Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 286-06City of Palo Alto City Manager’s Report 9 TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT JULY 10, 2006 CMR:286:06 4243 MANUELA AVENUE [04PLN-00143]: REQUEST BY CINGULAR WIRELESS ON BEHALF OF ALDERSGATE METHODIST CHURCH FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW THE INSTALLATION OF A TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY. ZONE DISTRICT: R-1 (20,000). ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT PER SECTION 15303. RECOMMENDATION Staff and the Planning and Transportation Commission (Commission) recommend that the City Council uphold the Director of Planning and Community Environment’s decision to approve the Conditional Use Permit based upon the findings and conditions in the Record of Land Use Action (Attachment A) for the installation of a telecommunications facility comprised of a 45- foot "pine" tree-pole with six panel antennas concealed within the upper branches and associated equipment cabinets at the base of the pole. BACKGROUND The City’s streamlined development approval process provides for a Council "call up" review of Conditional Use Permit applications that have been reviewed by the Commission. Instead of the project automatically being heard by Council, the recommendation of the Commission is placed on the consent calendar of the City Council within 30 days of the Commission’s review. In the case of Conditional Use Permit applications, three Council Member votes are required to remove the project from the consent calendar and schedule it for a subsequent City Council meeting. Otherwise, the recommendation of the Commission stands and no hearing is held. If the Council votes to hear the item, a hearing shall be scheduled as soon as practicable. On July 18, 2005, the Director of Planning and Community Environment tentatively approved the request for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow the installation of a new telecommunications facility. Within the prescribed timeframe, one request for a public hearing was received for the CUP application. The associated Architectural Review application, CMR:286:06 Page 1 of 3 reviewing the aesthetic qualities of the project was approved with conditions on July 18, 2005; no hearing request was received for this entitlement. On August 31, 2005, the Commission held a public hearing for the project and continued the hearing to have the Architectural Review Board review design alternatives to ensure a design solution appropriate for the context. The August 31, 2005 staff report and meeting minutes are attached for additional background information. On May 18, 2006, the Architectural Review Board reviewed the design options for the new facility. The two options that were considered were the standard mono-pole (staff’s original recommendation) and a "pine" tree-pole. The Board voted 3-2 in favor of the pine tree-pole design. COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS On June 14, 2006, the project was reviewed by the Commission, who recommended that the City Council uphold the Director of Planning and Community Environment’s decision to approve the Conditional Use Permit (6-0-0-1, Commissioner Sandas absent). The Commissioners added the following items to staff’s conditions of approval: The project shall be a pine tree-pole instead of a standard mono-pole. For the purposes of preserving the existing tree canopy at the site, the existing trees shall be irrigated to maintain health and assist with disease prevention. There were two members of the public who spoke, one in support, citing the need for better cell phone reception for the area, and one opposed to the project due to aesthetic concerns. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW This project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act per Section 15301. PREPARED BY: DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW: CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: Planner "" STEVE L:rMSLIE Director of Planning and Community Environment HARRISON Assistant City Manager CMR:286:06 Page 2 of 3 ATTACHMENTS: No B. C. D. E. F. G. H. I. J. K. L. M. N. 0. Record of Land Use Action Project Zone Map Applicant Submittal Information Radio Frequency Analysis for Proposed Project (submitted by applicant) Comprehensive Plan Compliance Zoning Table Background~roj ect Description Planning and Transportation Commission Verbatim Minutes, June 14, 2006 Architectural Review Board Verbatim Minutes, May 18, 2006 Planning and Transportation Commission Staff Report, August 31, 2005 Planning and Transportation Commission Verbatim Minutes, August 31, 2005 Conditional Use Permit Approval Letter, dated July 18, 2005 Architectural Review Approval Letter, dated July 18, 2005 Correspondence Project Plans (Council Members Only) COURTESY COPIES: Pamela Nobel, Applicant Aldersgate Methodist Church, Property Owner Jackie Berman Phil Green Amy Smiley CMR:286:06 Page 3 of 3 Attachment A ACTION NO. 2006-05 RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO LAND USE ACTION FOR 4243 MANUELA AVENUE: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 04PLN-00143 (CINGULAR WIRELESS, APPLICANT) On July i0, 2006, the Council upheld the Director of Planning and Community Environment’s July 18, 2005 decision to approve a Conditional Use Permit to allow the installation of one telecommunications facility making the following findings, determination and declarations: SECTION I. Background. The City Council of the City of Palo Alto ("City Council") finds, determines, and declares as fol!ows: A. On December 28, 2004, Cingular Wireless, on behalf of Aldersgate Methodist Church, applied for a Conditional Use Permit to allow the installation of one telecommunications facility, comprised of a 45-foot faux tree-pole with six pane! antennas concealed within the top region of the tree and associated equipment cabinets (~The Project"). B. Following staff review, the Planning and Transportation Commission reviewed the project on June 14, 2006 and voted [6-0] to recommend that Council uphold the Director of Planning and Community Environment’s decision to approve the project. The Commission’s action is contained in the CMR: 286:06. SECTION 2.Environmental Review.This project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act per Section 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines. SECTION 3.Conditional Use Permit Findinqs i. The proposed use, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience, in that: The proposed telecommunications use, located on an existing non-residentially developed site, will not negatively impact the project site or the surrounding properties. This new use is ancillary to the primary religious institution use of the site. The project is designed and located to minimize visual impacts from off-site views. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) rules require transmitting facilities to comply with Radio Frequency exposure guidelines. The limits established in the guidelines are Attachment A designed to protect the public health with a very large margin of safety. The proposed use shall be conducted in accordance with all the Ci ty" s regulations (Planning, Building, Fire, etc. ) and complies with the FCC regulations and, therefore, will not be detrimental to public health, safety, and welfare. 2. The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of Title 18 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code in that: The proposed telecommunications use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Policy B-13 . This policy supports the development of technologically advanced communications infrastructure and other improvements that will facilitate the growth of emerging telecommunications industries. The proposed use does not conflict with the promotion and protection of public health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, convenience, and general wel fare. SECTION 4.Conditional Use Permit Granted. Conditional Use Permit No. 04PLN-00143 is granted to allow the installation of one telecommunications facility, comprised of a 45-foot faux tree- pole with six panel antennas concealed within the top region of the pole and associated equipment cabinets SECTION 5.Plan Approval. The plans submitted for Building Permit shall be in substantial conformance with those plans prepared by Velocitel titled Foothill Expressway & Miranda, consisting of seven pages, dated May 19, 2005 and received June 01, 2005, except as modified to incorporate the conditions of approval in Section 6. A copy of these plans is on file in the Department of Planning and Community Development. SECTION 6.Conditions of Approval. Planning Division i.A complete copy of this Record of Land Use Action shall be printed on the second page of the plans submitted for building permit. 2.The Conditional Use Permit approval is contingent upon the approval of the associated Architectural Review application and the conditions listed therein. 3.The fence enclosure shall be redesigned with a more rustic appearance to compliment the existing rural setting of the 2 Attachment A site. The enclosure shall be painted to match the matte color of the bark of the existing trees. 4.The density of the branch and foliage placement shall be the highest density that the structure can support. 5.All hardware and materials shall be painted to match the tree or screened. 6. The access hole at the base of the tree shall be covered. 7.The antennas shall beplaced within the branches and not protrude beyond the limbs. 8.The antennas shall be painted to match the tree foliage or antenna socks shall be installed if determined to provide better concealment. The antenna socks allow foliage to be attached that will cover the antenna for further concealment. 9.Samples of the bark and foliage texture and color shall be submitted and approved prior to construction of the pole. !0. Inspections. Before lifting the upper half of the tree sections into place, the contractor shall call for an inspection by Planning staff to approve and/or adjust the branch spacing. ii. The project shall maintain a minimum distance of 8-feet from all existing trees. 12. Building permit plans shall show the accurate placement of the required tree protection fencing of the existing trees in the project/access area. 13. Three 24" box Canary Island Pines (8-10 feet tall) shall be planted in a staggered formation in the southeast corner of the property. Location shall be reviewed and approved prior to the Building Permit issuance. 