grates is not supported by the City’s Urban Forestry Division based on the tree species at this location and its tendency for roots to protrude above the ground. The Board suggestion for street furniture and up-lighting is also not supported by the applicant and the City’s Public Works Department has concerns for such improvements within the public right-of-way. Up-lighting could be considered for a portion of the building nearest the intersection where the building is recessed, but there is insufficient room beyond this area for in ground lighting on private property. Public Works does not support in ground lighting on public property. Planning Staff similarly agrees that the sidewalk area at this well-traveled 1 The information provided in this section is based on analysis prepared by the report author prior to the public hearing. The Architectural Review Board in its review of the administrative record and based on public testimony may reach a different conclusion from that presented in this report and may choose to take an alternative action from the recommendation in this report. 3 Packet Pg. 369 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 intersection should be reserved for people movement and not reduced to accommodate street furniture. Environmental Review The subject project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City. The proposed changes to the exterior of the existing hotel would be categorically exempt from the provision of CEQA under Guideline Section 15301 (Existing Facilities). Public Notification, Outreach & Comments The Palo Alto Municipal Code requires notice of this public hearing be published in a local paper and mailed to owners and occupants of property within 600 feet of the subject property at least ten days in advance. Notice of a public hearing for this project was published in the Palo Alto Weekly on November 24, 2017 which is 13 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on November 22, 2017, which is 15 days in advance of the meeting. Public Comments As of the writing of this report, no project related public comments have been received. Alternative Actions In addition to the recommended action, the Architectural Review Board may: 1. Approve the project with modified findings or conditions; 2. Continue the project to a date (un)certain; or 3. Recommend project denial based on revised findings Report Author & Contact Information ARB2 Liaison & Contact Information Samuel Gutierrez, Associate Planner Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager (650) 329-2225 (650) 329-2575 samuel.gutierrez@cityofpaloalto.org jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments: Attachment A: Location Map (PDF) Attachment B: Draft ARB Findings with new CP Goals and Policies SEE TRACK CHANGES IN STAFF REPORT (DOCX) Attachment C: Draft Conditions of Approval (DOCX) Attachment D: Applicant Response Letter (PDF) Attachment E: October 5, 2017 Staff Report w/o attachments (PDF) Attachment F: Project Plans (DOCX) 2 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org 3 Packet Pg. 370 3.a Packet Pg. 371 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t A : L o c a t i o n M a p ( 8 5 9 5 : 1 8 0 H a m i l t o n A v e : N o b u E x t e r i o r R e m o d e l ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) ATTACHMENT B ARB FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL 180 Hamilton Avenue 17PLN-00171 The design and architecture of the proposed improvements, as conditioned, complies with the Findings for Architectural Review as required in Chapter 18.76 of the PAMC. Finding #1: The design is consistent with applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code, coordinated area plans (including compatibility requirements), and any relevant design guides. The project would need to be found in conformance with the following Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies. Comp Plan Goals and Policies How project adheres or does not adhere to Comp Plan The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the site is Regional Commercial. The project continues the Regional Commercial land use. Land Use and Community Design Element POLICY B-20: Support and enhance the University Avenue/Downtown area as a vital mixed use area containing retail, personal service, office, restaurant, and entertainment uses. Recognize the importance of an appropriate retail mix, including small local businesses, to the continued vitality of Downtown. The proposal will not change the existing use which is a hotel with a restaurant that is open to the general public, maintaining the mixture of business services offered within the area. Policy L-5.3: Design paths and sidewalks to be attractive and comfortable and consistent with the character of the area where they are located. The proposal includes upgrades to the sidewalk along the Emerson façade which will improve the visual appeal of the sidewalk, making it more compatible with the surrounding areas sidewalks. POLICY B-6: Maintain distinct neighborhood shopping areas that are attractive, accessible, and convenient to nearby residents. POLICY L-4.2: Encourage street frontages that contribute to retail vitality in all Centers. Reinforce street corners in a way that enhances the pedestrian realm or that form corner plazas. Include trees and landscaping. The proposal incorporates upgrades to the façade and public right of way which will enhance the existing street scape along at the Hamilton Avenue and Emerson Street intersection. 3.b Packet Pg. 372 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : D r a f t A R B F i n d i n g s w i t h n e w C P G o a l s a n d P o l i c i e s S E E T R A C K C H A N G E S I N S T A F F R E P O R T ( 8 5 9 5 : 1 8 0 POLICY B-3: Recognize that Palo Alto’s street tree system is an economic asset to the City. POLICY L-4.3: Ensure all Regional Centers and Multi-Neighborhood Centers provide centrally located gathering spaces that create a sense of identity and encourage economic revitalization. Encourage public amenities such as benches, street trees, kiosks, restrooms and public art. GOAL L-4: Inviting pedestrian scale centers that offer a variety of retail and commercial services and provide focal points and community gathering places for the city’s residential neighborhoods and employment districts. POLICY L-2.10: Facilitate reuse of existing buildings. POLICY L-4.5: Maintain and enhance the University Avenue/Downtown area as a major commercial center of the City, with a mix of commercial, civic, cultural, recreational and residential uses. Promote quality design that recognizes the regional and historical importance of the area and reinforces its pedestrian character. POLICY L-4.6: Ensure that University Avenue/Downtown is pedestrian-friendly and supports bicycle use. Use public art, trees, bicycle racks and other amenities to create an environment that is inviting to pedestrians and bicyclists. GOAL L-6: Well-designed Buildings that Create Coherent Development Patterns and Enhance City Streets and Public Spaces. The proposal will involve planting new landscaping within the public right of way and installation of a new street tree to enhance the intersection for pedestrian traffic. The proposals new façade will tie the Hamilton frontage to the Emerson frontage, creating a cohesively designed ground floor. The proposal involves the renovation of a prominent building within the Downtown, upgrading the façade while maintaining the existing restaurant and hotel uses, continuing the mixture of commercial services offered in the area. New landscaping is proposed which will enhance the public right of way, along with a new awning which will maintain a pedestrian refuge from the elements. The new façade will have a light textured stone façade lit from above, providing human-scale character to the ground floor. The project would remain consistent with the zoning requirements for hotel uses and will not increase the level of nonconformity in regards to height, floor area ratio, setbacks, daylight planes and lot coverage as the project involves only exterior cosmetic changes to the existing building along with sidewalk improvements. 3.b Packet Pg. 373 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : D r a f t A R B F i n d i n g s w i t h n e w C P G o a l s a n d P o l i c i e s S E E T R A C K C H A N G E S I N S T A F F R E P O R T ( 8 5 9 5 : 1 8 0 Finding #2: The project has a unified and coherent design, that: a. creates an internal sense of order and desirable environment for occupants, visitors, and the general community, b. preserves, respects and integrates existing natural features that contribute positively to the site and the historic character including historic resources of the area when relevant, c. is consistent with the context-based design criteria of the applicable zone district, d. provides harmonious transitions in scale, mass and character to adjacent land uses and land use designations, e. enhances living conditions on the site (if it includes residential uses) and in adjacent residential areas. The project is proposing façade improvements along with sidewalk improvement that will enhance the local environment for the community and patrons to the local businesses alike. The enhancements to the public right of way are consistent with the context-based design criteria within the CD-C(GF)(P) zone. In addition, the project will integrate the interior design of the hotel and restaurant with the proposed exterior façade changes to connect the building with the street. The proposal will maintain the existing footprint of the building and will not increase the massing or encroach on any setbacks, preserving the pedestrian scale of the area. Pursuant to PAMC 18.16.090(b), the following context-based design considerations and findings are applicable to this project. These context-based design criteria are intended to provide additional standards to be used in the design and evaluation of development in a commercial district. The purpose is to encourage development in a commercial district to be responsible to its context and compatibility with adjacent development as well as to promote the establishment of pedestrian oriented design. 1. Pedestrian and Bicycle Environment Project Consistency The design of new projects shall promote pedestrian walkability, a bicycle friendly environment, and connectivity through design elements The project will improve the conditions along the sidewalk with new planting and sidewalk leveling to allow a consistent grade for pedestrians. 2. Street Building Facades Street facades shall be designed to provide a strong relationship with the sidewalk and the street (s), to create an environment that supports and encourages pedestrian activity through design elements The proposed changes to the building include a new canopy for shelter and maintenance of the Hamilton façade that is primarily open to the interior of the restaurant to support a connection with the street and pedestrians. 3. Massing and Setbacks Buildings shall be designed to minimize massing and conform to proper setbacks The proposed project will not change the existing buildings massing and/or setbacks. 4. Low Density Residential Transitions Where new projects are built abutting existing lower scale residential development, care shall be This finding does not apply. 3.b Packet Pg. 374 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : D r a f t A R B F i n d i n g s w i t h n e w C P G o a l s a n d P o l i c i e s S E E T R A C K C H A N G E S I N S T A F F R E P O R T ( 8 5 9 5 : 1 8 0 taken to respect the scale and privacy of neighboring properties 5. Project Open Space Private and public open space shall be provided so that it is usable for the residents and visitors of the site This finding does not apply. 6. Parking Design Parking shall be accommodated but shall not be allowed to overwhelm the character of the project or detract from the pedestrian environment The proposed project will not change the existing parking which is provided off-site. 7. Large Multi-Acre Sites Large sites (over one acre) shall be designed so that street, block, and building patterns are consistent with those of the surrounding neighborhood This finding does not apply 8. Sustainability and Green Building Design Project design and materials to achieve sustainability and green building design should be incorporated into the project The project will utilize energy efficient LED lighting and natural materials such as stone, brass, and wood which are readily recyclable. Finding #3: The design is of high aesthetic quality, using high quality, integrated materials and appropriate construction techniques, and incorporating textures, colors, and other details that are compatible with and enhance the surrounding area. The project involves materials which are durable and of high quality finishes. The new façade will have a light colored textured stone finish which will brighten the intersection during the morning and evening hours. In addition, new planter boxes will increase the volume of landscaping along the public right of way which will enhance the character of the surrounding area. Finding #4: The design is functional, allowing for ease and safety of pedestrian and bicycle traffic and providing for elements that support the building’s necessary operations (e.g. convenient vehicle access to property and utilities, appropriate arrangement and amount of open space and integrated signage, if applicable, etc.). The project will partially increase the pedestrian right of way by providing additional landing areas within the upgraded planter area that is directly adjacent to the corner intersection of Hamilton Ave. and Emerson Street. This will ease pedestrian travel along the Emerson sidewalk. Finding #5: The landscape design complements and enhances the building design and its surroundings, is appropriate to the site’s functions, and utilizes to the extent practical, regional 3.b Packet Pg. 375 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : D r a f t A R B F i n d i n g s w i t h n e w C P G o a l s a n d P o l i c i e s S E E T R A C K C H A N G E S I N S T A F F R E P O R T ( 8 5 9 5 : 1 8 0 indigenous drought resistant plant material capable of providing desirable habitat that can be appropriately maintained. The project will plant a new street tree which would fare better in the downtown environment and will contribute to the overall tree canopy of the City. The proposed new tree will be an Evergreen Catalina Ironwood which is drought resistant. Finding #6: The project incorporates design principles that achieve sustainability in areas related to energy efficiency, water conservation, building materials, landscaping, and site planning. The project will utilize energy efficient LED lighting, and natural building materials such as stone and wood. The project will utilize landscaping which requires low water usage and will conserve water via efficient irrigation. 3.b Packet Pg. 376 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : D r a f t A R B F i n d i n g s w i t h n e w C P G o a l s a n d P o l i c i e s S E E T R A C K C H A N G E S I N S T A F F R E P O R T ( 8 5 9 5 : 1 8 0 ATTACHMENT C CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 180 Hamilton Ave 17PLN-00171 ________________________________________________________________________ PLANNING DIVISION 1. CONFORMANCE WITH PLANS. Construction and development shall conform to the approved plans entitled, " NOBU PALO ALTO hotel” stamped as received by the City on November 1st, 2017 on file with the Planning Department, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California except as modified by these conditions of approval. 2. BUILDING PERMIT. Apply for a building permit and meet any and all conditions of the Planning, Fire, Public Works, and Building Departments. 3. BUILDING PERMIT PLAN SET. The ARB approval letter including all Department conditions of approval for the project shall be printed on the plans submitted for building permit. 4. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS: All modifications to the approved project shall be submitted for review and approval prior to construction. If during the Building Permit review and construction phase, the project is modified by the applicant, it is the responsibility of the applicant to contact the Planning Division/project planner directly to obtain approval of the project modification. It is the applicant’s responsibility to highlight any proposed changes to the project and to bring it to the project planner’s attention. 5. PROJECT EXPIRATION. The project approval shall be valid for a period of one year from the original date of approval. In the event a building permit(s), if applicable, is not secured for the project within the time limit specified above, the ARB approval shall expire and be of no further force or effect. Application for extension of this entitlement may be made prior to the one year expiration. 6. TREE REPLACEMENT: One new street tree shall be planted to replace declining tree that exists outside of the Emerson Street entrance of the hotel. The new tree shall be a 24 inch box evergreen Catalina Ironwood or equivalent, to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning. 7. LANDSCAPING: New landscaping within the oversize planter strip along the Emerson frontage shall have an irrigation system installed in order ensure sufficient watering of the new landscaping and the existing street tree. 8. INDEMNITY: To the extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the “indemnified parties”) from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties 3.c Packet Pg. 377 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t C : D r a f t C o n d i t i o n s o f A p p r o v a l ( 8 5 9 5 : 1 8 0 H a m i l t o n A v e : N o b u E x t e r i o r R e m o d e l ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) and the applicant to attack, set aside or void, any permit or approval authorized hereby for the Project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City for its actual attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its own choice. 9. FINAL INSPECTION: A Planning Division Final inspection will be required to determine substantial compliance with the approved plans prior to the scheduling of a Building Division final. Any revisions during the building process must be approved by Planning, including but not limited to; materials, landscaping and hard surface locations. Contact your Project Planner, Samuel Gutierrez at samuel.gutierrez@cityofpaloalto.org to schedule this inspection. PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEERING 10. SIGNS: If the installation of the sign will require the installer to occupy the public sidewalk, add a note to the plans that says, “Installation of the signs must be done in a manner that is safe for pedestrians using the public sidewalk. The work area must be coned or taped off.” 11. Provide the following note on the Site Plan and adjacent to the work within the Public road right- of-way. “Any construction within the city’s public road right-of-way shall have an approved Permit for Construction in the Public Street prior to commencement of this work. THE PERFORMANCE OF THIS WORK IS NOT AUTHORIZED BY THE BUILDING PERMIT ISSUANCE BUT SHOWN ON THE BUILDING PERMIT FOR INFORMATION ONLY.” 12. Provide the following note on the Site Plan: “Contractor shall not stage, store, or stockpile any material or equipment within the public road right-of-way.” Construction phasing shall be coordinate to keep materials and equipment onsite. 