14. For the life of the project, perpetual screening shall be maintained at all time by the tree canopies (existing and new) surrounding the project area. 15. The existing trees on the site shall be automatically irrigated. The final irrigation plan shall be reviewed and approved prior to the Building Permit issuance. Attachment A 16. For the first ten years, beginning 2007, of the life of the project, the following tree monitoring program shall be implemented: a. A tree survey shall be conducted of the trees on the premises, on an annual basis, reporting the health conditions of the existing trees within an 80-foot radius of the monopole. b. The survey shall be conducted by an ISA certified arborist. c. The survey shall be submitted to Planning staff by October 1 of every year. d. For trees determined to be in poor condition (0-i0 year life expectancy) due to beetle infestation or other adverse conditions, a replacement tree shall be installed based on the standards in the Tree Technical Manual. e. The approved replacement trees shall be one of the following: Quercus species, Canary Island Pine, Coast Redwood, or approved equivalent. Replacement trees shall be a minimum 24" box size. f. The replacement trees shall be planted during the soonest following rain season, November 15-February 15, according to the methods outlined in the Tree Technical Manual, Section 3.00. 17. Upon the submittal of the final tree survey (October 2016), the Director shall determine if the annual tree monitoring should continue. 18. Irrigation shall be required for all new plantings. The required irrigation system shall provide additional irrigation lines that would be tapped into for any future plantings. The final irrigation plan shall be reviewed and approved prior to the Building Permit issuance. 19. Modifications, to the satisfaction of the planning staff, are required for the landscape plan (native plant material is required for the screening of the equipment enclosure). With the building permit submittal, a revised landscape plan shall be submitted for review and final approval. 20. Contractor shall call for Planning staff’s advice if a conflict arises with any of the adjacent trees during construction (Clare Campbell/Dave Dockter 650-329-2442). 21. No vehicle access beyond the existing paved area of the parking lot is allowed during construction of for future site maintenance. Attachment A 22. The gravel access path shall be dug down no deeper than 4 inches. This detail should be shown on the building permit plans. 23. Prior to final inspection, the applicant shall provide a letter to city staff with the following two submittals: (!) Provide Owner/operator contact information for future reference, maintenance issues or complaints and (2) provide photographs of the facility from at least two sides in a 8" x i0" format and a digital copy for City records. 24. Maintenance. For the life of the project, the City shall retain the right to require the tree pole be maintained consistent with the condition at time of "final" building permit approval. Condition shall include, and is not limited to, the color of the foliage, branching and trunk materials, branch length, angle of attachment and density. Associated plantings, fencing and materials shal! be maintained consistent with the approval. Failure of any portion of the tree pole or planting shall be repaired by the owner/operator within 30 days of discovery or contact by the City. 25. An amendment to this Conditional Use Permit is required if the facility expands in size and/or capacity. 26. Revocation or Modification of Use Permit Approval: The director may issue a notice of noncompliance for any failure to comply with any condition of this permit approval, or when a use conducted pursuant to a conditional use permit is being conducted in a manner detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare. After due process, the Director may revoke or modify the original conditions of approva! (PAMC 18.77.110). SECTION 7.Term of Approval. If the Conditional Use Permit granted is not used within one year of the date of council approval, it shall become nul! and void, pursuant to by Pa!o Alto Municipal Code Section 18.77.100. PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: A ttach m en t A ATTEST:APPROVED: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Director of Planning and Community Environment Senior Asst. City Attorney PLANS AND DRAWINGS REFERENCED: Those plans prepared by Velocite! titled Foothill Expressway & Miranda, consisting of seven pages, dated May 19, 2005 and received June 01, 2005. 6 Attachment APPLICANT’S SUBMITTAL INFORMATION 4243 Manuela Drive Attachment C ¯Response to Issues Raised at the 08/31/05 Planning & Transportation Commission Meeting ¯Project Description Letter ¯Alternate Site Analysis ¯Photosimulations: Mono-Pole & Tree-Pole ¯Supplemental Site Photographs City of Palo Alto Ve I d° °C °Te RE: File Number 04-PLN-00143, Aldersgate Methodist Church 4243 Manuela Avenue, Palo Alto CA 94306 Cingular Site 2059-D Neighborhood opposition and commission members raised the following concerns at the Planning and Transportation Commission meeting held August 31, 2005. 1.Photos misleading. No photos were taken direct across looking at the site. Photos would need to be taken from private property to give exact visual aspect. Enclosed in this supplemental package are black and white photos taken by previous planner from various locations in surrounding neighborhood. = Neighbors would like to know why alternative location was not chosen along Foothill Expressway north of Arastradero Road. Please also note that no candidate sites north of Arastradero Road were considered, because applicant is proposing a separate telecommunications site inside the Hillview-Arastradero triangle at the Roche labs administration building (our site #1819-N). Any candidate site along Foothill Expressway north of Arastradero Road would Not meet coverage objectives, and will be too close to the existing and Proposed Cingular sites at Roche Lab, and VA Hospital. Alternative Analysis; a. Wood utility poles at the end of Miranda Ave. and at Miranda Ave and Miranda Green; These candidates offer an acceptable geographic location for the proposed antenna site, however the pole structures themselves are overburdened with existing utility lines and attachments, and as a consequence are structurally inadequate to host the required antenna installation (it is structurally adequate to hold its existing load, but the additional loads imposed by the proposed antenna installation would cause it to become structurally unsafe). PG&E also declined to agree to any pole change in this area, because of the costs to PG&E and because of the potential for service outages associated with the large number of power, telephone, and cable television distribution lines associated with this line of poles. b. Flagpole at Alta Mesa Memorial located at 695 Arastradero Road Palo Alto Ca 94306 ; This site offered a good geographic location and more-than-adequate visual separation from nearby residential properties and rights-of-way, however cemetery officials flatly rejected all overtures regarding a proposed antenna installation of any sort (including a camouflaged flagpole antenna installation). The management absolutely declined to enter into lease negotiations. In addition the flagpole would have had to been replaced to accommodate Cingular specs. The City of Palo Alto does not support wireless flagpoles of large diameter. This location is also to far North to meet coverage objectives, and too close to existing sites c. Veterans Hospital located at 3801 Miranda Ave. Palo Alto CA 94304 Cingular has an existing site at VA Hospital. New site at this location will not meet coverage objectives for 2059, Aldersgate Church. Vel 0c° °iTei o o Opposition voiced regarding cell coverage proposed at the Aldersgate Church cell site because it has not been proven that erecting a tower on the Aldersgate property will meet the needs of the neighborhood in regard to cell coverage. Cingular purchased AT&T’s network in 2004 for $41 billion. A deal that makes the Atlanta based carrier the largest in the nation, with 46 million subscribers. What makes a carrier great is it’s seamless network. No factor is more important than network coverage and the latest technology. RF to speak about coverage area. Wireless communications facilities should be visually unobtrusive and compatible with the surroundings. Neighbors are concerned because applicant’s representative met with some of the neighbors prior to appeal hearing and proposed a mono-pine tree design instead of mono-pole. Neighbors are amenable to a mono-pine. Commission asked if consideration was given to some other kind of a design and if ARB was noticed to review prior to appeal hearing. Applicant is proposing a mono-pine. From a design and aesthetic standpoint a tree design of some type would be the best-case solution, as it would easily blend in among the existing pine trees on the property. The neutral color will blend with the pole and be visually unobtrusive. Applicant is proposing current location depicted on drawings. The antennas will be camouflaged by nearby structures, topography and landscaping. View from Manuela is limited as it is backside of church parking lot. Front side view is bound by freeway. Alternative designs: Three other designs have been submitted per planners request. Slim-Line Mono Pole; The issue with any pole configuration (slim-line mono-pole, flagpole, light standard) is that Cingular is now using the larger antenna and in order to place the antenna in a radome it would require a pole diameter at the top of at least 24"- 30". Roof Top Fagade; Adding to the top of church building could be quite expensive and require structural analysis, not to mention it would look more visually obtrusive. Additional issues would be trying to keep the addition or extension of the steeple in scale with the existing building and still meet Cingular’s height requirements. Mono-palm does not blend in with existing structures, topography or landscaping. Light standard-Banner; Banner would not be seen in proposed location. Alternative locations. Applicant is proposing current location depicted on drawings. Alternative locations on lot were considered however none were as feasible as current. If a structure were placed in closer to freeway it would be more visible. If a light standard-banner pole were placed there for advertising local city events it could be considered hazardous. Cars passing by at moderate speeds may create a safety hazard if they slowed down to view. Corridor is a long greenbelt. A mono-pine could work aesthetically if it were closer to freeway. Any other consideration for alternative location on church property would entail removing trees. No trees are to be removed as part of the current project. Vel ° ° ° °iTelTMOc The proposed site is the most environmentally sound of the alternatives that were considered. is located along a freeway; it is not readily visible from any of the surrounding residential properties; it’s "footprint" will be confined to one small equipment pad; and it is proposed to be located over 300 feet away from the nearest residential property. 