13. SIDEWALK ENCROACHMENT: Add a note to the building permit plan set that says, “The contractor using the city sidewalk to work on an adjacent private building must do so in a manner that is safe for pedestrians using the sidewalk. The work area must be coned or taped off while still leaving at least 4 feet of sidewalk for pedestrian use. If less than 4 feet of sidewalk is available for pedestrians, the contractor must obtain an encroachment permit from Public Works to close the sidewalk.” 14. STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION: The City's full-sized "Pollution Prevention - It's Part of the Plan" sheet must be included in the plan set. Copies are available from Public Works on our website http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/2732 15. Provide the following as a note on the Site Plan: “The contractor may be required to submit a logistics plan to the Public Works Department prior to commencing work that addresses all impacts to the City’s right-of-way, including, but not limited to: pedestrian control, traffic control, truck routes, material deliveries, contractor’s parking, concrete pours, crane lifts, work hours, noise control, dust control, storm water pollution prevention, contractor’s contact, noticing of affected surrounding properties , and schedule of work. The requirement to submit 3.c Packet Pg. 378 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t C : D r a f t C o n d i t i o n s o f A p p r o v a l ( 8 5 9 5 : 1 8 0 H a m i l t o n A v e : N o b u E x t e r i o r R e m o d e l ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) a logistics plan will be dependent on the number of applications Public Works Engineering receives within close proximity to help mitigate and control the impact to the public-right-of- way. If necessary, Public Works may require a Logistics Plan during construction.” 16. STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION: The City's full-sized "Pollution Prevention - It's Part of the Plan" sheet must be included in the plan set. The sheet is available here: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/2732 17. SIDEWALK, CURB & GUTTER: As part of this project, the applicant shall replace those portions of the existing sidewalks, curbs, gutters or driveway approaches in the public right-of-way along the frontage(s) of the property. Contact Public Works’ inspector at 650-496-6929 to arrange a site visit so that the inspector can discuss the extent of replacement work along the public road. The site plan submitted with the building permit plan set must show the extent of the replacement work. The plan must note that any work in the right-of-way must be done per Public Works’ standards by a licensed contractor who must first obtain a Street Work Permit from Public Works at the Development Center. PUBLIC WORKS URBAN FORESTRY SECTION PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT ISSUANCE 18. Plans shall show at all street trees, Type III tree protection, include T-1 with TDS form completed. 19. Include a Landscape Plan. Show all planter details, plant species, irrigation method and specifically drainage directed into on-site areas to avoid the public sidewalk. DURING CONSTRUCTION (from Part 4-Tree Index) 20. PLAN CHANGES. Revisions and/or changes to plans affecting trees before or during construction shall be reviewed and responded to by the landscape architect with written letter of acceptance before submitting the revision to the Building Department for review by Planning, PW or Urban Forestry. 21. TREE PROTECTION COMPLIANCE. The owner and contractor shall implement all protection and inspection schedule measures, design recommendations and construction scheduling as stated in the TPR & Sheet T-1, and is subject to code compliance action pursuant to PAMC 8.10.080. The required protective fencing shall remain in place until final landscaping and inspection of the project. Project arborist approval must be obtained and documented in the monthly activity report sent to the City. The mandatory Contractor and Arborist Monthly Tree Activity Report shall be sent monthly to the City (pwps@cityofpaloalto.org) beginning with the initial verification approval, using the template in the Tree Technical Manual, Addendum 11. 22. TREE DAMAGE. Tree Damage, Injury Mitigation and Inspections apply to Contractor. Reporting, injury mitigation measures and arborist inspection schedule (1-5) apply pursuant to TTM, 3.c Packet Pg. 379 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t C : D r a f t C o n d i t i o n s o f A p p r o v a l ( 8 5 9 5 : 1 8 0 H a m i l t o n A v e : N o b u E x t e r i o r R e m o d e l ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) Section 2.20-2.30. Contractor shall be responsible for the repair or replacement of any publicly owned or protected trees that are damaged during the course of construction, pursuant to Title 8 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, and city Tree Technical Manual, Section 2.25. 23. GENERAL. The following general tree preservation measures apply to all trees to be retained: No storage of material, topsoil, vehicles or equipment shall be permitted within the tree enclosure area. The ground under and around the tree canopy area shall not be altered. Trees to be retained shall be irrigated, aerated and maintained as necessary to ensure survival. PUBLIC WORKS ZERO WASTE 24. Trash enclosure can only be used to temporarily store refuse (garbage, recycling, and compost) and not for other storage 3.c Packet Pg. 380 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t C : D r a f t C o n d i t i o n s o f A p p r o v a l ( 8 5 9 5 : 1 8 0 H a m i l t o n A v e : N o b u E x t e r i o r R e m o d e l ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) 3.d Packet Pg. 381 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t D : A p p l i c a n t R e s p o n s e L e t t e r ( 8 5 9 5 : 1 8 0 H a m i l t o n A v e : N o b u E x t e r i o r R e m o d e l ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) 3.d Packet Pg. 382 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t D : A p p l i c a n t R e s p o n s e L e t t e r ( 8 5 9 5 : 1 8 0 H a m i l t o n A v e : N o b u E x t e r i o r R e m o d e l ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 8468) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 10/5/2017 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 180 Hamliton Ave: Hotel Facade Change (1st Formal) Title: PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 180 Hamilton Avenue (17PLN-00171): Consideration of a Minor Architectural Review to Allow for Exterior Improvements to an Existing Hotel. The Proposed Changes Include: Replacing the Ground Floor Storefronts Along the Hamilton Avenue and Emerson Street Entries, Replacing the Existing Awning at the Emerson Street Entry, New Façade Finishes on the First Floor and Part of the Second Floor. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Guideline Section 15301 (Existing Facilities). Zoning District: CD-C(GF)(P) (Downtown Commercial) For More Information Contact the Project Planner Samuel Gutierrez at samuel.gutierrez@cityofpaloalto.org. From: Hillary Gitelman Recommendation Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) take the following action(s): 1. Review and provide formal comments 2. Continue to a date uncertain Report Summary The proposed project seeks to change the exterior façade of the existing Epiphany hotel. The changes are focused along the ground level façade, where the most significant change would be to replace the existing illuminated perforated metal tree façade with a new solid textured stone façade. The existing façade was previously reviewed and approved by the Architectural Review Board. Background 3.e Packet Pg. 383 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : O c t o b e r 5 , 2 0 1 7 S t a f f R e p o r t w / o a t t a c h m e n t s ( 8 5 9 5 : 1 8 0 H a m i l t o n A v e : N o b u E x t e r i o r R e m o d e l ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 Project Information Owner: PA Hotel Holdings, LLC Architect: Montalba Architects, Inc. Representative: Lori Marmolejo Legal Counsel: n/a Property Information Address: 180 Hamilton Avenue Neighborhood: Downtown Palo Alto Lot Dimensions & Area: 85’ by 100’ Housing Inventory Site: Not Applicable Located w/in a Plume: Not Applicable Protected/Heritage Trees: Four Street Trees Historic Resource(s): Not Applicable Existing Improvement(s): 51,021sf; 8 stories; 76’ high; Built 1976 Existing Land Use(s): Hotel Adjacent Land Uses & Zoning: North: Zoning (retail) West: Zoning (retail) East: Zoning (retail) South: Zoning (retail) Aerial View of Property: 3.e Packet Pg. 384 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : O c t o b e r 5 , 2 0 1 7 S t a f f R e p o r t w / o a t t a c h m e n t s ( 8 5 9 5 : 1 8 0 H a m i l t o n A v e : N o b u E x t e r i o r R e m o d e l ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 Source: Google Maps Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans Zoning Designation: Downtown Commercial District CD-C(GF)(P) Comp. Plan Designation: CC Context-Based Design Criteria: Yes Downtown Urban Design Guide: Yes South of Forest Avenue Coordinated Area Plan: Not Applicable Baylands Master Plan: Not Applicable El Camino Real Design Guidelines (1976 / 2002): Not Applicable Proximity to Residential Uses or Districts (150'): Not Applicable Located w/in the Airport Influence Area: Not Applicable Prior City Reviews & Action City Council: None PTC: None HRB: None 3.e Packet Pg. 385 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : O c t o b e r 5 , 2 0 1 7 S t a f f R e p o r t w / o a t t a c h m e n t s ( 8 5 9 5 : 1 8 0 H a m i l t o n A v e : N o b u E x t e r i o r R e m o d e l ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4 ARB: Preliminary Review 2/16/2012 & 5/3/2012; Formal Review 6/7/2012 Project Description The proposed project involves exterior improvements to the existing Epiphany hotel to accommodate a new restaurant, NOBU, on the ground level. The proposed changes include: replacing the ground floor storefronts along the existing Hamilton Avenue and Emerson Street entries, replacing the existing awning at the Emerson Street entry, new façade finishes on the first floor and part of the second floor, and new floor finishes at the existing Hamilton entry ramp along with new planters. a. Photos of the existing façade. Source: Google Maps b. Rendering of Proposed Changes Day Time View of Site Night Time View of Site 3.e Packet Pg. 386 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : O c t o b e r 5 , 2 0 1 7 S t a f f R e p o r t w / o a t t a c h m e n t s ( 8 5 9 5 : 1 8 0 H a m i l t o n A v e : N o b u E x t e r i o r R e m o d e l ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5 The proposed changes to the building include high quality materials and finishes, such as honed Jerusalem limestone, teak bands, bronze storefront windows, and raked stone. The new wood panels would be installed along the first floor eave, removing the light to dark wood color variation of the existing eave. A new awning is proposed over the Emerson entry that would be reduced in thickness. As shown in the photo above, a new ground floor textured stone façade is proposed along the Emersion elevation and would wrap around to the Hamilton Avenue entrance. The same materials and finishes are proposed for a new single story building directly adjacent to the site at 620 Emerson, where the applicant has submitted an application (17PLN-00331) to extend the existing NOBU restaurant. Requested Entitlements, Findings and Purview: The following discretionary applications are being requested: Architectural Review – Minor (AR): The process for evaluating this type of application is set forth in PAMC 18.77.070. AR applications are reviewed by the ARB and recommendations are forwarded to the Planning & Community Environment Director for action within five business days of the Board’s recommendation. Action by the Director is appealable to the City Council if filed within 14 days of the decision. AR projects are evaluated against specific findings. All findings must be made in the affirmative to approve the project. Failure to make any one finding requires project redesign or denial. The findings to approve an AR application are provided in Attachment B. 180 Hamilton 620 Emerson 3.e Packet Pg. 387 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : O c t o b e r 5 , 2 0 1 7 S t a f f R e p o r t w / o a t t a c h m e n t s ( 8 5 9 5 : 1 8 0 H a m i l t o n A v e : N o b u E x t e r i o r R e m o d e l ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 6 Analysis1 The project introduces a new design aesthetic on the ground floor which results in the loss a unique design element that previously received considerable Board attention. While analysis of the project will focus on the new design, staff encourages the Board to reflect on prior discussions to help inform the applicant on possible revisions to enhance the pedestrian experience and strengthen other building design connections. Neighborhood Setting and Character The project site is located in Downtown Palo Alto on the corner of Hamilton Avenue and Emerson Street within the Downtown Parking Assessment District. The site is 8,500 square feet and was developed in the mid 1970’s with an eight- story structure (76 feet tall) that was utilized as an intermediate care facility before being converted to a hotel in 2012. The building is one of the more prominent in downtown due to its size and ground floor internally lit metal tree, which ties into the six-story tile mosaic of El Palo Alto on the North side of the building. One to three story buildings surround the site which consists of commercial retail and office spaces. The northern corner has a historic two-story commercial building, the western corner is a one-story restaurant, and the eastern corner is a contemporary three story mixed use building with ground floor retail and office spaces above. The existing building is built out to the property lines on three sides with the Hamilton Avenue façade at the ground level setback nine feet six inches. Along both Hamilton and Emerson frontages there are existing city street trees (two on Emerson and three on Hamilton). The existing building is considered a legal 180 Hamilton 201 Hamilton 200 Hamilton 566 Emerson 180 Hamilton 3.e Packet Pg. 388 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : O c t o b e r 5 , 2 0 1 7 S t a f f R e p o r t w / o a t t a c h m e n t s ( 8 5 9 5 : 1 8 0 H a m i l t o n A v e : N o b u E x t e r i o r R e m o d e l ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 7 non-complying facility due to its height and FAR, which exceed the current development standards. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, Area Plans and Guidelines2 The proposed changes to the existing building incorporate high quality materials and finishes. However, the manner in which this design would be incorporated may present some consistency issues with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. Comprehensive Plan Policies and Goals that relate to this project include the following: POLICY L-20: Encourage street frontages that contribute to retail vitality in all Centers. Reinforce street corners with buildings that come up to the sidewalk or that form corner plazas. POLICY L-21: Provide all Centers with centrally located gathering spaces that create a sense of identity and encourage economic revitalization. Encourage public amenities such as benches, street trees, kiosks, restrooms and public art. POLICY L-23: Maintain and enhance the University Avenue/Downtown area as the central business district of the City, with a mix of commercial, civic, cultural, recreational and residential uses. Promote quality design that recognizes the regional and historical importance of the area and reinforces its pedestrian character. POLICY L-24: Ensure that University Avenue/Downtown is pedestrian-friendly and supports bicycle use. Use public art and other amenities to create an environment that is inviting to pedestrians. GOAL L-6: Well-designed Buildings that Create Coherent Development Patterns and Enhance City Streets and Public Spaces. POLICY L-48: Promote high quality, creative design and site planning that is compatible with surrounding development and public spaces. POLICY L-49: Design buildings to revitalize streets and public spaces and to enhance a sense of community and personal safety. Provide an ordered variety of entries, porches, windows, bays and balconies along public ways where it is consistent with neighborhood character; avoid blank or solid walls at street level; and include human-scale details and massing. Consistency with Application Findings The existing Emerson Avenue ground floor façade consists primarily of an illuminated perforated metal tree that the applicant is proposing to remove and replace with a textured stone façade. The Board previously reviewed the proposal for the existing façade where they expressed enthusiasm for the metal tree as it connects the upper floor mosaic of El Palo Alto to the ground floor. 