7.Concern brought up about locating in the R-1 zone. Have other applications for cell sites been approved. There are other cell sites on R-1 properties. This is not a precedent setting project. Marsha Converse 510.207.9519 m.converse@velocitel.net .... AT&T Wireless THE APPLICANT & THE PROPOSED PROJECT This Project Request Letter provides an overview of a project proposed by AT&T Wireless, to install a 45’ slimline monopole antenna mast, and six radio cabinets on a concrete slab at grade, inside a small fenced equipment enclosure on an unused part of a parcel owned by Aldersgate United Methodist Church of Palo Alto, a California nonprofit corporation. (Both the church parcel and the proposed antenna site are at the very limit of Palo Alto’s jurisdiction, literally on the border with Los Altos Hills.) Appficant. AT&T Wireless, 651 Gateway Boulevard, Suite 1500, San Francisco, CA 94080. Applicant’s Legal Status. The legal entity under which applicant operates in Santa Clara County is: Bay Area Cellular Telephone Company, a California general partnership, d/b/a AT&T Wireless, and d/b/a the New Cingular Wireless (as AT&T Wireless’ successor in interest). (Please note that both assumed business names are active, and that the applicant will be doing business under both names during 2004 and 2005.) Applicant’s Agent. Applicant’s agent for this application is VelociTel, Inc., 4160-B Hacienda Drive, Pleasanton, CA 94588, represented by David M. Minger, 925-922-1858; d.minger@velocitel.net. Description of Applicant’s Network. AT&T Wireless’ network facilities in Palo Alto and the area around this parcel are shown on the attached network location and coverage maps. Description of Proposed Wireless Communications Services. Applicant intends to provide E-911 emergency wireless communications, wireless voice service, and wireless data communication services to private individuals, businesses, non-profit institutions, and to federal, state, and local government and quasi-governmental agencies, as authorized by the Federal Communications Commission in the license awarded to applicant encompassing the geographic boundaries of Santa Clara County. No retail products will be offered to the public from this site. Description of the Proposed Facility. AT&T Wireless is ~eeking approval to build an unmanned wireless telecommunications facility, using a new 45’ slimline monopole as the antenna support structure. AT&T Wireless proposes to mount six small antennae concealed inside an RF-transparent canister below the top of the pole. AT&T Wireless also proposes to install a new concrete slab at grade, on which six radio equipment cabinets are proposed to be installed. The proposed facility will not be habitable, and is not capable of being modified to be habitable. Parcel Information. APN: 175-02-036 / Zoned: R-1 / Current Land Use: Church. Site Coordinates: N 37.39359° /W 122.13086 [NAD 83 Datum] Title Report. A copy of a recent title report memorandum confirming the parcel’s ownership by the church has been submitted to the city, as an exhibit to the application for development review. [Exhibit 1] [The remainder of this page is intentionally blank.] Site 2059-D/Aldersgate Methodist Church/APN: 175-02-036/Page 2 of 10 AT T Wireless VISUAL IMPACTS Minimizing visual impacts to the character of the site. The parcel is rectangular in shape, roughly 650’ (measured east to west) by 280’ (measured north to south). The church buildings occupy the western half of the lot, and a paved parking area and several dense stands of trees occupy the eastern half (see site plan). The development site was selected to preserve the visual character and aesthetic values of the parcel, the surrounding parcels, and the adjacent expressway right-of-way, and to minimize the visual impact of the proposed facility. It does so in the following ways: The proposed facility uses a slimline monopole to minimize visual impacts. The proposed monopole is located on the farthest corner of a well-wooded lot. All views of the pole from nearby residential properties will be well shielded by mature trees. It will be located approximately 300 feet from the nearest residence, and views of the site from nearby residences will be shielded by numerous mature pines. To further minimize visual impact, the pole will be a slimline model, to present the smallest possible visual aspect, and the antenna will be concealed inside the pole. The pole will be finished to blend with the colors of the adjacent pines surrounding it on the parcel, so that no discordant colors or finishes will conflict with the natural coloration of the existing vegetation. The location of the slimline monopole was selected for maximum integration with the naturally occurring concealment opportunities afforded by the existing vegetation along this part of the Foothill Expressway. It is hidden from neighboring parcels and from residential view by existing trees to the north, south, and west of the site; and by existing landscape screening on the east side of the Foothill Freeway, blocking views to the site from residences located on the east side of that freeway. The pole will be minimally visible along Foothill Expressway. The proposed slimline pole will not be visible to southbound traffic on Foothill Expressway. The pole will be visible along short stretch of the Expressway only to vehicles traveling north, and only for a few seconds as traffic approaches within 300 feet of the site. From this direction of travel, the pole will be visible against a background of pines of similar height. When painted to match the existing color scheme, the pole will largely blend with the existing vegetation, and will not be a dominant element in drivers’ field of vision, neither will it appear as a dominant or overly assertive feature, or change the visual character of the Expressway. The site will present the smallest possible profile needed to fulfill its technical requirements. The proposed monopole’s visibility will be minimized by using a slimline monopole design, limited to 45 feet above ground level. This height is needed to ensure the signal is not blocked by the adjacent trees. To further minimize the visible impact, the antenna will be concealed inside the pole to present the smallest possible profile. Applicant avers that a slimline pole design presents the smallest profile needed to fulfill the proposed site’s technical requirements. The pole will be painted to blend with the existing trees. To further minimize visual detection, the pole will be finished to blend with the existing trees on the property. No additional visual mitigation measures are proposed. This site was intentionally selected because of its low-profile location, and its distance from nearby residential properties. Consistent with the site’s minimally intrusive location, no additional visual mitigation measures are proposed. Photo Simulation. Two photo simulations illustrating the visual impact of the proposed slimline monopole structure are attached to this application as exhibits, along with a map identifying the locations from which the original images were taken. [Exhibit 2] [The remainder of this page is intentionally blank.] Site 2059-D / Aldersgate Methodist Church / APN: 175-02-036 / Page 3 of 10 AT T Wireless ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Neither the parcel not the area will be disturbed to any significant degree. The location selected for the site is unused ground at the farthest corner of a parcel at the farthest limit of the city’s jurisdiction. It borders the Foothill Expressway. Environmental disturbance will be limited to the minor impacts of workers installing the pole, the 375 square foot concrete slab, and the equipment cabinets. Building the site will not require disturbing the land around the pole to any meaningful degree. A completed Environmental Assessment Worksheet is attached as an exhibit to this application. [Exhibit 3] No Hazardous Materials. The proposed site will neither use nor store hazardous materials. A completed Hazardous Materials Disclosure Checklist is attached as an exhibit to this application. [Exhibit 4] Tree Disclosure Statement & Arborist’s Report. The root zones of all surrounding trees will be protected during construction, in accordance with the guidance received from applicant’s licensed arborist for safeguarding the health and safety of the trees during construction, and in accordance with whatever additional guidance is recommended by the jurisdiction. A copy of the Tree Disclosure Statement, and a copy of the arborist’s report, are attached to this application as an exhibit. [Exhibit 5] Drainage & Runoff. The proposed equipment site literally borders Foothill Expressway. It has a slight natural drainage slope toward the expressway, however the ground is exceptionally absorbent, and is covered by several years’ accumulation of naturally deposited pine needles. The site will not require grading, and will have virtually no impact on existing storm water retention and runoff; neither will the site cause any potential silting. The proposed facility will add 375 feet of new impervious area, but given the character of the site, the additional impervious area is not expected to require either infiltration or runoff mitigation measures. Lighting. No lighting is required by the FAA or the FCC for this site, consequently none is proposed. Traffic & Parking. The proposed facility will be unmanned. Unmanned sites can operate for extended periods of time without intervention; nevertheless, the applicant anticipates sending a technician to its unmanned sites approximately once every four to six weeks, to ensure that all equipment is operating normally, and to perform scheduled preventative maintenance. Each routine site visit takes approximately one or two hours. Given this limited visitation schedule, the proposed antenna facility will not generate any increase in traffic, either in the neighborhood of the church, or along any of the surface streets where the pole is located, or along the expressway; neither will additional parking space be needed to accommodate the technician’s monthly visit (there is ample parking in the church lot). Accordingly, no additional parking space is proposed. The site is noise free, vibration free, smoke free, and fume free. The antennae and equipment cabinets emit neither light, nor smoke, nor fumes