2 The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan is available online: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/projects/landuse/compplan.asp 3.e Packet Pg. 389 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : O c t o b e r 5 , 2 0 1 7 S t a f f R e p o r t w / o a t t a c h m e n t s ( 8 5 9 5 : 1 8 0 H a m i l t o n A v e : N o b u E x t e r i o r R e m o d e l ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 8 The project involves substantial changes to the Emerson Avenue ground floor façade with the incorporation of high quality materials, textures, and colors. The proposed changes also include a new canopy, maintaining a pedestrian refuge from weather which complies with the required design features of the Pedestrian (P) Combining District. The Hamilton Avenue façade would remain open to the interior of the restaurant, supporting a connection with the street and pedestrians. While staff acknowledges that building façades need to change over time, we lament the loss of the perforated metal tree. The concern is that the proposed project would create a blank wall, diminish the visual impact of the façade, and remove a feature that promotes a sense of place especially during the evening hours when the building’s mosaic is less visible. Additionally, the project would create a solid wall where adjacent buildings have façades with large quantities of windows to enliven their storefronts. Staff would appreciate ARB recommendations on how the project may be enhanced to meet the required ARB findings. Environmental Review The subject project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City. The proposed changes to the exterior of the existing hotel would be categorically exempt from the provision of CEQA under Guideline Section 15301 (existing facilities). Public Notification, Outreach & Comments The Palo Alto Municipal Code requires notice of this public hearing be published in a local paper and mailed to owners and occupants of property within 600 feet of the subject property at least ten days in advance. Notice of a public hearing for this project was published in the Palo Alto Weekly on September 25, 2017, which is 12 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on September 27, 2017, which is 12 in advance of the meeting. Public Comments As of the writing of this report, no project-related public comments have been received. Alternative Actions In addition to the recommended action, the Architectural Review Board may: 1. Approve the project with findings or conditions; 2. Continue the project to a certain date; or 3. Recommend project denial based on revised findings. Report Author & Contact Information ARB3 Liaison & Contact Information Samuel Gutierrez, Associate Planner Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager 3 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org 3.e Packet Pg. 390 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : O c t o b e r 5 , 2 0 1 7 S t a f f R e p o r t w / o a t t a c h m e n t s ( 8 5 9 5 : 1 8 0 H a m i l t o n A v e : N o b u E x t e r i o r R e m o d e l ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 9 (650) 329-2225 (650) 329-2575 samuel.gutierrez@cityofpaloalto.org jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments: Attachment A: Location Map (PDF) Attachment B: Draft ARB Findings (DOCX) Attachment C: Applicant Project Description (PDF) Attachment D: Project Plans (DOCX) 3.e Packet Pg. 391 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : O c t o b e r 5 , 2 0 1 7 S t a f f R e p o r t w / o a t t a c h m e n t s ( 8 5 9 5 : 1 8 0 H a m i l t o n A v e : N o b u E x t e r i o r R e m o d e l ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) Attachment F Project Plans Hardcopies of project plans are provided to Board members. These plans are available to the public online and/or by visiting the Planning and Community Environmental Department on the 5th floor of City Hall at 250 Hamilton Avenue. Directions to review Project plans online: 1. Go to: www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pln 2. On the left hand side click “Development Proposals” 3. In the drop down window click 180 Hamilton Ave. 4. Scroll to find “180 Hamilton” and click the address link 5. On this project specific webpage you will find a link to the project plans and other important information Direct Link to Project Webpage: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=4103&TargetID=319 3.f Packet Pg. 392 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t F : P r o j e c t P l a n s ( 8 5 9 5 : 1 8 0 H a m i l t o n A v e : N o b u E x t e r i o r R e m o d e l ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 8722) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 12/7/2017 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: ARB Annual Report to Council Title: Discussion Regarding the Annual ARB Report to Council From: Hillary Gitelman Recommendation Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) reflect on the hearings they have conducted over the past two years and discuss the information that will be included in a report to City Council. Background As noted in Municipal Code Section 2.21.030, the ARB shall send a report, not less than once a year, to the Planning Commission and City Council for the purpose of communicating the concerns of the Board with respect to the City’s plans, policies, ordinances and procedures as these affect the projects which the Board reviews. The report could outline activities of the ARB for 2016-2017, summarize development trends demonstrated by projects reviewed by the ARB during this period and recommend key policy issues to address in the future. To facilitate the discussion for the ARB, Chair Lew has provided the attached statistics for information purposes. The Board may review and comment as it deems appropriate. Attachments: Attachment A: ARB Statistics for 2016-2017 (XLSX) 4 Packet Pg. 393 11/30/2017 Architectural Review Board Statistics for 2016-2017 Study Session Preliminary Formal Hearing Sub- committee Total Status Major PRIVATE PROJECTS 233 University (Mills Florist)1 1 In-process 355 University (Design Within Reach)3 1 4 Approved 429 University (revisions after appeal)5 5 Council rejected appeal. Approved w/conditions. 450 Bryant (Avenidas)3 1 4 Appeal withdrawn. 411-437 Lytton 1 2 3 Council upheld appeal. Project died. 480 Lytton (remodel)1 1 2 Approved 640 Waverly 1 1 In-process 203 Forest (addition)3 3 Director denial. Appeal not heard. 901 High (Creamery parking)2 2 In-process 190 Channing 1 1 In-process 1700 Embarcadero (auto dealership)1 1 3 5 Council sent back to ARB. Project died. 693 Arastradero (Bowman School)1 2 3 Approved 567 Maybell (16 houses)3 1 4 Approved 4175 Manuela (Kol Emeth)1 2 3 Approved 744 San Antonio (Marriott Courtard & AC)3 3 Council approved 240 Pasteur (Stanford School of Medicine)2 2 Approved 701 Welch (Packard Childrens' Hospital)1 1 Previously approved 3179 Porter (Stanford Research Park)1 1 3181 Porter (Stanford Research Park)2 2 Approved 3223-3251 Hanover (formerly Lockheed)1 2 3 Approved 2555 Park 1 1 Revision to a Council approved project 2747 Park 2 1 3 Approved 3045 Park (former BMW dealer and Akins body shop)2 2 In-process 180 El Camino Real (at Shopping Center)1 1 180 El Camino Real (North Face at Shopping Center)1 1 2209 El Camino Real (at College Avenue)1 1 Previously approved 2515-2585 El Camino Real (former Olive Garden)1 2 3 Council approved 2600 El Camino Real (former Bank of America)2 2 Approved 2755 El Camino Real (former VTA lot)1 1 In-process 3001 El Camino Real (former Mike's Bikes, Sobrato)3 3 Council approved 3200 El Camino Real (Hotel Parmani)1 1 2 In-process 3225 El Camino Real (Footlocker site)1 1 1 3 Approved 3265 El Camino (between Indo & Travelodge)3 3 Approved 3877 El Camino Real (formerly Compadres)2 2 Council approved Page 1 of 3 4.a Packet Pg. 394 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t A : A R B S t a t i s t i c s f o r 2 0 1 6 - 2 0 1 7 ( 8 7 2 2 : A R B A n n u a l R e p o r t t o C o u n c i l ) 11/30/2017 4115 El Camino Real (old Chicago Pizza)1 1 In-process 4190 El Camino Real (McLaren photovoltaics)1 1 In-process 4256 El Camino Real (hotel & townhouses on Dennys-Suhong site)1 1 In-process Various cell sites Midtown (Verizon)1 1 In-process Various cell sites North Palo Alto (Crown Castle)1 1 In-process CIVIC PROJECTS 799 Embarcadero (fire station)3 3 Approved 1925 Embarcadero (airport fence)1 1 Approved 2501 Embarcadero Way (sewer treatment)2 2 Council approved Charleston-Arastradero Corridor Complete Street Infrastructure 1 1 Approved 2775 Embarcadero (baylands boardwalk)1 1 Approved Ped-Bike Bridge over 101 1 1 2 ARB recommended. Council approved 35% 1451 Middlefield (Junior Museum)3 2 5 ARB recommended. Council on 12/4 250 Sherman (public safety) and 350 Sherman (public garage)1 1 2 In-process 375 Hamilton (public garage + liner retail)1 1 In-process 300 Homer (History Museum)1 1 Previously approved in 2011 San Francisquito Creek flood protection 1 1 Previously approved 50 El Camino?1 1 Total number of meetings:8 18 70 11 107 Average number of meetings per all major projects (51 projects)2.1 Number of meetings per approved project (24 projects)6 6 44 4 60 Average number of meetings per approved project 2.5 Minor Projects 180 Hamilton (Nobu at Epiphany Hotel)1 1 In-process 392 California (Summit Bikes)1 1 In-process 260 California (requested for hearing on staff approval)1 1 Appeal not heard by Council 275 Cambridge (photovoltaics on garage: public requested hearing)1 1 Staff approved. ARB recommended denial 475 Cambridge (photovoltaics on garage: public requested hearing)1 1 Staff approved. ARB recommended denial Low Density Residential (2-6 units) 1451-1459 Hamilton (Zuckerberg 4 houses)1 1 ARB recommended denial. Project scope reduced. 1545 Alma (1 addition + 2 houses)2 1 3 Approved 252 Ramona (duplex in Neighborhood Preservation zone)3 1 4 Approved Page 2 of 3 4.a Packet Pg. 395 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t A : A R B S t a t i s t i c s f o r 2 0 1 6 - 2 0 1 7 ( 8 7 2 2 : A R B A n n u a l R e p o r t t o C o u n c i l ) 11/30/2017 2120 Staunton (duplex in Neighborhood Preservation zone)2 2 Approved 400 Channing (2 houses, 2 accessory, SOFA 1, HRB review)2 2 Approved 900 N California (3 houses)1 1 2 Appealed. Project scope reduced voluntarily. 639 Arastradero (3 houses)1 1 Individual review 356 Hawthorne (3 houses)1 1 In-process Master Sign Programs 855 El Camino (Gott's at Town & Country)2 2 2747 Park 2 2 Planning Projects Ground Floor overlay zoning 1 1 Council rejected Comp Plan EIR 1 1 Council approved Revised Architectural Review findings 1 1 Council approved Bicycle Boulevards 1 1 Page 3 of 3 4.a Packet Pg. 396 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t A : A R B S t a t i s t i c s f o r 2 0 1 6 - 2 0 1 7 ( 8 7 2 2 : A R B A n n u a l R e p o r t t o C o u n c i l ) Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 8723) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 12/7/2017 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: ARB Chair and Vice-Chair Elections Title: Election of Chair and Vice-Chair for the Architectural Review Board From: Hillary Gitelman Recommendation Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) elect a new Chair and Vice-Chair to serve from December 16, 2017 to December 15, 2018. Background Section 3.1 of the Architectural Review Board (ARB) By-Laws (see attached) states that officer elections should take place “at the first meeting in October of each subsequent year”. At the time this regulation was put into place, the terms for ARB members ended on October 30th. This meant the Chair and Vice Chair would be selected, and both new officers and any new board members would start at the same time on November 1st of each year. On March 9, 2015, the City Council extended the terms of office for several Boards to December 15th of each year. In keeping with the intent of the By-Laws, elections are now being held in early December, so that the new Chair and Vice-Chair would start on the same date (December 16th) as any new Board members. The new officers and board members would hold their first public hearing on December 21, 2017. Attachments: Attachment A: ARB By-Laws (PDF) 5 Packet Pg. 397 011415 cs 0131301 1 Rev. February 5, 2015 RULES AND REGULATIONS AND BY-LAWS OF THE PALO ALTO ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD ARTICLE I NAME Section 1.0 The name of this board shall be the PALO ALTO ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD (ARB) ARTICLE II Section 2.0 This board shall perform any duties imposed upon it by Ordinances of the City of Palo Alto and by applicable State and Federal law, or as requested by the City Council of the City of Palo Alto. ARTICLE III Officers Section 3.0 The officers of the Board Shall consist of a Chairperson, a Vice Chairperson, and a Secretary who shall be a non-voting member. Section 3.1 The offices of Chairperson and Vice Chairperson shall be elected from among the appointed members of the Board, and the person so elected shall serve for a term of one year or until a successor is elected. Elections shall be held at the first organizational meeting of the Board in 1973, and at the first meeting in October of each subsequent year. Section 3.2 The Director of Planning and Community Environment of the City of Palo Alto or his/her designated representative shall be the Secretary of the Board. Section 3.3 The duties of the offices of the ARB shall be as follows: Section 3.31 It shall be the duty of the Chairperson to preside over all meeting of the Board, to appoint committees and to serve as an ex-officio member of the committees so appointed, to call special meetings of the Board and to designate the time and place of such meeting, to set the date and time for the public hearing held by the Board, to sign documents and correspondence in the name of the Board, and to represent the Board before the City Council, its commissions and committees, and such other groups and organizations as may be appropriate. The Chairperson may designate the Vice Chair, or in the Vice Chairperson’s absence, another member of the Board to act in his/her stead. Section 3.32 It shall be the duty of the Vice Chairperson to assist the Chairperson and to act in his/her stead during his/her absence. 5.a Packet Pg. 398 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t A : A R B B y - L a w s ( 8 7 2 3 : A R B C h a i r a n d V i c e - C h a i r E l e c t i o n s ) 011415 cs 0131301 2 Rev. February 5, 2015 Section 3.33 It shall be the duty of the Secretary to keep a record of all meeting of the Board, to accept in the name of the Board documents and correspondence addressed to it, to present such correspondence to the Board, and perform other staff functions as deemed necessary by the Board. The Secretary will determine the agenda for all public meeting of the Board, based upon an assessment of the applications made to the City requiring architectural review, and based also upon the desirability of hearing such other matters as may be deemed, by the Chairperson or by the Secretary, to be of concern to the Board. ARTICLE IV Committees Section 4.0 The Chairperson shall appoint special committees as they be desired or required. ARCTICLE V Quorums and Voting Section 5.0 Three members of the Board shall constitute a quorum for the purposes of conducting business. Section 5.1 All actions taken must be by affirmative vote of majority of those Board members present, except to adjourn or continue for lack of a quorum. A tie vote constitutes a denial of an item, except that a member of the Board may then move that the item be reconsidered or continued to another meeting. A majority of the Board may then vote to reconsider or continue the item to another meeting ARTICLE VI Meetings Section 6.0 Regular meetings of the ARB shall be held not less than twice a month. The Chairperson shall establish the dates of the meetings. Meetings shall be held on Thursday at 8:30 A.M. in the Palo Alto City Hall. Regular meetings may be adjourned and reconvened upon a majority vote of the members present. Section 6.1 Special meetings may be called at any time by the Chairperson, or at the request of three members, by a written or oral notice given to each member at least 48 hours before the time specified for the proposed meeting. 5.a Packet Pg. 399 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t A : A R B B y - L a w s ( 8 7 2 3 : A R B C h a i r a n d V i c e - C h a i r E l e c t i o n s ) 011415 cs 0131301 3 Rev. February 5, 2015 ARTICLE VII Rules Section 7.0 All meetings of the Board shall be conducted in accordance with a modified Robert’s Rules of Order. ARTICLE VIII Design Awards Section 8.0 Design Awards for outstanding built projects may be awarded every five years beginning in 2005. Award-winning projects shall be selected from those reviewed by the ARB, and completed since the last awards were made. Section 8.1 Criteria and number of awards shall be determined by the awarding board. Section 8.2 Winning projects may be displayed in the City Hall lobby for one month following the presentation of awards. The ARB shall request that the Mayor of the City of Palo Alto issue an appropriate proclamation. THE FOREGOING BY-LAWS WERE ADOPTED BY A MAJORITY VOTE OF THE PALO ALTO ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD THE 28TH DAY OF JUNE, 1973. Amended: July 3, 1974 May 19, 1977 August 4, 2005 February 5, 2015 5.a Packet Pg. 400 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t A : A R B B y - L a w s ( 8 7 2 3 : A R B C h a i r a n d V i c e - C h a i r E l e c t i o n s ) Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 8730) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 12/7/2017 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: Minutes of November 2, 2017 Title: Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for November 2, 2017. From: Hillary Gitelman Recommendation Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) adopt the attached meeting minutes. Background Draft minutes from the November 2, 2017 Architectural Review Board (ARB) meeting were made available to Board members prior to this hearing. A hard copy of the minutes of the above referenced meeting(s) will be made available at the ARB hearing in the Council Chambers at 8:30 am. Approved Minutes will be made available on the ARB webpage at http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/boards/architectural/default.asp 6 Packet Pg. 401 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Call to Order/Roll Call Present: Chair Alexander Lew, Vice Chair Kyu Kim, Board Member Wynne Furth, Peter Baltay Absent: Board Member Robert Gooyer Chair Lew: Can we have a roll call, please? Oral Communications Chair Lew: Now is the time for oral communications for items that are not on the agenda. I don’t have – see any public speakers here. Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions Chair Lew: I don’t think we have any agenda changes today. City Official Reports 1. Transmittal of 1) the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, 2) Administrative Staff-Level Architectural Review Approvals, and 3) Tentative Future Agenda item Action Items 2. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 3045 Park Boulevard [17PLN-00073]: Consideration of a Major Architectural Review to Allow Demolition of an Existing Office Building and Construction of a New Two-Story 29,120 Square Foot R&D Building. Environmental Assessment: An Initial Study is Being Prepared in Accordance With the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Zoning District: GM (AD) (General Manufacturing with Automobile Dealership Combing District). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Graham Owen at Graham.Owen@cityofpaloalto.org. Chair Lew: We can go directly into the first item which is item number two, a public hearing for a quasi- judicial item; 3045 Park Boulevard. Consideration of a Major Architectural Review to allow demolition of an existing office building and construction of a new two-story, 29,120-square foot R&D Building. The environmental assessment is an initial study is being prepared in accordance with the CEQA and the zone district is GM with an AD overlay. Our project planner is Graham Owen, welcome. Mr. Jonathan Lait, Assistant Director of Planning: Chair, just as a reminder it’s the quasi-judicial item so if the Board Members have any disclosures, this would be the time state those. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD DRAFT MINUTES: November 2, 2017 City Hall/City Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 8:30 AM City of Palo Alto Page 2 Chair Lew: I don’t see any disclosures. Mr. Graham Owen, Project Planner: Alright, thank you, Chairmen Lew. I’m Graham Owen and I’ve been working with the applicant team here on the project that’s here before you today, 3045 Park Boulevard. This is an application for architectural review for a new 29,120-square foot office – excuse me, RND building. This project was previously reviewed by the Board in an earlier iteration November 19th, 2015 and December 17th, 2015. At that time, it was a – the project was also tied with 2747 Park Boulevard which was split off from this application at a later date and then has been – has gone through the architectural review process and is currently under construction. This iteration of the project was previously reviewed by the Board on July 20th, 2017. At that hearing, the Board had a number of comments regarding the site plan and the elevations. The application has returned to the Board for consideration and the applicant has responded to a number of the comments that were raised. Just as a reminder, this application is subject to the Interim Annual Limit Ordinance which caps the total net new square office construction in the City – in specific areas of the City at 50-square feet. This project would be 29,000 or excuse me, 19,000-square feet because there is existing office space on the site currently and so a result it would be a large component of the total net new square footage that’s allowed under the current cap for this year. This is the revised site plan and as you can see the general location of the building is more or less the same as it was with the earlier reiteration of the plans that were reviewed on July 20th. The largest change in terms of the site plan has to do with the parking structure. At the time that the application was reviewed on the 20th, the first level of the parking structure was approximately I think, 3-feet below grade. In response to the Board’s comments, as well as the Staff reports that was prepared, the applicant has sunk the first level of the parking structure down approximately 5-feet below grade. The structure had also previously had a 3-foot setback off of the street and that’s been pushed back considerably to allow for basically a transition in terms of the setback from the building at 195 Page Mill to the building – to the main structure of the building that’s on the subject site allowing for a transition at setback. Other changes to the setback – excuse me, to the site plan involved the ramp that leads up to the second-level of the parking structure. That’s been shifted forward towards the street about 7-feet and then there’s been some modifications to the site surface parking. As well as the loading space and those are the major changes in terms of site design. Additionally, there’s been some changes to the courtyard entrance right at the apex of Park Boulevard and Olive Avenue and some refinements to the landscaping. Previously there was a rounded seating area and that’s been modified to a more kind of park-like or urban plaza sort of feel with trees, as well as park benches. I’ll let the applicant describe the changes to the facades but there have been some considerable changes in terms of the materials and the colors for this structure. I think the comment that the Board had raised previously was that the building, as previously been designed had kind of a muted color scheme; tans, greys, and that the building needed a little bit more punch. So, as a response, the applicant has brightened the images using different materials, mullion patterns, etc. to give it a little bit more of a contemporary feel. These are the two facades facing Park Boulevard, as well as the façade facing 195 Page Mill; also known as the [Hobot building]. The image on the top is the façade facing the Caltrain right of way and the image to – looking at that is the façade facing the Groupon building. One of the biggest changes to the façade – the facades on the building is what has been done with the treatment of the façade frontage along Park Boulevard for the parking structure. Previously, there was a metal louver screen that was proposed on the front façade of the parking structure. This has been modified to show a different kind screen and I call it the birds nest design; kind of reminiscent of the Coliseum at the Beijing Olympics for example. Also, some new trellises have been added to the upper level of the garage structure to allow for less light to spill over, as well as to enhance the appearance of the upper deck. This is the façade on the top facing the Caltrain right of way and as you can see, this has been modified to allow for a living wall or a green screen if you will. Additionally, there’s been a modification to the lower level of the deck that is more apparent in this section view on the bottom, which shows that the lower level can be accessed via a pedestrian path which leads from the lower level of the deck up to Park Boulevard. Key considerations, at this point Staff, still remains – we believe that the – there have been some modifications that the applicant has made to address residential compatibility concerns that were raised at the previous hearing; trellis structures, for example, living wall structures, etc. Also dropping the structure, a little bit below grade also helps in terms of preventing direct views from the adjacent residential units into – from vehicles that are using the structure into those residential units in terms of glare and those sorts of things. There is still the open City of Palo Alto Page 3 question of what’s the best locations for this structure? We still – we believe that’s either doing an underground structure or something relegated to the rear along the Caltrain right of way would be ideal, given that this is kind of a clean slate so to speak. The existing structure is coming down and we have a new acre plus to work with so we think that in terms of how the site could be developed that those would be ideal considerations from a site planning standpoint. The additional concern we have is regarding the vehicle circulation. There are a couple – this is in your plans and you can look at this if you’d like. There are a number of circulation diagrams which demonstrate how vehicles and trucks should circulate on the site or would circulate on the site. As you can see there are a number of dead-end isles both in the structure and on the surface parking lot. In terms of the circulation diagram it’s – given these diagrams it’s still relativity unclear to us how easily the site would be managed from a vehicle standpoint. There’s not a lot of room to turn around for example so I think there is some work that can be done to make the site plan more intuitive and to eliminate some of those dead-end isles. At this point we’re recommending continuation of the project so the Board can provide comments. We believe that the circulation needs further refinement but also, we’re still working on the initially study for the project so there’s going to be additional inputs form our environmental consultant and our traffic consultant in the coming weeks. Additionally, as we mentioned, this is subject to the annual office limit so Staff couldn’t make a final decision on the project or the Director can’t make a final decision on the project until March 31st of 2018. So, with that, I’ll leave it at that for now and let the applicant provide the presentation. Also, wanted to introduce my colleague Jared Mullin who’s our transportation planner, who has also been working on the project as well. If you have any specific concerns relating to circulation or transportation, he’s here as a good resource. Chair Lew: So, for the applicant presentation you’ll have 10-minutes. Mr. Tom Gilman: Good morning, Tom Gilman with DES Architects. Let’s see – go here instead? So, as you may recall this is the property that’s at the terminus of Olive and Park, just South of Page Mill Road. Here’s a kind of blow up and some of the context images of the adjacent buildings; the Groupon and the 195 Page Mill. As Staff has said, from the comments we heard last time we went back and took another look. I’ll get into the architecture a little later but in general, there were comments about well, maybe things could be a little simpler, a little clearer, maybe the overall design of the building could be a bit more bold. There were some comments that we had a number of – in fact I think we had four materials on the building, many of which were somewhat similar in coloration and so on. So, when I get into the architecture I’ll show that but one of the things that we also took a look at was trying to simplify some of the front façades of the building itself to create a little stronger pedestrian plaza at the end of the – were Olive terminates at Park Boulevard. One of the things that we took a key on –a key off was the trains at the back of the property is at an angle to the Park Boulevard. So, we’ve kind of picked up on that and so as you get closer to the building, we’ve actually sliced the front of the building -- the main façade of the building has a slice that’s actually parallel to the rear of the property. So, some reference to the fact that there is this other transportation element that occurs and that shows up again in some of the other more details above the garage façade and the building façade. We’ve actually worked with Staff, both Planning and Transportation, in looking at some of the refinements of overall of the site. So, it’s a little bit of a surprise about the continued comments about the dead ends and I can show a little bit more detail but we’ve really worked hard to provide turnarounds at each of the locations on the property. Again, this is a site that has about 30,000-square feet. It has about 116 cars so it’s not a massive amount of parking. Overall, our own experience for buildings of this size is that typically a company will have assigned parking and so the wayfinding if you in a vehicle is relatively simple because typically people know where they are going to be parking. In terms of where we have visitor parking, there’s a number of places where we can provide that and could be easily seen or accessed as you come onto the site. Again, typically we handle that as a tenant desire and the tenant may have – maybe they want three parking spaces for visitors, maybe they want a half a dozen. Typically, that’s something we work out with the tenants themselves. There where – let me just go – let’s see, then looking at some of the circulation elements, this is a diagram that’s shows in color the turnaround areas. We’ve broken the parking down into smaller areas and as you come onto the site you can immediately go up the ramp to the upper level of the parking deck or continue back and then go down the ramp to the lower level. As you can see, on the upper level we’d have one area where it’s a little bit longer and so we have – well actually, on the site City of Palo Alto Page 4 plan itself, on the left side, we’re seeing – we’re showing the lower level of the deck and so you enter at the back and then you can access all the way down that parking – lower level of the parking deck and the red area is a turnaround. For instance, if someone is parked in your space or whatever but if you do go up the ramp, the drawing on the upper right then shows the upper level of the deck and the two red areas that are the turnaround at each end of that parking. Then if you go around to the back of the building at the surface parking lot, the red area at the lower portion of the drawing then is the turnaround for that portion of the parking lot. Let’s see, we’ve got – these were some diagrams from our civil engineer showing the turning radius. On the left side showing the turning radiuses, upper left is the access for vehicles into the lower level of the parking deck and then lower left are the diagrams for the circulation and turning radiuses for vehicles into the upper level of the deck. The right-side site plan view is then the turning diagrams for both trucks that would come to the loading zone but then would continue to the rear of the site and do a 3-point turn to leave the site, as well as emergency vehicles that would come in and then leave. When we last met there were comments about boy, it would be great if the parking structure had a little bit less impact and it felt like that maybe it was crowding the street and so on. As was indicated, we had about 3-feet of landscape or setback for the building but we’ve now pushed the parking structure back so that we have from the rear sidewalk to the face of the parking structure 11-feet of landscape. In addition, as Staff has pointed out, we’ve also pushed the parking structure – submerged it so it’s really half down, half up. The upper level parking deck is plus 6 ½-feet, including then the guardrail – the top of the guardrail is 10-feet. I can’t dunk a basketball but I can almost jump and touch the top of that railing so we really tried to pull it down so it has a much more pedestrian kind of scale. As well as pushing it back so it’s got significant more amount of landscaping along the façade as well. In this plan view, we’re seeing the upper level of the structure and those five rectangular areas that we’re showing landscaping are canopy elements that extend out over the parking. They extend out – they cantilever out 14-feet, they are 34-feet long in each case and so we have landscaping that – with planting boxes that occur basically at the deck level. Plantings come up that and extend out over so that the top of those are essentially at the level of the floor line of the residential adjacent. So, here we can see that and you can see the residential is the second level up on the left and directly across at that same level is the top of these landscaped trellis kinds of elements. We’ve alternated those and those are a five – as you look out from the residential areas, either the second floor or the third floor, there’s a great deal of landscape or green space that you’re seeing and not simple a parking deck itself. Those things are about 8-feet and they do have lighting under them so we tried – which will also help shade some of the lighting that would occur from the upper level of the parking deck. In addition, along the property line on the left side here, we have a 10-foot setback and we have a line both of major shrubs – evergreen shrubs. As well as a line of trees in that area to help provide additional landscaping. On the section with that cantilevered area, you can also see that there will also be a green screen kind of character so that there’s additional planting as you look say down into that front either the second floor residential or from the first floor R&D looking out that way as well. Here’s some views from the street and we’ve removed the trees in order to be able to see the building and then the view from the building – the new office or R&D building looking north. Then the views from (inaudible) from residential and from the train, up above there. This is a large plan view of that new plaza and again, you can see everything has been (inaudible) so that it’s on the – on this angled – parallel to the façade itself. The eight or nine accent trees, these are the Skogi Creek Crape Myrtle. The idea of having some different kind of accent trees and we worked a little bit with the urban forester folks. We’ve got quite a bit of drought tolerant and native materials everywhere on the site and talking with them they felt like in this one area having a different kind of more decorative tree was probably fine overall. So, this plaza now tries to address the fact that it really becomes more of a public-private area that easily is for anyone to use. It’s the accent element that is at the terminus of Olive and also by pulling out – previously we had a series of berms and built-in sequester kind of area, which helped – which kind of prevented folks coming from the parking deck over into the lobby itself. This really opens up things much more considerable and allows easy movement and access. Here’s the facades of – now we’ve looked at – as I said, previously we had four various materials overall and we’ve simplified that to the entire building is now metal panel. You can see now that angled surface and sort of simplified the massing that we had previously on the building. This is the southwest face and then to the right, around the corner would be the southeast. Both of these facades have considerable sunshades preventing – sort of keeping the building cool from passive point of view. The elevation at the top then is from Park. The elevation below would be from the City of Palo Alto Page 5 parking deck looking over. This would be the elevation top – that was the elevation from the train and then from the Groupon building at the bottom. This is the façade then looking at the parking deck itself. We’re using this -- what’s referred to as the bird nest material, this is a boxed modern – the manufacturer of this material and used as a decorative element on the façade of the building. Then the view looking down towards the project with the building straight ahead and then to the left is the parking deck itself. I think I might have – so here’s a view with the trees also and I had pulled those off on the last view so here’s with those additional trees ghosted in along the façade of the garage. Again, the trees ghosted in along the façade of the building itself so I’d be happy to answer any questions. Chair Lew: Great, thank you, Tom. I should open up the hearing for any members of the public. I don’t have any cards so are there any Board Member questions? Peter. Board Member Baltay: Yes, good morning and I have two questions, one for Staff and one for the applicant. Architect Gilman, just enlighten me, if I’m coming into work and my spot is on the top of the parking garage and I go up to that spot and for some reason, it’s taken. What do I do? Can you just drive my path through? How do I then take care of things? Go to your site plan may be. Mr. Gilman: Graham, I am not sure… Board Member Baltay: Again, I am driving in and I go to the top floor of the garage and I’m not able to park, then what do I do? Mr. Gilman: Oh yeah, I just want to go back to the site plan. I’m going to move back to the site plan here. Oh, here we go. If you – you arrive on the site, you come up the ramp, turn left or right depending upon where your space was, you get to the end of the aisle and it turns out your space has been taken. You go to the end of the aisle, you turn in and do a 3-point turn with the turn out space, turn around, come back and either look for another space perhaps or come back down the ramp. So, it’s really an issue of… Board Member Baltay: So, the question is when I come down the ramp, then what? Mr. Gilman: Pardon? Board Member Baltay: When I come down the ramp am I able to make a sharp left hand turn to get back into other parking on the site? That’s the question for you. Mr. Gilman: Yeah, I think you can, yeah. That’s where the road widens out to access the – what green – the green area there is actually the truck loading area. Board Member Baltay: I see so it’s big enough then that if I come down the ramp, I can make a sharp left-hand turn? Mr. Gilman: Yes, and