of any sort. They are whisper quiet. They produce no vibrations that can be detected without the use of electronic measuring instruments. Aviation Safety. The proposed site is not in any airport safety zone or under any runway protection zone. The nearest airport from the site is Moffett Federal Air Field, located along a line bearing 073° true, at a distance of 3.5 miles. The nearest runway at Palo Alto Airport, a general aviation field, is located along a line bearing 013° true, at a distance of 4.6 miles. The San Carlos Airport, another general aviation field, is located along a line bearing 321° true, at a distance of 10.3 miles. Finally, San Jose International Airport is located along a line bearing 098° true, at a distance of 10. [The remainder of this page is intentionally blank.] Site 2059-D/Aldersgate Methodist Church/APN: 175-02-036/Page 4 of 10 AT&T Wireless RF ENERGY & PUBLIC EXPOSURE INFORMATION The site will generate less than 2% of the RF energy limit allowed for public exposure. Hammett & Edison, Inc. - an independent third-party engineering consulting firm whose professional engineers are licensed by the State of California - has confirmed that the proposed site will produce public exposure levels well below applicable safety limits for unlimited public exposure. Specifically, Hammett & Edison found that for a person at ground level at the proposed site, the maximum ambient RF exposure level will be 1.2% of the allowed energy level for unlimited public exposure. Based on this finding, Hammett & Edison found that AT&T Wireless will be well within the FCC’s exposure guidelines, and that no RF energy exposure mitigation measures are required. Please note that the Hammett & Edison report indicates that workers at ground level (those that will service the equipment cabinets) will have the same exposure to RF energy as the general public, that is, 1.2% of the maximum level allowed for unlimited public exposure. Because this exposure level is far below the applicable occupational exposure limits, no safety plan is required for these workers. Finally, Hammett & Edison found that the maximum, worst-case scenario exposure level at the nearest residence will be 0.89% of the allowable public exposure limit. Please note that all of the report’s stated exposure results are calculated based on several worst-case assumptions, and are therefore expected to overstate actual power density levels. A copy of Hammett & Edison’s report, dated December 20, 2004, is attached as an exhibit to this application. [Exhibit 6] No RF Exposure Safety Plan is needed. Because there are no mitigation measures required for public exposure to the radio frequency energy at the proposed site, no safety plan for public exposure to radio frequency energy is required by the zoning ordinance. AT&T Wireless avers that its workers will at all times conform to OSHA and FCC requirements for occupationally controlled exposure to RF energy. AT&T WIRELESS’ FCC LICENSE & PUC AUTHORIZATIONS Federal Communications Commission Authorization. Applicant is licensed by and registered with the Federal Telecommunications Bureau under the following identifications: ¯ Market Number:BTA404 ¯ Call Sign:KNLG542 ¯ File Number:0000030525 California Public Utilities Commission Authorization. AT&T Wireless is registered with the California Public Utilities Commission under the following Certificates of Authority: ¯Certificate U-3010-C ¯Certificate U-3074-C Applicant avers that the proposed communications facility will comply with all applicable regulations concerning construction and operation of the facility. [The remainder of this page is intentionally blank.] Site 2059-D/Aldersgate Methodist Church/APN: 175-02-036 / Page 5 of 10 AT T Wireless FIRE SAFETY & EQUIPMENT SAFETY Non-flammable materials will be used for the antennae and radio cabinets. Applicant avers that the proposed antennae will be made of non-flammable material. The proposed equipment cabinets and the antenna mast are both made of steel. Emergency shut-offswitch. Because the FCC public exposure limits cannot be exceeded in the vicinity of the proposed facility, and because there are no mitigation measures required for uncontrolled public exposure to the proposed site, no power shut-off switch is proposed for de-energizing the circuits and/or equipment at the site. Fire Protection & Flammable Material Assessment. There are no significant understory plants within 30 feet of the proposed equipment enclosure. Pursuant to California Fire Code §1103.2.4.1 (California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 9, 2001 Edition), no vegetation will need to be cleared from the site for fire safety. Fire Protection & Residential Properties. The nearest residence is over 300 feet away from the proposed site. The land between the proposed antenna site and the nearest residence is largely covered by asphalt, which suggests an extremely modest fire risk to adjacent residential properties from this site. Fire Truck Access. The proposed slimline pole and equipment enclosure is located approximately 40 feet from the shoulder of the Foothill Expressway (southbound lanes). It is located approximately 70 feet from the easternmost end of the church parking lot. In the unlikely event of an equipment cabinet fire, a hose truck can drive directly to the site unimpeded by any obstacle. The church buildings are the only occupied structures within two hundred feet of the proposed site. Equipment Safety Plan. The radio equipment is self-contained, and equipped with industrial grade, pick-proof locks to guard against unauthorized access. The cabinets will be installed inside a locked, wood-fenced enclosure. The church pastor and his family live on-site, offering an additional measure of awareness against potential youthful mischief. Signage. The proposed site will have a sign providing the name of the site operator, and providing a 24-hour contact number to the local Network Operations Center. Please also note that the FCC requires that all wireless communications facilities must post in a readily visible place signage that complies with specific American National Standards Institute guidelines for facilities emitting RF energy. Applicant avers that its signage will conform to FCC and ANSI requirements. [The remainder of this page is intentionally blank.] Site 2059-D / Aldersgate Methodist Church / APN: 175-02-036 / Page 6 of 10 AT T Wireless SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS & SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS Service Coverage Maps. Three copies of the existing network service coverage maps are provided as an exhibit to this application. [Exhibit 7] NOTE: Although the city’s supplemental Information Requirements for Wireless Communication Facilities document seeks information profiling existing and proposed service "coverage" maps, geographic coverage alone is inadequate as the sole criterion of the necessity for additional wireless communications facilities. Inseparably related to the issue of coverage is the question of capacity. "Capacity" refers to the number of simultaneous calls a particular antenna site can process without service interruption. A wireless antenna site can provide a usable signal across a geographic area but still be inadequate to handle the volume of calls originating within the area served by the signal. At this location, the most salient factor making the geographic scope of coverage irrelevant to the need for an additional antenna site is the volume of vehicle traffic that passes through the area. (Other factors will be more important at other sites.) Freeways and major surface roads concentrate enormous volumes of cars into constricted corridors, corridors which in turn concentrate a high number of calls in each cell. Because of the high cost of developing and maintaining new antenna sites, wireless companies typically use the most advanced antenna available to stretch the carrying capacity of their existing sites. But even advanced antenna and radio systems have limits, and when existing sites reach their capacity limits, new sites are needed to handle the wireless voice and data demands of residents, commuters, and especially in California, of tourists. For these reasons, and others, new antenna infrastructure is now needed, and will from time to time continue to be sought in the future, "coverage" notwithstanding, in order to maintain a high level of reliable service to customers, and to comply with the mandate of the California Public Utility Commission’s General Order 159A, to ensure that wireless service providers "...provide high quality, reliable and widespread cellular services to state residents." Need for This Site. This site is needed for both coverage and capacity reasons. Both the number of subscribers and the average minutes of use per month have continued to rise, and the existing network infrastructure has reached its capacity limits in the surrounding areas. The proposed site will provide additional capacity to the area around Foothill Expressway and Arastradero Road, and will increase the signal quality (another measure of service adequacy) experienced by residents, businesses, and commuters in this service area. Alternate Site Analysis. This area is predominately residential, offering little in the way of acceptable antenna sites. A more detailed discussion of the alternate sites that were considered appears as an exhibit to this application, including a discussion of the results of lease discussions and/or negotiations with owners of those potential sites. [Exhibit 8] Maps of Existing Antenna Sites. Detailed maps of the existing network are submitted as exhibits to this application. These maps show existing sites in the network, and the relation of the proposed site to the existing network. The maps identify the existing and approved sites to a radius of five miles from the proposed site. [Exhibit 9] Airport Location Maps. Maps showing the locations of all known airports to a radius of ten miles from the proposed site are submitted as exhibits to the application. [Exhibit 10] Site 2059-D/Aldersgate Methodist Church/APN: 175-02-036 / Page 7 of 10 AT ,T Wireless SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS & SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS (Continued...) Maps of Nearby Residential Properties. Maps showing the location of residential properties and related uses to a distance of one-quarter mile are included as an exhibit to this application. [Exhibit 11] Supplemental Site Photographs. Supplemental photographs illustrating the land and its characteristics are submitted as exhibits to this application to aid in evaluating the site and the proposed development. [Exhibit Site