again, we had the idea that this size of building typically often see that this is basically handled as assigned parking. I mean those things may happen and it happens at our building occasionally as well. Board Member Baltay: Thank you and then for Staff, if you could clarify for me that this is under the Retail Preservation Ordinance. So, what happens come April and say this building is approved for 19,000 more square feet of office space but several other projects are also approved. So, the City has to decide which projects go forward so how is that determination made? Mr. Owen: It’s – one point of clarification is that it’s not the Retail Preservation but it’s the Annual Office Cap. Board Member Baltay: I’m sorry. City of Palo Alto Page 6 Mr. Owen: That’s ok. So, yes, it’s subject to that cap and there are about 10,000-square feet of qualifying square footage on the site currently so the cap looks at net new. If there is – just so you know, right now it doesn’t appear as though we’re going to be coming out excessive at 50,000-square foot cap. Should it be exceeded, then the project would need to be deemed complete and be ready for the Council’s approval or denial. There is essentially a section of our code that allows for the Council, with their discretion, to determine which projects should move forward and it’s a contest so to speak. So, there are specific criteria that they can use to evaluate each of the qualifying projects but that determination would need to be made between April and I believe the end of May. So, there’s a two-month window during which qualify projects can be approved or denied. Board Member Baltay: So, essentially the City Council will decide which of these projects moves forward based on these published criteria which happen to do with the quality of the design basically? Mr. Owen: Correct, yes, sir. Board Member Baltay: Thank you. Mr. Lait: When there is an excess of the 50,000 but under the 50,000 they are just approved. Board Member Baltay: I understand, thank you. Chair Lew: Kyu. Vice Chair Kim: If I could have the architect also explain to me then if I have some accessibility requirements like if I’m in a wheelchair or on crutches, how would I park and enter the building? Mr. Gilman: The – maybe it’s most easily shown here. On the left is the site plan itself, including showing the lower level of the parking deck. The accessible parking spaces are those shaded spaces that are kind of at mid-point so you park, you get out of your car, you go – you move north or you up the page in this drawing and… Vice Chair Kim: I’m sorry so I have to go away from the building actually to get to the building? Mr. Gilman: You’re – the ramp itself is on the upper side of the parking deck here so then you come up the ramp and then go along the street parking lot or parking sidewalk. Then come to the entrance of the building itself so it’s covered accessibility parking. Vice Chair Kim: Ok but in order to actually then get to the building I have to go to – it will be on the top of the page, that little walking portion? Am I correct? Mr. Gilman: Yes, so there’s a ramp there that comes up the 5-feet. Vice Chair Kim: The lower level of the parking you said was submerged about 5-feet… Mr. Gilman: Right. Vice Chair Kim: …so there’s then a ramp that I have to go up there. Is there then a retaining wall on the other side of the ramp or how does that ramp work in relationship with the neighboring site? Mr. Gilman: Correct. Yeah so, the retaining wall and then there’s landscaping beyond that. Vice Chair Kim: Ok. Chair Lew: It’s shown in a section, right? I think on sheet A-13. City of Palo Alto Page 7 Mr. Gilman: Yes, on this. Vice Chair Kim: I see. Then one more question, the scale of the metal panels – the Bok Modern panels, is the scale that’s on the materials board the same scale that would actually be used or will it be a larger scale that’s shown in the drawings? Mr. Gilman: We’re thinking of a larger scale than that but that was just a model to show this is the concept of that material. Vice Chair Kim: Ok, thank you. Mr. Gilman: Right, so something that’s a little larger scale that makes sense in terms of the size that we’re talking about. Vice Chair Kim: Ok. Chair Lew: Wynne, do you have a question? Board Member Furth: I do, thank you. I’ve been trying to understand the zoning in this area because it’s complicated and this is the GM zone. Its lite industrial under our existing Comp. Plan and it doesn’t, for example, allow a law office there. So how is this building designed differently than an office building? What makes it – I realize there’s a range of uses that are permitted but what are the features of it that make it a GM district building as opposed to straight office building? Mr. Gilman: The allowed uses in the GM zone the code is very specific in terms of allowing… Board Member Furth: It is indeed. Mr. Gilman: …software type R&D use. In this case, our floor to floors is 14-feet so that we could have the possibility of 10-foot ceilings. However typically with this type of R&D use, we typically would see open – typically open structure and so; you know a more modern kind of look. Essentially the kind of use that would go inside is we would probably anticipate that it could be a variety of benching kind of layout or it could be low cubes. Typically, it seems rather open and so and we’re simply providing a lot of natural daylight otherwise. Board Member Furth: Are you saying the height of the floors are big enough so that if they did want to have labs that required ducting and whatnot that would be possible? Mr. Gilman: Yes, absolutely. Board Member Furth: Ok and what about in terms of loading zone? How does the truck loading work? Mr. Gilman: We have a code compliant size truck loading zone. Typically, with these types of uses we don’t see a major – particularly for the scale and size of the company that would be here, we’re looking at probably a more of a startup scale company and so on. They don’t typically see a lot of truck use other than say delivery, UPS, and those – you know that type of nature. Board Member Furth: Thank you. Then I had a question for Staff – oh, one more question. I can’t remember, are you proposing photovoltaics and if not, is it designed so they could be added afterward? Mr. Gilman: We are not currently. The building itself is designed so that fifteen percent of the roof area can accept photovoltaics at any point. Board Member Furth: Fifteen percent? City of Palo Alto Page 8 Mr. Gilman: Fifteen percent of the roof surface, yes. Board Member Furth: Thank you. Then for Staff, could you – one of the things that making this confusing for me is the development – recent development pattern doesn’t seem to be particularly uniform in terms of density and scale. Could you explain to me how these parcels are zoned and developed along Park here or across the street if that’s relevant? Mr. Owen: The scale – for instance, the adjacent building at 195 Park Boulevard, it’s sort of an anomaly. There’s kind of a long history as to why that particular project moved forward in the manner that it did but in short, the project does exceed the FAR for example and the density that’s typically permitted in the general manufacturing district. There’s a question of – at the time that it was submitted we allowed residential uses for example in the general manufacturing district while that application was in process. The Council removed multi-family from the general manufacturing district as a permitted use but that site, in particular, is a housing inventory site so it was allowed to move forward with a residential component to it. In terms of the design of that building, in particular, there was a number of design enhancement exceptions which we granted by the City Council at the time so that speaks to that particular parcel. The Groupon building is a little bit more to scale with the general manufacturing districts. I believe it’s two floors and I don’t know the exact FAR for example but it’s generally speaking pretty close in scale to the building. Board Member Furth: 195 Park has a FAR of what? Mr. Owen: I believe it’s about 1.4 to 1. Board Member Furth: So, the Council then removed the housing option? Mr. Owen: Correct. Yeah, they removed… Board Member Furth: But they left it on the site so that’s why – on the housing inventory. Mr. Owen: Yeah, correct. It’s in the Comp. Plan that that was a site that was identified as a housing inventory site so they allowed it to move forward. Board Member Furth: But this one is not? Mr. Owen: No, it’s not. Board Member Furth: Ok and on the new draft Comprehensive Plan which we are not bound by and we don’t even know if the Council is going to approve. It’s hard for me to tell what the proposed land use is here because along the street we have a lot of yellow and this little strip of purple. Are they proposed – is the proposal that this remains GM or that it be multi-family? Mr. Owen: I’m not sure. In terms of the Comp. Plan designation, I don’t believe that there’s any plan to change it from lite industrial with the current Comprehensive Plan but I can certainly look at it. Board Member Furth: Thank you, that would be helpful. Those are all my questions. Chair Lew: Thank you, Wynne. I have a quick question so for the landscape, what is happening with regard to fences along the Caltrain right of way and also along the Groupon property line? Mr. Gilman: We have a green screen along the Caltrain side of the parking deck and then along the parking lot we have a variety – we have a landscaped strip that I believe is 5-feet. Yeah, 5-foot landscape stripe and then we have a series of fingers as well and they extend into the parking lot. So, we have trees both in the fingers and as well in the – as well as along the perimeter. The same thing occurs really the entire length of the Groupon site so we have trees and then shrubs along that area. As you City of Palo Alto Page 9 probably know we have to meet the shading criteria for the site overall and so we’ve calculated that as well. Chair Lew: Then fencing? Mr. Gilman: Pardon? Chair Lew: Fencing. Is there – are you proposing a fence in those areas? Mr. Gilman: You know I’m not sure that – probably on Caltrain we would probably want to put a fence as well. Chair Lew: I don’t know if they – I mean they’ve been putting in new fencing along… Mr. Gilman: I think there’s probably a recent – they have that new design of their fence with the little (crosstalk)(inaudible)… Chair Lew: (Inaudible) they’ve been adding barbed wire on top of that now and so I was just curious. I guess maybe if Staff could figure out what is required… Mr. Gilman: We’ll comply with whatever the requirement is, sure. Chair Lew: Then on the Groupon side are you think maybe no fence? Mr. Gilman: Yeah, that hadn’t been the intent. So, it would just be our 5-feet of landscaping and their 5- feet that would potentially blend. Chair Lew: Great, good answer. Then on the garage, do you have any security concerns about having an open garage? I’ve been thinking also too, I mean usually tech. companies are fairly security sensitive as well. I mean if you think about A9 here in downtown… Male: Yeah, we’re not concerned about having an open garage. As you probably know, we build a lot of these kinds of buildings and our garages are generally open and our tenants don’t have a problem with it so in short, that’s our answer. We’ve never closed off our garages on other sites and we don’t see a need to do so here. It would be really driven by our tenants. Chair Lew: Thank you. It’s unusual because we have so many other projects downtown where there are gates at the garages. So, I think that’s the only questions I have. Board Member comments and who wants to start? Kyu? Vice Chair Kim: Thank you. This is kind of tough for me but I have a feeling that perhaps the overall site planning has been a little bit more set than maybe we would have liked to see. What I mean by that is that it just seems like there hasn’t been enough done to the overall site planning and the circulation concerns that were brought up or brought up today. To me just the overall circulation of there being too many dead ends and there are only one main entrance and exit for automobiles on the site. Considering how large the site is and the fact that it’s a completely empty slate so to speak, it just seems like two – at least two entries and exit points would be the most efficient and provide the best access to a site. I think it was proposed as such in a previous iteration of the project. The – other than automobile circulation, the people circulation – after having parked and walking to the building also concerns me; especially for those ADA spots. I just don’t see why you wouldn’t have ADA spots closer to the building or there being either an elevator or a ramp that really leads you to the building. I mean I can just imagine somebody shows up, has to park in an ADA spot and just to have to be directed by signs to get to that ramp rather than just to be able to see the building and walk towards it or roll towards it. It doesn’t seem like the best solution in this case. I mention all these site planning and circulation things because it really – they bother me enough that I really can’t get past those to give you more comments on the parking structure City of Palo Alto Page 10 itself and the building itself but just overall, I think the reduction and different kinds of materials certainly is a little bit of a step forward. We noticed that it’s a cooler color scheme and the materials are a little bit more sleek and perhaps read to be a little bit more of a startup and more contemporary. At the same time, I’m not sure that it’s something that really wows us. It’s not a bad looking building by any sense but it just doesn’t seem like it’s special enough considering the limitless possibilities that you have here on this site. There are some other concerns that I have with the parking garage, again the metal panel, it’s great. It’s better than not having any kind of a panel but I just don’t see how it necessarily ties into the overall design of the building and the site. The green screens and the plantings and the cantilever screens, I think those are all great but it’s going to take time for those things to develop. On the renderings and on the elevations, you have them very full and we see a lot of that foliage but in reality, how many years is it going to take for that to actually build up? The – I did want to compliment you however on the relationship. I have a feeling that perhaps maybe we stressed that relationship to the [Hobot] building more than or maybe too much at the previous go around but I do think that relationship has improved quite a bit more. I’m very appreciative of the fact that you are able to sink that a little bit further down so that people on the residential floors of the [Hobot] building aren’t necessarily looking directly at the screen. I think those cantilever screens actually go a long way in the future so that it goes even further to hide the parking spots. I just wouldn’t – I guess I am a little bit frustrated to see that we are coming back to this above grade structure and again, it’s 5-feet berried but why can’t we do an underground parking garage or why can’t we – it just seems like there has to be a way to get at least two entry and exit points off of this site considering the amount of parking that you have. I’ll leave it at that for now. Chair Lew: Thank you. Wynne. Board Member Furth: Thank you and thank you for the presentation both Staff and applicant. On the point of the presentation, this is not the first time we’ve seen this but we don’t have an environmental document. Why – can you explain the timing to me? Mr. Owen: Sure, absolutely. We do an initial study that’s currently under review and a traffic and circulation study that also is a component of that initial study that we’re conducting. The – as far as our schedule we had anticipated that this would be returning – that we’d have an initial study around the holidays and then we look at it and comment on it. We have an environmental consultant that’s doing a lot of the work right now but Staff would review it; Transportation and Planning and Public Works for example. Then we would also bring it to a hearing and have a third hearing on it so that we would be able to provide the public with the opportunity to review the document. Board Member Furth: As somebody who’s supposed to be considering the environmental factors, it makes me very uneasy to be at our -- whatever it is hearing on this project. With the applicant doing all this work to do this and I still don’t have even the environmental questionnaire to look at. I don’t really care if these things are ready for public circulation and of course, that would be preferable but I do not like being in a position of not having read the environmental documents. The applicant quite recently saying and our code saying, but you’re here for the umpteenth time, why are you bringing up these issues now? The answer will be because I didn’t have the information, let allow the public comment on the information until now. This is not a first-time concern so I would appreciate it if Staff would figure out how to at least get us more of this information sooner. I don’t know, for example, is a toxic plume over here? What kind of constraints does that present? How bad is the – what’s the noise contour? There’s no way you can read those things off the big maps and what does the traffic and circulation study and analysis say? It’s not enough to have elevations and the site plans without that information in order to do our job I think. Most specifically on the garage, I think it’s much better in the relationship to 195 Park. I think both the landscaping and the depression help. I do not think that the screen itself has seemed to have been – it looks to me too much like an add-on element and not something integrated with the – either the design of the streetscape or the design of the new building. So, I am not ready to say that’s a good idea or acceptable yet. I’m concerned about the comment in response to the question about secured garage parking. I say this partly as somebody for years worked in a building where I had to call the security guard, by firm policy, to go – to get my car in its open garage if I was leaving after 7, which City of Palo Alto Page 11 I usually was. Almost every building that we’re looking at these days has at least some access for secure parking. I think as a woman I experience these spaces than some of you may. Silicon Valley, by all accounts, is notoriously hostile to women workers and I think this is a design that’s hostel and I would like you to think about how you would make this – how this design would work so that when I leave at 11 and I’m 40-years younger than I am now or even my current age because unfortunately, those kind of violence is not limited to the young and the fit. How would I leave in a safe and comfortable passage there? It’s particularly in my mind because we were just looking at another site nearby where the local merchants were very concerned about creating dark and not particularly publicly