Plans. Detailed site plans are attached as an exhibit to this application, prepared in accordance with the city’s zoning ordinance and Information Requirements for Wireless Communications Facilities. [Exhibit [The remainder of this page is intentionally blank.] Site 2059-D / Aldersgate Methodist Church / APN: 175-02-036 / Page 8 of 10 AT&T Wireless RECOMMENDED FINDINGS IN SUPPORT OF THE PROPOSAL No affect on visual resources. Applicant avers that because of the location selected for the proposed site; because of its use of the natural concealment opportunities afforded by the surrounding trees; and because of the limited degree to which it will be visible, the proposed facility will not significantly affect the area’s visual character or resources. No affect on environmentally sensitive habitat or resources. Applicant avers that because of the nature of the site, as shown in the application and in the supporting exhibits, the proposed facility will not have a significant effect on any environmentally sensitive habitat or resources. No affect on the community character. Applicant avers the proposed facility will not significantly affect any resources that can be described as contributing in a meaningful way to the "community character". The site will not create a hazard to air navigation. The proposed site is not in any airport safety zone or under any runway protection zone. The nearest airport from the site is Moffett Federal Air Field, located along a line bearing 073° true, at a distance of 3.5 miles. The next closest airport is Palo Alto Airport, a general aviation field, located along a line bearing 013° true, at a distance of 4.6 miles. There are no other airports within a five mile radius of the proposed site. The slimline monopole is proposed at 45 feet above grade, and applicant avers that a 45’ tall pole at this location is not high enough to pose a hazard to air navigation, and further avers that the pole’s proposed 45’ height is well below the Federal Aviation Administration’s 200’ lower limit for registration of antenna support structures located within five miles of regulated airports. For these reasons, applicant avers that the proposed use will not create a hazard to air navigation. There are no environmentally equivalent or superior alternatives to the proposed facility. Applicant avers that the proposed site is the most environmentally sound of the alternatives that were considered. It is located along a freeway; it is not readily visible from any of the surrounding residential properties; it’s "footprint" will be confined to one small equipment pad; and it is proposed to be located over 300 feet away from - and out of site of- the nearest residential property. It creates no storm water runoff issues. The site is well suited for the development of the proposed facility. The proposed site is hidden from nearby residential view by mature pines. Applicant avers that its use as a wireless communications facility is a compatible use within the context of the zoning ordinance. The site is needed to fill a gap in the applicant’s service coverage for this part of the city, a gap in part caused by the growing market acceptance of the services offered by the applicant to the residents and commuters in and through Palo Alto. Applicant avers that there are no equivalent or superior potential alternatives to this location. Indeed, because the area is almost exclusively residential (except for this church property, for a synagogue located too close to an existing site to be effective, for a cemetery that declined to lease land under any conditions, and for inadequate wood utility poles along the expressway), there are no reasonable alternatives, period. For these reasons, applicant avers that a wireless communications facility at this location should be approved as being consistent with the zoning ordinance, with the character of this area of city, and with the increasing wireless communication demands generated by the volume of traffic on the Foothill Expressway. The site will be operated in conformance with FCC, PUC, and other governmental requirements. Applicant avers that it will construct and at all times operate its proposed wireless communications facility in conformance with the requirements of applicable authority, including applicable limits on RF power density levels and RF exposure limits, as may be amended by from time to time by applicable law. Site 2059-D/Aldersgate Methodist Church /APN: 175-02-036 / Page 9 of 10 AT&T Wireless The proposed use will not be detrimental to property or improvements. Applicant avers that the proposed use at this location will not be detrimental to or injurious to the property or the improvements in the vicinity of the property, and will not be detrimental to the health, safety, general welfare, or public convenience. The proposed use is in accord with Palo Alto’s Comprehensive Plan & Zoning Ordinance. The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, and in accord with the purposes of all applicable ordinances. /~itted by: ~)avid M. I~ling~,~/’ VelociTel, Inc. [Agent for AT&T Wireless & New Cingular Wireless] 4160-B Hacienda Drive Pleasanton, CA 94588 925-922-1858 925-737-0237 (fax) d.minqer@velocitel.net Site 2059-D / Aldersgate Methodist Church / APN: 175-02-036 / Page 10 of 10 EXHIBIT 8 ALTERNATE CANDIDATE ANALYSIS Site 2059-D Aldersgate Methodist Church APN: 175-02-036 AT ,T Wireless Alternate Candidate Analysis In accordance with the City of Palo Alto’s Information Requirements for Wireless Communications Facilities, applicant identifies the following candidate locations that were considered as potential alternate site locations for the proposed unmanned telecommunications facility. Please note that the area to be served by the proposed slimline monopole antenna mast is predominately residential, and therefore offers little in the way of acceptable antenna sites for an antenna installation. The sites identified below were considered, but were rejected for the reasons identified below. Please note that in the map below, the red pushpin identifies the proposed slimline monopole antenna site for which the Conditional Use Permit application is submitted. Please also note that no candidate sites north of Arastradero Road were considered, because applicant is proposing a separate telecommunications site inside the Hillview-Arastradero triangle at the Roche labs administration building (our site #1819-N)o Any candidate site along Foothill Expressway north of Arastradero Road would create co-channel interference with the proposed Roche Labs communications facility. AT&T Wireless Site 2128-D / Crown Monopole / 17777 Saratoga Avenue / APN 386-010-049 _ ATmT Wireless Alternate Site #1: Wood utility pole, located at the end of Miranda Avenue, Palo Alto, CA. This candidate offers an acceptable geographic location for the proposed antenna site, however the pole structure itself is overburdened with existing utility lines and attachments, and as a consequence is structurally inadequate to host the required antenna installation (it is structurally adequate to hold its existing load, but the additional loads imposed by the proposed antenna installation would cause it to become structurally unsafe). PG&E also declined to agree to any pole change in this area, because of the costs to PG&E and because of the potential for service outages associated with the large number of power, telephone, and cable television distribution lines associated with this line of poles. This candidate was also rejected because the safety requirements for separation of electrical power transmission lines from non-electrical components (controlled by California Public Utility Commission General Order 95, addressing safety requirements for construction of electrical transmission facilities), require that the proposed antenna be located at least ten feet below the lowest electrical conductor, AND require that the proposed antenna not interfere with the designated, obstruction-free "climbing zone" that permits workers to climb the pole in the event any emergency condition precludes the use of mechanical hoist lifts. Examination of this pole shows that the highest available antenna height consistent with safety restrictions is 19 feet above grade, which is inadequate for applicant’s purposes. AT&T Wireless Site 2128-D / Crown Monopole / 17777 Saratoga Avenue / APN 386-010-049 _ AT T Wireless Alternate Site #2: Wood utility pole, located on Miranda Avenue at Miranda Green. This candidate also offers an acceptable geographic location for the proposed antenna site, however the pole structure itself is clearly overburdened with existing utility lines and attachments, and has already been extended once; as a consequence it is structurally inadequate to host the required antenna installation (it is structurally adequate to hold its existing load, but even the existing load is pulling the pole off-center). The additional loads that would be imposed by the proposed antenna installation would cause it to become structurally unsafe. PG&E also declined to agree to any pole change in this area, because of the costs to PG&E and because of the potential for service outages associated with this line of poles. This candidate was also rejected because the safety requirements for separation of electrical power transmission lines from non-electrical components (controlled by California Public Utility Commission General Order 95, addressing safety requirements for construction of electrical transmission facilities), require that the proposed antenna be located at least ten feet below the lowest electrical conductor, AND require that the proposed antenna not interfere with the designated, obstruction-free "climbing zone" that permits workers to climb the pole in the event any emergency condition precludes the use of mechanical hoist lifts. Examination of this pole shows that the highest available antenna height consistent with safety restrictions is 18 feet above grade, which is inadequate for applicant’s purposes. Site 2059-D / Aldersgate Methodist Church / APN 175-02-036 / Alternate Candidate Analysis AT&T Wireless Alternate Site #3: Flagpole replacement, Alta Mesa Cemetery. This site offered a good geographic location and more-than-adequate visual separation from nearby residential properties and rights-of-way, however cemetery officials flatly rejected all overtures regarding a proposed antenna installation of any sort (including a camouflaged flagpole antenna installation). The management absolutely declined to enter into lease negotiations. Given these limited choices, the church property became the only viable candidate within the search ring covering this predominately residential area. Because the