viewable spaces so I don’t think it works right now. I’m also skeptical about the internal circulation as it presently stands. On the landscaping, it way very well is that the more exotic trees are completely appropriate in the context of your overall landscaping and the quality of habitat that it provides but it’s too soon to tell. If we are going to use exotic trees and of course most of the trees in town are or where I’d like some information about how it at least helps with our efforts to have more bird and insect friendly settings. I’m also concerned about the very limited potential photovoltaics. One thing that tec. Companies are not is lite on electricity consumption or at least historically they aren’t. It concerns me that the opportunity for this, again bare-bones site, to at least be electrically self-sufficient seems to have been missed but I don’t know what the numbers look like. I don’t know if fifteen percent of your roof would cover the proposed use or not but I would be interested in knowing. Thank you. Chair Lew: Great and Robert. Board Member Gooyer: Thank you. I have some of the same concerns that a couple of my fellow Board Members here, is that I like the basic design of the building. I like the use of the newer materials or the revised materials. I do have a bit of a problem with – it seems like the only part of it that really hasn’t been thought out are sort of the window walls or the glass mullions. They seem a little bit random or don’t really seem like they’ve been thought out as much as the overall concept of the building. The parking garage I think is nice looking parking garage but the interesting thing about it is it – I wouldn’t have a problem with it if this was a situation where it was an existing building and you were putting in a parking garage – where it turned out you needed a more parking so you put in a parking garage. The two structures don’t seem to relate to each other. There’s no way of automatically saying oh, those two obviously go together and I think that’s probably – you know if you’re starting with a virgin site anyway, you would assume that would be the way to go. Then the big thing, which I think all of us seem to be struggling with, is just the whole fact of I don’t think the parking structures works. I mean if you come up the ramp -- the first two or three parking spaces on each side when you get to the top of the ramp, you have to do all kinds of meandering around to get into those spaces. Then if you get to the end, you have to do a ‘T’ to try and get out of there again. It just doesn’t seem to work and it seems either too small or too cramped. I agree also if you come down the ramp, that’s an awfully tight turn. I mean I might be able to make that in my little two-seater but some of the other cars I see out there like some SUVs are going to have a hard time doing that. With all the dead ends, it’s exactly that and I understand that putting a parking structure along the railroad tracks would leave you with a strange bowling alley effect in the front of the building. I don’t think that works but something needs to be done that I think the flow would be better. I don’t – I’m not married to that fact that you have to put it underground and I think you could come up with a successful parking structure that would work because going underground, it has its own set of problems to go with it and the initial cost is understandable. It’s just one of these things that it’s true that basically, I like the design if you just look at it but of the two units I don’t think they work together and I think the flow is what everybody is having a problem with. Thank you. Chair Lew: Thank you, Robert. Peter? Board Member Baltay: Yes, thank you. I find myself in general agreement with my colleagues on the Board. In particular, Kyu’s comments about circulation seem to be sensible. I’ll start though with just talking about the design of (inaudible) two buildings, the parking structure and the main building. The main building, if I look at the two components of it there’s a glazed section and a section I call a solid section with a stronger with a stronger form on it. On the glazing, I just can’t seem to tell if you want it to feel vertical or feel horizontal. The mullions are sort of everywhere and back and forth and it just City of Palo Alto Page 12 needs a little more coherence. I also feel that perhaps it’s a little bit too tall and when I look at your section, you have quite a bit of a parapet there and I think if you cut it down say 4-feet or so, it would just look better. I don’t think it will affect the functionality inside and I’m not asking for that kind of thing but the proportions aren’t quite right on that. On the solid section, again the proportions just don’t feel right to me somehow. When you’re doing that heavy solid wrap around a glazed panel, it’s important to get the proportions of the solid piece right and it’s just not quite there. Secondly, maybe the material choice on that, which is a painted metal panel, is probably – I don’t think it’s the right thing. In that case, typically people use a stone of some kind and it tends to look more suitable for a solid material and probably is more durable as well. Painted metal panels probably over 20-years’ time is going to fade substantially and just not look as sharp as they would up front. I find the design of the parking structure to be problematic in that you’re really counting on this trellis with plants growing on it as an important part of how the parking structure functions and I just can’t believe that those plants can thrive in that environment without a permanent gardener every day out there maintaining, watering and pruning. Those will die and I can’t imagine any landlord is going to spend what it takes to maintain them. Once they’re gone it’s going to look terrible because you’ll have these arching 14-foot pieces of metal there and that’s not an effective solution. The same things go with the view of the building from the street. It’s a beautiful rendering that you have but it really is dependent on getting the perfect architectural execution and really good maintenance over time. I’m sorry but I just don’t see that happening on this kind of building. Usually, it gets built, it gets rented, collects the money every month and that’s the end of it. This particular design is so critically dependent on a really great loving maintenance as though somebody lives there and I just don’t see that happening. Those two things said about the building – well, thirdly the parking structure and the main building, as Robert pointed out, just aren’t – incompatible. They are not architecturally the same in any way and it seems to me that if they are going to be next to each other or part of the same development they should. I’d like though to come back to where Kyu started with – was the overall site planning because I also find myself very troubled by three fundamental aspects to it that I’ve said before in our previous meetings but the first one is maybe best seen if you look at your image P-14, which shows a view down Olive. Although I think deceptively, I think you have a tremendous opportunity to make a strong planning move by really giving us a terminus or something we see as you come down Olive Avenue. What I’d like to ask for you to do is maybe on your next presentation, give us a view down Olive which is closer to what I saw when I walked down Olive Street and you – Olive focuses the view. It’s lined with trees and you come all the way from El Camino and the building really is a visual point there or the plaza or whatever you choose but I think you need to have some terminus to that view or some designed effort. What I see now is sort of the corner of a building with some sort of a plaza and maybe a door but the same problem I had back in July that you really haven’t designed a terminus. I think it’s got to do with your site planning because the building is not quite in the right place. I suggest that you shift it over so you can actually design something on the building to terminate Olive Avenue and then you’ll get room for a second parking exit on the other side; first comment. The second one is about the traffic circulation on the site both vehicular and pedestrian and I think my colleagues and the Staff report do a fair job of explaining what the issues are. I fully agree that it’s just – you have a 1-acre blank site and it’s not nearly as difficult as many sites that people are struggling with in Palo Alto and there’s just no excuse that a firm with the talent that DES has can’t come up with a functioning parking layout. You guys have done it over and over and over again and I’ve seen, architect Gilman, insist on it on other projects and other review boards. You know what we’re talking about and it’s just embarrassing and not adequate right now. Then lastly the biggest issue I think is the parking structure and I find reviewing my notes that at the last review I suggested it should be put underground or at the back of the property. I find I have the same reaction today. I don’t think you’ll be able to fit the parking structure where you have it now and succeed at not having a minimizing impact on the adjacent residential building which is what the code requires. To me there are two alternative ways of locating that parking structure that do minimize the impact. Minimize means do the least amount you can so if you were to put the parking at the back along the train tracks or if you put the parking under the building I think you would take a step towards meeting that code requirement of minimizing impact on the adjacent buildings. As well as solving many other circulation issues and site development issues and creating a terminus and getting rid of the issue of the two buildings that are incompatible with each other. Then I come to the applicants just to point out to you that in the event that this does become a beauty contest, is what people have called it to City Council, the parking structure is going to sink your City of Palo Alto Page 13 project. Think really hard how strongly you want to push for this. Almost every project we see now of this type has underground parking on the building. It just seems to make sense for the applicants that the City Council is more and more expecting that so I just caution you how hard do you want to push for this particular thing. I’ve seen now twice it comes back to us almost the same. Putting different architectural details on it but the core issue really is the parking structures in the wrong place. Thank you. Chair Lew: Thank you, Peter. I think I’m on the same page as the rest of the Board Members. I don’t feel quite as strongly that the garage has to be along the back or underground but I think that the main problem I have with the garage is the handicapped accessible route – the ramp going along the north side of the property and then down along the sidewalk. I don’t think – it’s not necessarily the Board’s purview but I don’t think you’re going to get through the Building Department with that handicapped layout. You know crossing an aisle down the sidewalk and crossing a driveway to the building. I’ve seen it before on other projects and I just find that to be very problematic. I think there – you have made a lot of improvements and I think it shows in the drawings but the lower height of the garage and I think – and the trellises and the screens. I think that shows pretty clearly in the drawings that it’s – that you’ve tried to minimize the impact. The concern I have would be between the handicap ramp and the property line – I guess this goes to sheet A-13, is that if you’re trying to put in like the podocarps trees – like a screen tree in a little 5-foot planting zone with a basement – excavated basements on both sides. I did see you have Silva cell detail in the set but I wasn’t sure where that was being used but typically I guess I would ask – I guess I would ask Staff is for the City or the Urban Forestry if they had a recommendation for the minimum soil volume. We’ve done that on other projects like sometimes I’ve seen 120-cubic feet or whatever it is for that particular species. I’d like some recommendation on that because otherwise is what happens is it will stunt the growth of the trees and then it won’t really – you won’t get the intended effect. Again, as I mentioned in my question before is I’m interested in what is happening along the Caltrain right of way with the fence. I would say that I think that – I use to be a long time Caltrain commuter and the experience along Caltrain in Menlo Park is really fabulous. Then you get to Palo Alto along California Avenue is – it’s really pretty awful, unfortunately; where we put the (inaudible) – blank wall – you know 300-foot long blank walls facing the tracks without any windows or any relief whatsoever. It’s – yeah, it’s just – to me it’s that – just not thinking correctly about the project and I think it’s better to have a two-fronted project ideally. I don’t think that doesn’t show in any of our zoning or in the design guidelines but I think that’s a better way to design the building. Then on the – also on landscape, I think the thing that I really dislike about the existing building is the landscape in the front because it was a car dealer and there wasn’t really – they didn’t really want landscaping because they wanted to show off the BMWs. To me, the Groupon building and some of the new landscaping in front of 195 Page Mill is better and I think that you’re tying into that with the bulb-outs, with the London plane trees, as well as a secondary row of trees inboard of the sidewalk. I think to me, that’s highly desirable in trying to connect the neighborhood back together and so I would be able to find – in favor – I could support the finding for that, for pedestrian amenities. I think the plaza also helps so I think that’s all good. On the building façade, at least on the front façade, I like that you have divided the building into two. I think before when you had it into three elements it was getting a little too cluttered. I think breaking it into two keeps it pretty simple and on the streetscape elevations, it seems to work well with the Groupon building. So, that’s where I am and so I’m curious to see on the Board – for the Board since this is our – is this – this is our second hearing, right? Mr. Owen: Correct. Chair Lew: We’re not supposed to make a recommendation today but I think the Board is pretty opinionated about it so I think maybe if you have a collective about what we want to see in the final – for the final – the third submittal? Board Member Baltay: I’d like to see us give them clear direction about the parking structure. I think two or three of us at least have – I think I’ve heard say clearly that it’s – it really needs to be shifted to a different location but they really – they owe – we owe them a clear direction on something so critical to the project. I feel the parking structure needs to be relocated someplace else. City of Palo Alto Page 14 Chair Lew: I’m not sure that it’s fixable in it’s current – yeah. Board Member Baltay: That’s what I am saying. Chair Lew: (Inaudible)(crosstalk) Board Member Baltay: They’ve had two times to come back to us and honestly, they’ve come back with the same thing. I mean they really didn’t take our serious criticism to heart. They tried to put lipstick on it and that just leads me to think that ok, we get one – another goes at this and the answer is going to be no, at least for me if I don’t see these issues solved. It’s just – it’s a shame, it’s a beautiful parcel and there’s no reason it can’t be done. Chair Lew: Jon. Mr. Lait: Thank you, Chair. Just – as the Board continuous its deliberation, a comment has come up a couple of times about multi ingress/egress from the site and City Staff has a perspective that a single input/output driveway is a huge deal at this location due to the bicycle traffic that we see on Park. So, as you’re considering your deliberations, please consider that we would be interested in a single driveway curb cut. Chair Lew: Thank you, that makes sense. Board Member Baltay: Yeah, that’s fine. It would be nice to see circulation pattern that works and it would nice to see that kind of statement in the Staff report so we understand all the parameters involved. I put back to my fellow Board Members that we owe them clear direction about big issues with the site planning and I think I made clear about how I feel about it. Board Member Gooyer: I agree. Having been on both sides, there’s nothing more frustrating than getting 15 or 20 of these comments and not really having anything that is a little bit more directed. Now having just been told that we’re only allowed one access point, I think that almost indicates that you’re going to have to do some changes with the building or something. Either shifting it or relocating it because that’s going to be really tough to do but the -- I would even be – I understand the ‘L’ shape parking space, that you end up at the corner of the building with a – but if that’s the case then that’s something that maybe you can’t with life but if that’s the case, then I think the parking structure needs to work more. The parking structure also doesn’t work at the moment. If the parking structure worked a lot better where you didn’t have all these strange ‘T’ configurations you’d have to do just a – to get into a parking space I’d be more amenable to it. I’m not as adamant that it needs to be underground but – I’m not even adamant that it needs to be in a different location but it just doesn’t work the way that it is now. Whether that means it needs two ramps on each floor or whatever the case, I don’t know. I’m not going to design it for you but the reality of it is, it’s just – it doesn’t work the way it does now. Chair Lew: Can I – the Staff had mentioned or (inaudible) – somebody had mentioned residential… Board Member Gooyer: Can I just – one more thing… Chair Lew: Yeah. Board Member Gooyer: ...to Staff? I mean one of the – I can understand where you want the one main access but it sure would -- seems like it would make things a whole lot easier, even if there was an exit only off the site or something to avoid some of these. Is that just not allowed at this point? Mr. Lait: Yeah, thanks. I’m going to ask Jared Mullin to give you a more detailed response to that. Mr. Jared Mullin, Transportation Department: In regard to the driveway or driveways potentially, the code says – doesn’t say anything that thou shall not have two driveways on a property on a bicycle boulevard City of Palo Alto Page 15 but when we evaluate these sites during the discretionary review process, we look at the circulation pattern and we look at the City’s bicycle and pedestrian connectivity. As well as obviously, the automobile connectivity and by – Park Boulevard is an established bicycle boulevard in the City’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan. Generally, it’s just – it’s a good access management principle to limit the number of curb cuts proportionally to the size of the building. Then when you throw in the bicycle and pedestrian nature of Park Boulevard, we do try to limit the number of conflict points and every time you add a driveway you introduce new conflict points. It’s not the end of the world if there are two driveways but we – if we are reevaluating the site, we’d like to start with one driveway given the size of the project. It’s not the largest project in the world so that’s something that we’ll start with but two driveways are not the end of the world. Board Member Gooyer: Ok, thank you. Mr. Mullin: You’re welcome. Chair Lew: I have another question for the Board Members. We do have – I think in one of our findings it’s about compatibility with the adjacent residential uses. I think there were some comments about – I think Peter had it about maybe the vines would not be able to be maintained. Are there any – do any of the other Board Members have concerns about screening or any buffering of the – between the two uses? Board Member Gooyer: I guess a couple – we’re talking about the covered parking on the second portion. If these are – I agree that the way that those are designed, they are basically just a structural element to hold the planting up. It is true that – I don’t -- I would probably suggest that if that’s the case, then that becomes a little bit more integrated into the architecture. You could still put the landscaping on it but then if 2 or 3-years the landscaping dies, it doesn’t become an eyesore. That it actually then blends with the architecture of the building so whether that means you use some to integrate screening or something that is on other parts of the parking structure. Chair Lew: Then I did want to – Kyu, I think you had a question about the vines and the green screen. In my experience, typically you can actually get the vines to grow within a year or two if -- there’s a big if. One is typically vines like to be in full sun and so when you put them in a shady location, I find basically you don’t get any – often you don’t get any growth whatsoever. Then the other thing is that you have to have the right amount of soil volume. The times when I’ve used it where trying to fit it in like a little 1- foot planting area, the vines start off initially and then they become stunted and they don’t grow. Vines are actually very vigorous but the issue often is keeping them contained because often these species are – can grow 20 or 30-feet high. I didn’t review all of the species in the landscape plan but I mean that’s the typical case. Ok, is that for the Board? I think we allow usually a rebuttal period. Oh, Wynne, yes? Board Member Furth: I would have trouble right now making the finding about circulation. It doesn’t seem to me to work in too many different ways. It’s an interesting point about the bicycle access and I have been looking at the landscaping again and looking at visibility because the problem always is that you’re going in and out of driveways and in particular, bicycles shoot by so fast if you’re gauging your – I didn’t really look at it in terms of visibility triangles but it looks reasonably good. I think Kyu’s point – sorry, Alex’s point about – the Chair’s point about integrating the landscaping with the grid landscaping that’s emerging with other sites in the area is an important one. That would go a long way and the other thing is that I think that to me, the parking lot and the building don’t seem – there’s nothing that signals to me that this parking lot is for this building as opposed to the residential use next to it. I think that’s really important for functional circulation. I spend too much time driving into the wrong driveway when I’m in strange places and there’s a lot of strangers driving along Park because it leads you – because it’s off a major arterial and because it leads you into a shopping district. So, it’s a little different than if you were actually in the Research Park where you mostly get people who go there every day so that would matter to me along those lines. I’m concerned also that vines can be wonderful but they can also die really fast and it would be important that those structures look good with or without. I do think you might have a constituency for code enforcement if they didn’t do well in the housing next door. City of Palo Alto Page 16 Chair Lew: Ok, so Tom do you have any follow-ups for us? Mr. Gilman: Yeah, maybe just a – kind of a general question or point of clarification. I think as someone noted we did begin at one point, a couple years ago, with the building that had been more centered on the site. We had two accesses but we have been lead – pretty much as Staff has laid out just now to have one access and we can certainly modify the site in any number of ways. We’ve got the ability to come up with a variety of circulation on site. However, I believe that with one site access, I don’t believe we’re going to be able to eliminate entirely dead ends. Unless we were to rotate the building and have it run from street to the train at the back and have a broad width of the site to be about to circulate around and come out once. I think it’s going to be difficult to not at least have a circulation behind the building. We’re going to want them – I think that the design guidelines for this area really push for the idea of having as much integration and pedestrian activity and buildings that front the street and provide activity – visual activity and so on. So, yeah, I’m not keen on the idea of having a small amount of building but rather a broad amount of building so I’m just saying up front here that I feel like there’s a little bit of conflict here. It sounded like there might be a little flexibility on a second exit, whether it’s an exit only or whatever but I mean that’s really truly the only way that I think we’re going to avoid all dead ends. We can get close but I think we’re still going to have some otherwise so that’s just a comment. Board Member Gooyer: I mean there’s one item that would change this drastically is that is exactly like some of the people have said. If you drop the parking underground, then you end up with a whole lot more flexibility as far as the site. You could leave the building right where it is and come up with a fairly flea-like I said, I don’t have a problem with let’s say having one area where you have a dead end as long as you leave a couple area where you can actually turn around. The biggest problem I see with this one is that every one of them is a dead end so I mean you’ve got like five of these things out of five so that’s the part that I have a problem with. If you said we made the other four works and there’s one dead end just because, then I’d agree with you completely that it becomes a tossup of is it more favorable to have a single entry or exit if I have to put up with this dead end (inaudible). I’d have no problem with that but like I said, it’s almost wanting it to for the parking to go underground just to give you more flexibility to do what you need to do at grade. Chair Lew: Can I – also related to parking because I think – I mean to go underground, I think you’ve mentioned previously that it’s very expensive and then I think the Board had not seen information about the COV plume and the TCE in the soil and if it’s tier – what is it, tier one and tier two? There are different types of – two different – what do you call it? Disposal sites depending on the toxicity of the soil and the costs I think between the two are huge. I don’t have personal experience on that but my understanding it’s huge – there’s a huge difference in that. So, we haven’t seen it so we need to – we need more information on all of your thinking about that. Mr. Gilman: Sure. Vice Chair Kim: On the curb cuts, excuse me, I agree with Board Member Gooyer’s comments that he just made. To me, in addition to that, I just see a huge point of congestion right at the entry to the site where if you have any kind of a backup, you’re going to get cars waiting in the bicycle lane or cars trying to decide whether they are going to go up the ramp or to the right. So, I agree that if we can eliminate at least some of the dead ends and maybe move that point of congestion either further into the site or relieve the congestion overall, I don’t think I have so much of a problem with just the one curb cut. As it is, I just see a potential for too many points of congestion. Mr. Gilman: Thank you. Chair Lew: Thank you, Tom. I think that’s – we don’t have other items on this, although I do want to… Vice Chair Kim: Minutes. Chair Lew: I don’t think we have the… City of Palo Alto Page 17 Board Member Gooyer: Do we have to move to… Chair Lew: Oh, yeah. We need to move to continue this item. Anyone want to make a motion? Nobody wants to make… Mr. Lait: Yeah, so I think we need a motion from the Board on that last item and I have some notes that I can offer to the record and the Board could say yes, that’s headed in the right direction or strike or add some things if you wanted to articulate a motion to the applicant or do you feel like it’s been done through the dialog? I mean that’s the – we have a lot of ideas and to the extent that we can add a final point would be ideal. Chair Lew: Yes, Wynne. MOTION Board Member Furth: I have two comments on that suggestion. One is that I’m missing the data to make a decision. I don’t know – my perception presently is that the parking provided involves a lot of elusory spaces; that they are really quite difficult to get too and that the problem with circulation on the site is a significant one. I hadn’t been thinking about the backup problem but when I look at how it all works, I think there’s a good potential for tangling up that busy pedestrian/bicycle point. That’s not going to help because it’s also a busy car circulation place so I don’t think the parking presently works. I don’t know what the alternatives are that would work but I think what we have doesn’t meet our standards. I’m also a bit uncomfortable about adopting a motion which says you should do x, y, z based on the partial information that we have now. I think it is very valuable for you when you get us to get on the record and line ourselves up but I don’t like putting that into a motion. I would move that we continue this to a date uncertain unless the applicant wanted to ask us for further clarification on any points other than the garage and parking. Board Member Gooyer: I agree. I mean having known the architect for 30-years, that he’s more than competent to come up with a design I think and I think he understands what we’re looking for. I agree, I was told from the very first day sat on one of these Boards, don’t design it for the applicant. It’s just not the way it should be done and I purposely don’t want to do that. I don’t want to say do this or do that or whatever. I think he understands that we’re not happy with the circulation, we could live with say a dead-end situation based on the fact that you’re limited to the one drive entry and so I don’t think we need to explain that. I mean I don’t want to put words into your mouth Tom but I’m guessing that you understand what we’re looking for basically. I guess it took this time to make you understand that we were a lot more – it was a lot more critical to us I think than it came across probably the last time. I’ll second your motion. Chair Lew: Ok, all in favor? Opposed? Ok, so we will see you sometime before March 31st; that’s the big deadline. MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 5-0 Approval of Minutes: Chair Lew: I don’t think we have any minutes, there’s nothing on the agenda. Vice Chair Kim: Yeah, Chair Lew, I know they are not on the agenda. They were sent to us for review and if I could just make a comment on them. That’s, fine right? Chair Lew: Sure, but I – you make a comment but I don’t think we can vote on it. City of Palo Alto Page 18 Vice Chair Kim: Right so I just noticed that in a few of the items, I think they were items four and five I believe they were, we seemed to have gained a Board member and the votes were 6-0 but they should have been 5-0. Chair Lew: Great, thank you. Subcommittee Item Board Member Questions, Comments, Announcements Chair Lew: I did want to give the Board Members – all the Board Members an update on our schedule. It’s not – I think that it’s changed from what’s in the – in your packets. So, the 16th, I think there’s not going to be a meeting. Board Member Gooyer: (Inaudible) Chair Lew: Yeah, that’s the latest. December 7th, we are going to have a meeting and that’s probably likely to be Verizon cell sites and then we may start – meet early because that’s going to be Kyu’s last meeting on the Board. We will have a meeting on 12/21 and we will probably have a new Board Member at that time if the Council votes on it. The Council vote is -- for Commissioners is next – is it next Monday? I think I was told it was the 13th and we do have items and there are items for that meeting. Board Member Gooyer: Don’t we also then have to elect a new Chair? Chair Lew: Yes… Board Member Gooyer: (Inaudible) do that on the 7th I guess? Chair Lew: No because the Board – the new Board Members won’t begin until the 21st at the earliest. Board Member Gooyer: 21st of December? Mr. Lait: Yeah, I… Chair Lew: So, we’ll see what happens. Mr. Lait: Yeah, we do it a year after and I forget – you know sometimes it floats a meeting or two but we can take a look at that and there’s also sort of a Board management discussion about how you want to do your elections and when that takes place relative to new members coming in. We would plan on having it on the one-year anniversary at the last election at this point and I’ll have to find out which date that is; it’s coming up. Chair Lew: Yes. Ok, we’re adjourned, thank you. Adjournment Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 8712) Report Type: Subcommittee Items Meeting Date: 12/7/2017 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 300 Homer Avenue: Subcommittee Review of Courtyard Pavers, Lighting, and Landscape Title: 300 Homer Avenue [15PLN-00290]: Subcommittee Review of a Previously Approved Project That was Conditioned to Return With Project Changes Related to Courtyard Pavement Details, Risers to the Courtyard, Railing Details at the Front Entrance, Trellis Details, Comprehensive Landscape Plan, and Lighting Plan With Photometric Data. Environmental Assessment: Exempt From the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in Accordance With Guideline Section 15301 (Existing Facilities). Zoning District: PF (Public Facilities). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Adam Petersen at apetersen@m-group.us From: Hillary Gitelman Recommendation Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) Subcommittee take the following action(s): 1. Discuss and provide recommendations on project revisions. Background On February 4, 2016 the Director of Planning and Community Environment approved the subject project consisting of minor additions to the Palo Alto History Museum for Historic and Architectural Review. The project consists of a 1,458 square foot (sf) addition to the building and minor exceptions to allow off-site parking and a front yard encroachment of three feet. At the Board’s recommendation, a condition was imposed that required certain project elements return to the ARB subcommittee. Below are the items that were requested to return to the subcommittee and the applicant’s response to these conditions: Architecture Review Condition: 7 Packet Pg. 402 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 16. The following items shall be reviewed and approved by the ARB sub-committee prior to the issuance of a building permit: a. Pavement details in the courtyard area, including paver configuration b. Details of the risers to the courtyard c. Details of the railings by the front entrance d. Details of trellises at the rear side of the building e. Comprehensive landscape plan that gives consideration to: (1) plant materials that are compatible with the historic context and (2) additional seating in the courtyard f. Lighting plan with photometric data Applicant’s Response: 16a – The applicant proposes three different types of pavers and configurations, but the paver material would be the same throughout the project. All the pavers would be made of colored cast concrete. The type and configuration varies based on location as shown on the landscape plan, sheet L-1. The three paver configurations and colors are as follows: o The applicant proposes Belgard Turfstone pavers along edge of the sidewalk paralleling Homer Avenue. These are untinted gray in color and allow for landscaping growth. o The second configuration of pavers is a square pattern bordering the sidewalk along Homer Avenue. These pavers are Belgard Aqualine and paver color is “Victorian.” These individual pavers are 12 inches by 12 inches and will be loose laid similar to the existing cast-in-place concrete, but will allow the paving to shift as needed to accommodate the growing oak tree. o The third configuration of pavers are used in the courtyard, patio area along Bryant Street, and pathway leading from Homer Avenue. The pattern appears random, but the configuration is represented on Sheet L-1 and in the material cut sheet. These pavers are Belgard Eco Dublin and the color is “Toscana.” 7 Packet Pg. 403 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 16b – The applicant evaluated the proposed risers leading to the courtyard. However, following redesigning of the project for building permit submittal, it was determined that the risers were not needed. Riser Location Before Removed Risers 16c – The applicant proposes handrails leading to the three Homer Street face entry doors and stairs and the sloped walk in the courtyard. These handrails are proposed to Turfstone pavers Aqualine pavers Eco Dublin pavers 7 Packet Pg. 404 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4 be wrought iron with a period-appropriate grip and square pickets. The color is black with a semi-gloss finish. 16d – The applicant proposes an aluminum trellis at the rear of the building with posts ranging in measurements from vertical four by fours and primary perimeter two by six inch beams. The trellis color is proposed to be Benjamin Moore “Buckland Blue,” and would attach to the building via an internal sleeve connection. 