church property offers reasonable concealment opportunities for the proposed slimline monopole structure; because the church parcel has space for the proposed facility that is concealed by trees from nearby residences; and because the proposed facility has minimal environmental impacts, it is the best candidate site in this area. Site 2059-D / Aldersgate Methodist Church / APN 175-02-036 / Alternate Candidate Analysis proposed antennas ~1~ cingular 8/18/05 Foothill Expressway & Miranda 4243 Manuela Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94306 Site # SNFCCA2059 Photos~mulat~on by Applied Imagination 510 914-0500 proposed antennas ~ cingular 11110/05 Foothill Expressway & Miranda 4243 Manuela Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94306 Site # SNFCCA2059 PhotosimulatJon by Applied Imagina~o~ 510 914-0500 EXHIBIT 12 SUPPLEMENTAL SITE PHOTOGRAPHS (Additional images of the site as seen from adjacent rights-of-way.) Site 2059-D Aldersgate Methodist Church APN" 175-02-036 AT&T Wireless Image #1. View from Manuela Avenue east to Aldersgate Methodist Church entrance. Note the rise in elevation at the middle of the parcel. There is a corresponding drop in elevation on the other side of the parcel (the east side), where the applicant’s antenna site is proposed to be located. The mid-parcel rise, combined with the existing buildings and trees, block all view of the proposed antenna mast from Manuela Avenue. This image was taken from a location approximately 720 feet distant from the proposed antenna site. Site 2059-D / Aldersgate Methodist Church / APN: 175-02-036 / Exhibit 12 AT ,T Wireless Image #1-A. View from Aldersgate Methodist Church west to Manuela Avenue. This image was taken from the mid-parcel rise seen in the previous image, and provides a fuller perspective on the images that follow. Please note the introduced dot in the image above: it identifies the location from which images number two and three were taken. Site 2059-D / Aldersgate Methodist Church / APN: 175-02-036 / Exhibit 12 AT&T Wireless Image #7. View from Foothill Expressway, northbound. Proposed antenna mast will be behind the wood utility pole at left side of image. This image shows the driver’s view in the northbound lanes on Foothill Expressway, when approaching the proposed antenna site. The proposed antenna mast will subtend less than 1 ° of arc in the visual field of a normal adult when seen from this perspective, and will be neither visually distracting nor intrusive. A normal driver’s attention will be focused on the road, and as seen from that frame, the proposed antenna site is at the periphery of the drivers’ field of vision. This is the only part of Foothill Expressway from which the proposed antenna mast will be visible. At normal highway speed, it will be recognizable for approximately eight seconds of the vehicle’s transit. This image was taken from a location approximately 430 feet distant from the proposed antenna site; a point in the middle of the eight-second transit visibility range. Site 2059-D/Aldersgate Methodist Church/APN: 175-02-036 / Exhibit 12 AT T Wireless Image #8. View from Miranda Green (east of Foothill Expressway), west to proposed antenna site. This image shows the view from the homes east of Foothill Expressway, looking west toward the proposed antenna site. All of the proposed fenced compound, and virtually all of the proposed antenna mast will be screened from view by the existing landscape screening along Foothill Expressway. This image was taken from a location approximately 360 feet distant from the proposed antenna site. Site 2059-D/Aldersgate Methodist Church/APN: 175-02-036/Exhibit 12 AT ,T Wireless Image #9. View from Arroyo Court (east of Foothill Expressway), south to proposed antenna site. This image shows the view from the homes along Arroyo Court, east of Foothill Expressway, looking south toward the proposed antenna site. All of the proposed fenced compound, and virtually all of the proposed antenna mast will be screened from view by the existing landscape screening along Foothill Expressway and along Miranda Avenue. This image was taken from a location approximately 480 feet distant from the proposed antenna site. Site 2059-D/Aldersgate Methodist Church/APN: 175-02-036/Exhibit 12 AT ,T Wireless Image #11. View of adjacent residence, as seen from the church driveway entrance. This image was taken from the church driveway, looking east, and shows that the residence to the north of the church parcel is built at a lower elevation. The view of the proposed antenna site from this residence is blocked by both the terrain and by the mature landscaping between it and the site. The home is approximately 300 feet distant from the proposed antenna site. Site 2059-D / Aldersgate Me thodist Church / APN: 175-02-036 / Exhibit 12 Attachment D EXHIBIT 6 RF EMISSIONS & EXPOSURE REPORT Site 2059-D Aldersgate Methodist Church APN: 175-02-036 AT&T Wireless ¯ Proposed Base Station (Site No. SNFCCA2059) 4243 Manuela Avenue ° Palo Alto, California Statement of Hammett & Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers The firm of Harnmett & Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers, has been retained on behalf of AT&T Wireless, a personal wireless telecommunications carrier, to evaluate the base station (Site No. SNFCCA2059) proposed to be located at 4243 Manuela Avenue in Palo Alto, California, for compliance with appropriate guidelines limiting human exposure to radio frequency (’"RF") electromagnetic fields. Prevailing Exposure Standards The U.S. Congress requires that the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") evaluate its actions for possible significant impact on the environment. In Docket 93-62, effective October 15, 1997, the FCC adopted the human exposure limits for field strength and power density recommended in Report No. 86, "Biological Effects and Exposure Criteria for Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields," published in 1986 by the Congressionally chartered National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements ("NCRP"). Separate limits apply for occupational and public exposure conditions, with the latter limits generally five times more restrictive. The more recent Institute ~)f Electrical and Electronics Engineers ("IEEE") Standard C95.1-1999, "Safety Levels with Respect to Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, 3 kHz to 300 GHz," includes nearly identical exposure limits. A summary of the FCC’s exposure limits is shown in Figure t. These limits apply for continuous exposures and are intended to provide a prudent margin of safety for all persons, regardless of age, gender, size, or health. The most restrictive limit for exposures of unlimited duration to radio frequency energy for several personal wireless services are as follows: Personal Wireless Service Personal Communication ("PCS") Cellular Telephone Specialized Mobile Radio [most restrictive frequency range] Approx. Frequency Occupational Limit Public Limit 1,950 MHz 5.00 mW/cm2 1.00 mW/cm2 870 2.90 0.58 855 2.85 0.57 30-300 1.00 0.20 General Facility Requirements Base stations typically consist of two distinct parts: the electronic transceivers (also called "radios" or "cabinets") that are connected to the traditional wired telephone lines, and the passive antennas that send the wireless signals created by the radios out to be received by individual subscriber units. The transceivers are often located at ground level and are connected to the antennas by coaxial cables about 1 inch thick. Because of the short wavelength of the frequencies assigned by the FCC for wireless services, the antennas require line-of-sight paths for their signals to propagate well and so are AT2059596 Page 1 of 3 AT&T Wireless ¯ Proposed Base Station (Site No. SNFCCA2059) 4243 Manuela Avenue ° Palo Alto, California installed at some height above ground. The antennas are designed to concentrate their energy toward the horizon, with very little energy wasted toward the sky or the ground. Along with the low power of such facilities, this means that it is generally not possible for exposure conditions to approach the maximum permissible exposure limits without being physically very near the antennas. Computer Modeling Method The FCC provides direction for determining compliance in its Office of Engineering and Technology Bulletin No. 65, °’Evaluating Compliance with FCC-Specified Guidelines for Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Radiation," dated August 1997. Figure 2 attached describes the calculation methodologies, reflecting the facts that a directional antenna’s radiation pattern is not fully formed at locations very close by (the "near-field" effect) and that the power level from an energy source decreases with the square of the distance from it (the "inverse square law"). The conservative nature of this method for evaluating exposure conditions has been verified by numerous field tests. Site and Facility Description Based upon information provided by AT&T, including zoning drawings by Velocitel, dated November 28, 2004, it is proposed to mount six Kathrein Scala Model AP14/17-880/1940/065D/ADT dualband antennas within the top of a new 45-foot pole to be sited at the rear. of the parking lot at the Aldersgate Methodist Church, located at 4243 Manuela Avenue in Palo Alto. The antennas would be mounted at 120° spacing in two layers, with PCS operations from the top layer, at an effective height of about 42 feet above ground and using 2° of beam tilt, and with cellular operations from the bottom layer, at an effective height of about 36 feet above ground and using 4° of beam tilt. The maximum effective radiated power in any direction would be 1,470 watts, representing 980 watts for PCS service and 490 watts for cellular service. There are reported no other wireless telecommunications carriers located at or near this site. Study Results For a person anywhere at ground, the maximum ambient RF exposure level due to the proposed AT&T operation by itself is calculated to be 0.0070 mW/cm2, which is 1.2% of the applicable public limit. The maximum calculated level at the second-floor elevation of any nearby residence* is 0.89% of the public exposure limit. It should be noted that these results include several "worst-case" assumptions and therefore are expected to overstate actual power density levels. *Located at least 200 feet away, based on aerial photographs from Terraserver. HAMMETT & EDISON, INC. CONSULTLNG ENGINEERS SAN FILa.NCISCO AT2059596 Page 2 of 3 AT&T Wireless ¯ Proposed Base Station (Site No. SNFCCA2059) 4243 Manuela Avenue ° Palo Alto, California No Recommended Mitigation Measures Since they are to be mounted on a tall pole within a fenced enclosure, the AT&T antennas are not accessible to the general public, and so no mitigation measures are necessary to comply with the FCC public exposure guidelines. It is presumed that AT&T will, as an FCC licensee, take adequate steps to ensure that its employees or contractors comply with FCC occupational exposure guidelines whenever work is required near the antennas themselves. Conclusion Based on the information and analysis above, it is the undersigned’s professional opinion that the base station proposed by AT&T Wireless at 4243 Manuela Avenue in Palo Alto, California, 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. The highest calculated level in publicly accessible areas is much less than the prevailing standards allow for exposures of unlimited duration. This finding is consistent with measurements of actual exposure conditions taken at other operating base stations. Authorship The undersigned author of this statement is a qualified Professional Engineer, holding California Registration Nos. E-13026 and M-20676, which expire on June 30, 2005. This work has been carried out by him or under his direction, and all statements are true and correct of his own knowledge except, where noted, when data has been supplied by others, which data he believes to be correct. December 20, 2004 William F. H~ HAMMETT & EDISON, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS SAN FRAaMCISCO AT2059596 Page 3 of 3 FCC Radio Frequency Protection Guide The U.S. Congress required (1996 Telecom Act) the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") to adopt a nationwide human exposure standard to ensure that its licensees do not, cumulatively, have a significant impact on the environment. The FCC adopted the limits from Report No. 86, "Biological Effects and Exposure Criteria for Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields," published in 1986 by the Congressionally chartered National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, which are nearly identical to the more recent Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Standard C95.1-1999, "Safety Levels with Respect to Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, 3 kHz to 300 GHz." These limits apply for continuous exposures from all sources and are intended to provide a prudent margin of safety for all persons, regardless of age, gender, size, or health. As shown in the table and chart below, separate limits apply for occupational and public exposure conditions, with the latter limits (in italics and/or dashed) up to five times more restrictive: Electromagnetic Fields (f is frequency of emission in MHz) .......Frequency Applicable Electric Magnetic Equivalent Far-Field Range Field Strength Field Strength Power Density (MHz)(V/m)(A/m)(mW/cm2) 0.3- 1.34 614 614 1.63 1.63 100 100 1.34- 3.0 614 823.8/f 1.63 2.19/f 100 180/J~ 3.0- 30 1842/f 823.8/f 4.89/f 2.19/f 900/f~180iJ~ 30- 300 61.4 27.5 0.163 0.0729 1.0 0.2 300- 1,500 3.54"~1~1.51Al-f ~f/106 ~rf/238 f/300 f/1500 1,500- 100,000 137 61.4 0.364 0.163 5.0 1.0 1000- 100- 10- 1- 0.1- 0.1 ~~ Occupational Exposure .... Public Exposure I I I 1 I I 1 I I 1 10 100 103 104 105 Frequency (MHz) Higher levels are allowed for short periods of time, such that total exposure levels averaged over six or thirty minutes, for occupationa! or public settings, respectively, do not exceed the limits, and higher levels also are allowed for exposures to small areas, such that the spatially averaged levels do not exceed the limits. However, neither of these allowances is incorporated in the conservative calculation formulas in the FCC Office of Engineering and Technology Bulletin No. 65 (August 1997) for projecting field levels. Hammett & Edison has built those formulas into a proprietary program that calculates, at each location on an arbitrary rectangular grid, the total expected power density from any number of individual radio sources. The program allows for the description of buildings and uneven terrain, if required to obtain more accurate projections. HAMMETT & EDISON, INC. CONSULT!3",JG ENGINEERS SAN FRANCISCO FCC Guidelines Figure 1 RFR.CALCTM Calculation Methodology Assessment by Calculation of Compliance with FCC Exposure Guidelines The U.S. Congress required (1996 Telecom Act) the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") to adopt a nationwide human exposure standard to ensure that its licensees do not, cumulatively, have a significant impact on the environment. The maximum permissible exposure limits adopted by the FCC (see Figure 1) apply for continuous exposures from all sources and are intended to provide a prudent margin of safety for all persons, regardless of age, gender, size, or health. Higher levels are allowed for short periods of time, such that total exposure levels averaged over six or thirty minutes, for occupational or public settings, respectively, do not exceed the limits. Near Field. Prediction methods have been developed for the near field zone of panel (directional) and whip (omnidirectional) antennas, typical at wireless telecommunications cell sites. The near field zone is defined by the distance, D, from an antenna beyond which the manufacturer’s published, far field antenna patterns will be fully formed; the near field may exist for increasing D until some or all of three conditions have been met: 2h2 1) D>-Z-2) D>5h 3) D>1.6~. where h = aperture height of the antenna, in meters, and )v = wavelength of the transmitted signal, in meters. The FCC Office of Engineering and Technology Bulletin No. 65 (August 1997) gives this formula for calculating power density in the near field zone about an individua! RF source: 180 0.1 x Pnetpower density S = ~ xr~x Dx h ’ inmW/cm2, where 0Bw = half-power beamwidth of antenna, in degrees, and Pnet = net power input to the antenna, in watts. The factor of 0.1 in the numerator converts to the desired units of power density. This formula has been built into a proprietary program that calculates distances to FCC public and occupational limits. Far Field. OET-65 gives this formula for calculating power density in the far field of an individual RF source: power density S = 2.56 x 1.64 x !00 x RFF2 x ERP 4 x ~ x D2 , in mW/cm2, where ERP = total ERP (all polarizations), in kilowatts, RFF = relative field factor at the direction to the actual point of calculation, and D = distance from the center of radiation to the point of calculation, in meters. The factor of 2.56 accounts for the increase in power density due to ground reflection, assuming a reflection coefficient of 1.6 (1.6 x 1.6 = 2.56). The factor of 1.64 is the gain of a half-wave dipole relative to an isotropic radiator. The factor of 100 in the numerator converts to the desired units of power density. This formula has been built into a proprietary program that calculates, at each location on an arbitrary rectangular grid, the total expected power density from any number of individual radiation sources. The program also allows for the description of uneven terrain in the vicinity, to obtain more accurate projections. ~ ~zv~v;~ HAMMETT & EDISON, INC. ~,.: ~%..~;--~CONSULTLNG ENGINEERS SAN FILad’qCIS CO Methodology Figure 2 Attachment E COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COMPLIANCE 4243 Manuela Drive The proposed telecommunications facility is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Policy B- 12 states that the City supports the development of technologically advanced communications infrastructure and other improvements that will facilitate the growth of emerging telecommunications industries. CiO, of Palo Alto Attachment F ZONING COMPLIANCE TABLE 4243 Manuela Drive DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED R-1 (20,000) ZONE STANDARDS PROJECT DISTRICT STANDARD Front setback Complies 40’, Special Setback Rear setback 70’20’** Side setback 13’8’ Height Complies at 45’*30’ *PAMC 18.88.100: Height exceptions, additional 15’ allowed for antennas. **This segment of Foothill Expressway, on the westerly side, does not have a special setback, whereas the opposite side has a 60’ special setback. City of Palo Alto BACKGROUND 4243 Manuela Drive Attachment G Proiect Description On December 31, 2004, an application was filed for a Conditional Use Permit and minor Architectural Review for a new wireless communications facility on the Aldersgate Methodist Church. The original proposal had the siting of the facility in a clearing at the most southeasterly comer of the site, in full view from Foothill Expressway; this antenna design was a monopole. This location was not acceptable because the project was not screened and the applicant was directed to revise the plans. The applicant was also directed to conduct a community meeting for the project to inform and address the concerns of the neighbors. The applicant moved forward and revised the plans to relocate the monopole away from Foothill Expressway. After hearing from the neighbors in the community meeting, the applicant again revised the plan and changed the mono-pole to a mono-pine. The project site is a 118,684 square foot through lot with an existing religious institution use. The depth of the lot ranges from 644’-708’. The existing buildings are situated within the first half of the lot, leaving the rest of the parcel used for parking. The project area contains many mature trees, comprised mostly of Monterey Pines and some Coast Live Oaks. The project area is within the existing landscape located to the rear right side of the parcel, approximately 70 feet back from Foothill Expressway and 13 feet from the side property line. The project is surrounded on both sides with single-family homes, with the closest house being approximately 250 feet away from the project, within the Los Altos Hills jurisdiction. The closest Palo Alto house is across Foothill Expressway, approximately 260’ away. The proposed project is a 45’ tall mono-pine with six panel antennas mounted at the top region of the pole within a cover. The pole and all attached hardware will be painted a dark green to match the color of the existing foliage. The equipment cabinets would be located at grade, adjacent to the pole within a fence enclosure. The fence enclosure will be painted a dark brown to blend with the existing tree bark color. The fence screening will be designed to be more rustic in nature to compliment the existing rural appearance of parking lot area. In addition to the fence screening, additional native landscaping will be installed around its perimeter. The construction and installation of this project does not impact the existing trees. The CUP conditions of approval require the applicant to provide revised plans for final review showing the landscaping and fence prior to the