16e – The applicant proposes a planting plan that reflects the historical period following the building’s construction in 1929. The applicant proposes lower growing plants around the perimeter of the building and maintaining the historical Japanese Camellias, as recommended by the City arborist. The proposed plant pallet adheres to the City’s Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. The plan pallet proposes Japanese maples, abelias, McMinn Manzanita, and Beard Tongues, sword ferns, daylilies, and hawthorns. The applicant considered installing permanent seating and tables in the courtyard area, but determined not to add these features. The applicant noted that the courtyard is identified as a place for potential artifact displays and is enlarged by trimming the vegetation to accommodate gatherings. Permanent seating in this area would obstruct displays and confine the number of people in the space. However, the applicant notes that the museum could use folding chairs to accommodate visitors in this area. 16f – The applicant has included a complete photometric plan with cut sheets of the proposed lighting. As shown on sheet E1.1, light F6 is a downlight mounted in the building and would not be visible. Light F7 is a wall mounted sconce type light with a black finish made from die cast aluminum. These lights are primarily located along the perimeter of the building. Light type F8 is a column light for the patio area facing Bryant Street and along the pathway on the opposite site of the building. This light is a one piece of extruded aluminum and is black in color. Light F9 is a floodlight, is black in color, and is located opposite of Bryant Street, facing the building from the park. 7 Packet Pg. 405 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5 A video recording of the Board’s last meeting on this project is available online: http://midpenmedia.org/architectural-review-board-37/ A staff report for this project is available online at: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/50820 Meeting minutes from the February 4, 2016 are available online at: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/51104 The Board is encouraged to provide direction to staff and the applicant as to whether the proposed changes are sufficient or requires further refinement. Report Author & Contact Information ARB1 Liaison & Contact Information Adam Petersen, Contract Planner Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager (408) 340-5642 (650) 329-2575 apetersen@m-group.us jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments: Attachment A: Updated Project Description (PDF) Attachment B: Project Plans (DOCX) Attachment C: Approved Project Plans (DOCX) 1 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org 7 Packet Pg. 406 20 February 2017 updated 31 October 2017 updated 10 November 2017 updated 16 November 2017 PALO ALTO HISTORY MUSEUM PROJECT DESCRIPTION BACKGROUND The Roth Building is located at 300 Homer Avenue and originally housed the Palo Alto Clinic. Prominent Palo Alto architect Birge M. Clark designed the original portion (1931) as well as an addition (1946). The building was recorded by the Palo Alto Historic Resources Board in 1981 and assigned a Category 2 rating. In 2000 the Roth Building was sold to the City of Palo Alto. Period of Significance Based upon known data, the period of significance (the chronological period that relates to the historic context) has been established as 1932, the year of Roth Building's construction, to 1953 when the building and addition would be over fifty years of age. Construction History Original Clinic (1931-32) - The Palo Alto Clinic, Inc. hires prominent Palo Alto architect Birge M. Clark to design a new clinic building for its practice. Clark designs a U-shaped building with one-story wings and a two-story 'spine.' The building's exterior exhibits the trademark "California Colonial" features typical of Clark's projects, such as stucco finish walls, tile roofs, and wood balconies. The entry porch is decorated with medically themed murals executed in fresco by Victor Arnautoff. Clinic Addition (1946 - 47) - The Palo Alto Clinic, Inc. again hires architect Birge M. Clark to design an addition to its building. Clark designs a U-shaped building with three-story wings and 'spine.' A sunken garden is located between the wings. The building's exterior exhibits the trademark "California Colonial" features typical of Clark's projects, but in a more utilitarian execution. Interior Remodeling (1940’s – ‘95) - Interior remodeling to facilitate changes in medical technology & practice needs. Northeast corner of the 1931 portion is altered to connect Roth Building with Lee Building, erected in 1961. [Note: City of Palo Alto disposed of plans & permit applications dated prior to 1971.] Partial Demolition & Seismic Upgrade (2000 - PRESENT) - Exterior openings at northeast corner of 1931 portion are blocked up with demolition of Lee Building. Wings of 1946 addition are 582 MARKET ST. SUITE 1800 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104 T: 415.391.9633 F: 415.391.9647 www.garavaglia.com 7.a Packet Pg. 407 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t A : U p d a t e d P r o j e c t D e s c r i p t i o n ( 8 7 1 2 : 3 0 0 H o m e r A v e n u e : S u b c o m m i t t e e R e v i e w o f C o u r t y a r d P a v e r s , L i g h t i n g , a n d Palo Alto History Museum - Roth Building Updated Project Description 16 November 2017 Page 2 of 5 severed from 'spine' and specific building materials are salvaged from wings. Spine is seismically upgraded. Upon completion of seismic upgrade, wings are demolished, and their footprints and the sunken garden are backfilled. Lease Option Through an RFP process the Palo Alto History Museum currently holds a lease option for the building. The option has been extended for a period of one year with a requested additional one year extension pending. The lease does not address any Museum use of adjacent Heritage Park. The Park Improvement Ordinance will require both Park and Recreation Commission as well as City Council review and approval for any improvements to take place. Any approved improvements made by the Museum within the park cannot be dedicated for the sole use of the Museum so must be made available for park visitor and general public use. Because of the defined area allocated to the Roth Building as part of the lease there is no space available for on site parking. There is space available for bicycle parking on site. Public parking is available within reasonable walking distance at City Hall. PROPOSED USE The project work will rehabilitate the building for use as the Palo Alto History Museum. Utilizing the California Historical Building Code (CHBC) seismic upgrades will be implemented for the original 1931 portion and remaining spine portion of the 1946 addition. The mechanical, electrical and plumbing systems will be upgraded. The interior rehabilitation will respond to the requirements of the lease as well as the program for the museum. The Museum is looking to the City for an exemption to the City Green Building guidelines. Themes that will guide museum displays within the Roth Building - Physical Community - Culture - Technology - Business and Finance Approximate area allocated to use - Gallery / Working Archives 6,100 sf - Community Room 700 sf - Café / Kitchen 480 sf - Offices 2,500 sf As required by the lease the rehabilitation will include creation of a restroom to be made available for public use accessible from the adjacent City park (Heritage Park) and a community room to be made available for use by neighborhood/community groups. REHABILITATION SCOPE The rehabilitation of the building for the museum will include gallery space, office space for museum staff, community meeting room, a café, toilet rooms, archive / storage space along with mechanical and other utility spaces. Small additions at the south elevation will increase 7.a Packet Pg. 408 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t A : U p d a t e d P r o j e c t D e s c r i p t i o n ( 8 7 1 2 : 3 0 0 H o m e r A v e n u e : S u b c o m m i t t e e R e v i e w o f C o u r t y a r d P a v e r s , L i g h t i n g , a n d Palo Alto History Museum - Roth Building Updated Project Description 16 November 2017 Page 3 of 5 available usable space. The west side of the property will receive a ramp, exit stair from basement and community room access integrated with south additions. Minimal exterior modifications on the east side will accommodate the public restroom and the code required second stair exit. The café will have a service window facing south toward the park. The rehabilitation work will follow the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. The Rehabilitation Standards acknowledge the need to alter or add to a historic building to meet continuing or new uses while retaining the building’s historic character. These standards allow for the alteration that will be needed for code upgrades as well as meeting the needs of the museum’s program. The rehabilitation work will be consistent with these standards in first identifying, retaining and preserving character defining features of the building. The identification of features will be done within the framework of a Historic Structure Report. All rehabilitation work will be consistent in preserving and maintaining the historic fabric of the building. Interior Work The rehabilitation of the interior will require limited removal or modification of existing walls in development for museum use. The period of significance (1932-1953) will be the guide for proposed modifications of current wall layouts. New toilet rooms with accessible fixtures will be provided, for use by museum visitors and staff. A limited number of new doorways through existing walls will be added to create a smooth flow for visitors through the museum gallery spaces. Main museum circulation paths will follow historic hallways and doorways. The existing elevator only stops at Basement, First and Second Floors and will continue to do so after rehabilitation. Access to the community space will primary be from the south side of the building. Control points are designed into the building circulation to allow for use of the community room during museum off hours. Community room users will have access to toilet rooms, and trash/recycling, as needed. Control points can be expanded to allow limited access to additional areas of the building as the needs of the group warrants. The building systems upgrades will help provide the appropriate environment for the display and storage of artifacts from the Museum’s collection. Temperature & humidity control as well as lighting along with technological integration are key components of the building system that is to be designed for the Museum. Exterior Work The south facing façade, currently with two gable topped blank walls, will be rehabilitated with small additions to create a better relationship to the adjacent park and adjacent residential development. This expansion will provide additional space for museum galleries on the first and second floors at the east end as well as for the working archives on the second floor at west end. The center portion of the south façade will be rehabilitated with features and details that existed during the period of significance. The paved courtyard area will be expanded to provide a slightly larger gathering space and potential artifact display area. This larger paved area will also allow gatherings with a mix of people standing or seated on folding chairs. Some of the existing camellia bushes have been dramatically cut back by the City for access to secure the windows in the courtyard with plywood. The remaining camellia bushes will be relocated to allow for the expansion of the 7.a Packet Pg. 409 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t A : U p d a t e d P r o j e c t D e s c r i p t i o n ( 8 7 1 2 : 3 0 0 H o m e r A v e n u e : S u b c o m m i t t e e R e v i e w o f C o u r t y a r d P a v e r s , L i g h t i n g , a n d Palo Alto History Museum - Roth Building Updated Project Description 16 November 2017 Page 4 of 5 paved surface. The original center planter, currently paved with concrete and at one point the anchor location of two non-historic wood benches, will also be re-paved with permeable pavers. The permeable pavers to be used within the courtyard are colored cast concrete and will be set in a large pattern that appears to be random at first glance. Because all of the newly paved areas are currently planted areas the intent is to not have them appear to be a fixed grid such as a running bond or herringbone pattern. The specific paver patterns proposed are shown in the paver material “cutsheets” presented as part of the ARB review package. The paver colors are: Belgard Eco Dublin paver color: "Toscana" Belgard Aqualine paver color: "Victorian" Belgard Turfstone paver color: untinted gray concrete Leading from the sidewalk, the broken and shifted cast-in-place concrete paving heaved by the existing heritage oak tree roots will be replaced by a square grid patterned cast concrete paver. The proposed 12”x12” loose laid concrete pavers will be similar to the existing cast-in-place concrete in color and finish but will allow the paving to shift as needed to accommodate the ever-growing oak tree roots. The previous stepped walk and ramp scheme at the courtyard came up in response to a number of design adjustments requested by Dave Dockter and Matt Weintraub, City of Palo Alto, and became part of the response, dated 11 January 2016, to Additional CUP Comments. Following redesign in the fall of 2016, the steps and ramp scheme was not part of the December 2016 permit submittal package and is not part of the current design. This provides improved accessibility throughout the full courtyard and is closer in concept to the circulation patterns of the original courtyard, which did not have any risers in it. The planting plan and proposed plants reflect the historical period following the building’s construction in 1929. Through the use of lower growing period plant material around the perimeter of the building we are providing a safer pedestrian experience (the original mature plantings obscured the building windows and shrouded pedestrian visibility) we are maintaining the historic use of Japanese Camellias, adhering to recommendations of the City Arborist, and still providing a plant palette that adheres to the efficient use of water and plant material in accordance with the Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. There are no new permanent seating and tables proposed for the exterior of the building. The proposed exterior folding tables and chairs shown in the drawings are intended to be in place only during business hours of the museum, the café, and also when a large group is expected to use the building as a venue. The new handrails leading to the three Homer Street face entry door stairs and the sloped walk in the courtyard will be wrought iron with a period-appropriate grip and simple, square pickets. The grip profile, shown in the details and ARB review package, is similar to the grip of the existing railing at the courtyard entry porch. The handrails will have a code compliant extension at each end, as shown in the details. All handrails will be painted a semi-gloss black. 7.a Packet Pg. 410 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t A : U p d a t e d P r o j e c t D e s c r i p t i o n ( 8 7 1 2 : 3 0 0 H o m e r A v e n u e : S u b c o m m i t t e e R e v i e w o f C o u r t y a r d P a v e r s , L i g h t i n g , a n d Palo Alto History Museum - Roth Building Updated Project Description 16 November 2017 Page 5 of 5 Code Upgrades As part of code required upgrades a second exit stair is needed from the second floor. The second stair will be accommodated completely within the current building volume and exit to the east side of the building. The accessible public restroom will be within the existing volume of the building and open to the east side of the building. The door of the exit stair will require a new opening be created through the exterior wall. The restroom door will utilize part of an existing window opening. An accessible path will be created along the east side of the building to provide both access to the restroom from the park and egress path from exit stair toward Homer Street. A second exit stair will also be provided leading from the existing basement up through the existing vent well at the west side of the building toward Bryant Street. An accessible path leading from Bryant Street sidewalk toward the new addition at the south side of the building will be provided along the west side setback. Transfer of Development Rights The proposed rehabilitation will add a minimal floor area relative to allowable for the building site. This project will utilize section 18.87 of the Zoning Code to make development rights available for transfer to a qualified receiver site. The final floor area available for transfer has not yet been determined. Off Site To the south within the park space, the area where the 1946 building wings stood will receive landscaping and open space features developed for use by museum visitors as well as the general public. This proposed work off the building grounds within Heritage Park boundaries will be developed and submitted under a separate process. Codes The rehabilitation work will comply with: - Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation - California Historical Building Code - California Building Code - California Mechanical Code - California Electrical Code - California Plumbing Code The entitlements listed below for the project have been granted: - Major Historic Resource Review - Conditional Use Permit (CUP) under “Community Use Center” including museum, office space, café and community room - Minor Architectural Review for exterior changes including request for “Parking Adjustment by Director” - Transfer Development Rights (TDR) Current process is for building permit approval. 7.a Packet Pg. 411 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t A : U p d a t e d P r o j e c t D e s c r i p t i o n ( 8 7 1 2 : 3 0 0 H o m e r A v e n u e : S u b c o m m i t t e e R e v i e w o f C o u r t y a r d P a v e r s , L i g h t i n g , a n d Attachment B Project Plans Hardcopies of project plans are provided to ARB Members. These plans are available to the public online and by visiting the Planning and Community Environmental Department on the 5th floor of City Hall at 250 Hamilton Avenue. Directions to review Project plans online: 1. Go to: https://paloalto.buildingeye.com/planning 2. Search for “300 Homer Avenue” and open record by clicking on the green dot 3. Review the record details and open the “more details” option 4. Use the “Records Info” drop down menu and select “Attachments” 5. Open the attachment named “17116-PAHM-ARB SubComPackage.pdf” dated November 21, 2017 7.b Packet Pg. 412 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : P r o j e c t P l a n s ( 8 7 1 2 : 3 0 0 H o m e r A v e n u e : S u b c o m m i t t e e R e v i e w o f C o u r t y a r d P a v e r s , L i g h t i n g , a n d L a n d s c a p e ) Attachment C Approved Project Plans Hardcopies of project plans are provided to ARB Members. These plans are available to the public online and by visiting the Planning and Community Environmental Department on the 5th floor of City Hall at 250 Hamilton Avenue. Directions to review Project plans online: 1. Go to: https://paloalto.buildingeye.com/planning 2. Search for “300 Homer Avenue” and open record by clicking on the green dot 3. Review the record details and open the “more details” option 4. Use the “Records Info” drop down menu and select “Attachments” 5. Open the attachment named “Approved Plans – Received on January 12, 2016” 7.c Packet Pg. 413 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t C : A p p r o v e d P r o j e c t P l a n s ( 8 7 1 2 : 3 0 0 H o m e r A v e n u e : S u b c o m m i t t e e R e v i e w o f C o u r t y a r d P a v e r s , L i g h t i n g , a n d