issuance of a building permit. City of Palo Alto 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4o 41 42 43 44 45 46 ATTACHMENT H Planning and Transportation Commission June 14, 2006 Verbatim Minutes DRA FT EXCERPT 4243 Manuela Avenue [04PLN-001431: Request by Cingular Wireless on behalf of Aldersgate Methodist Church for a Conditional Use Permit to allow the installation of one telecommunications facility, comprised of a 45-foot tall tree- pole with six panel antennas concealed within the top region of the pole and associated equipment cabinets. Zone District: R-1 (20,000). Environmental Assessment: Exempt form the California Environmental Quality Act per section 15301. Chair Burt: Our first item and our only item on the agenda tonight is a project at 4243 Manuela Avenue. A request by Cingular Wireless on behalf of Aldersgate Methodist Church for a Conditional Use Permit to allow the installation of one telecommunications facility, comprised of a 40-foot tall tree-pole with six panel antennas concealed within the top region of the pole and associated equipment cabinets. Would the Staff like to make a presentation? Ms. Clare Campbell, Planner: Yes. Good evening Commissioners. As a correction to the item in the report packet there are a few inconsistent references in the report and in the Record of Land Use that reflect the monopole and the tree-pole as the Staff’s recommendation. So to clarify this I would like to just restate the recommendation. Staff’s recommendation is that the Planning and Transportation Commission recommend that the City Council uphold the Director of Planning and Community Environment’s 2005 decision to approve a monopole design wireless communication facility. The project before you tonight is for a new Cingular Wireless communication facility located within the parking lot area of the existing church site. The Commission reviewed this project last year on August 31 and at that meeting the issues that were raised by the speakers primarily focused on the aesthetic qualities of the project. Based on these concerns the Commission directed the project to the Architectural Review Board for Design Review and continue the item. On May 18, 2006 the Architectural Review Board discussed the proposed design options for the new facility. The applicant provided four design options: a monopole, a pine tree pole, a palm tree pole, and a light standard. The two options that were considered by the ARB were the standard monopole and the mono-pine. The Board voted three to two in favor of the mono-pine design. Page 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 Now with the feedback from the ARB the Commission can make a decision on which design they prefer either Staff’s recommendation for the monopole or the ARB’s preference for the tree-pole. Staff is not wholly opposed to the tree-pole but believes that the more modest proposal is more appropriate in this location due to the existing trees that are in that immediate area. If the tree-pole design is the Commission’s recommendation Staff will modify the conditions of approval accordingly to assure a quality project. For additional background on the site this project site abuts Foothill Expressway, which is a designated scenic route and for the most part has a special setback of 60 feet to help preserve the scenic views from the road. In the immediate area of the project parcel there is no special setback requirement. There are a total of nine R-1 lots that backup to Foothill Expressway and that have the potential of building a 30-foot tall structure 20 feet away from this scenic route. This project proposes a 70-foot setback from Foothill Expressway and in doing so minimally impacts the visual qualities of the route. Also, an application was filed for another facility in 1996 and that application was denied for not meeting the required findings. Over the ten years that have elapsed since that submittal the telecommunications industry has improved both technologically and aesthetically. Staff was unable to locate a copy of those plans that were submitted at that time but I feel confident in saying that the project before you today is a more attractive project than what was previously proposed. Another difference in the decision-making between 1996 and now is that there is a more general understanding and acceptance of the impacts and benefits of these types of projects. This concludes Staff’s report. Pamela Nobel, the applicant, is here tonight and is ready to make a presentation for you. Thank you. Chair Burt: Thank you. Does the Commission have any questions of Staff before hearing from the applicant? Karen. Vice-Chair Holman: Yes, an additional clarifying question. In the plans that we have the front page indicates a monopole as I read this and then the third page from the back indicates then the mono-pine. So there is an inconsistency within the plan drawings as well it seem. Ms. Campbell: That is fight. These plans were the original plans that the Commission saw last year and there are no new plans that have been submitted since that time. What happened in the original conditions of approval is the plan that was submitted reflected the tree-pole and in the conditions of approval it was modified to say that it had to be the monopole. We had a previous submittal so I attached that to the front of the plans that way you would have something to see as a reference of what it would look like. Basically nothing else changes. The siting is exactly the same except the profile would be different - the elevation would be different. Page 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Chair Burt: Thank you, Clare. So at this time the applicant has up to 15 minutes to make a presentation. Welcome. Ms. Pamela Nobel, Applicant: Good evening Chairman Burt and Commissioners. My name is Pamela Nobel. I am a consultant with NSA Wireless representing the applicant, Cingular Wireless Services this evening. The project before you this evening was heard by this Board last August as probably all of you remember after it had been initially approved by both Administrative Planning and for Design Review in July 2005. I guess as a result of one letter requesting a public hearing that is how you saw it in August. At the Planning Commission hearing in August from reading, I was not the person that was representing back then, but having reviewed all of the comments and concerns basically it seemed that the major concern was the aesthetics of the project. To that end I guess my understanding is that this body continued the project over to Design Review to work those details out. That has happened, we have had meetings with the Planner, responding to the neighborhood on the neighbors concerns about the aesthetics and came back to a Design Review meeting in May and presented a number of options that we felt would blend well into the Foothill Expressway and R-1 area that surrounded it. We believe that the mono-pine fits in quite graciously with the existing landscaping of the Foothill Expressway. We of course will do the monopole as the Staff...so you have two sets of drawings there where basically you can see the tree, you see the monopole and that was what was presented as well to the Design Review. I guess as the Staff reported the Design Review voted for the tree. I have here this evening, I know rather than go over a lot of I think pretty much a number of the questions were answered in the last hearing that was held in August. But if there are any questions from a technical standpoint or from a health issue I have an RF engineer here this evening to answer any questions that you may have. I also have s~)meone representing from [Hammet and Edison] that did a RF emissions analysis for the project. We have submitted alternative site analysis, which I believe you reviewed at the last meeting. So basically I think we have responded to the neighbors’ concerns. I am hoping that is the case. I am here to answer any questions that you might have to further make a judgment here. Chair Burt: Thank you. Do Commissioners have any questions of the applicant at this time? Okay, thank you very much and if we have more we will get back to you. Before we hear from the two members of the public perhaps it would be helpful if the City Attorney would review the constraints upon the Commission of federal legislation affecting siting of telecommunications poles. Mr. Don Larkin, Senior Deputy City Attorney: As I believe the Commission is aware any decision on whether or not to approve this project can be based only on land use and planning considerations. Radio frequency emissions are not factors that can be considered in denying or approving a wireless project under the Federal Telecommunications Act. Page 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 t2 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 Chair Burt: Thank you, Don. At this time we have two speakers from the public who can speak up to five minutes each. Our first speaker is Vic Nelson to be followed by Jackie Berman. Welcome. Mr. Vic Nelson, Palo Alto: I live on the corner at Moana Court. You can see the proposed project. I can’t get wireless cell receiving in my house. I have to go outside to get it. It has been that way for a long time, since 1990 when I got my first cell phone. I have lived there for 30 years. In 2004 1 had my houseremodeled for several hundred thousand dollars. The contractors came in there plus my contractor had to go out in the middle of Moana Court to carry on conversations on their cell phones. So what I am doing here tonight is I am asking that you guys get a pole of some kind somewhere so that everybody will approve it. I don’t care who it is. I am with Verizon right now. I just want a pole so I can use my cell phone. I also have a managing business of commercial property and I need that cell phone. I have to leave a message, call me on my land line, leave me a message and if you have to leave me a message you know I am not home so I am probably on my cell phone and you can get me because I will be out where I can get a signal. I got a fax machine. I have an email there, everything. I think this is terrible that we don’t have a pole there. Now, my neighbor over here, Jackie, is going to disagree. Well, I don’t disagree with Jackie. They come up Miranda and they look right where that project is. I come out Moana and I am going down Miranda I am not going to pay any attention to that pole. You can put that pole anywhere I’ll never look at it. That’s all I have to say. Chair Burt: Thank you. Jackie Berman. I don’t have any other speaker cards. Ms. Jackie Berman, Palo Alto: We d~o have a very wonderful neighborhood and good fi~endly relations. Vic has been a loy~al servant of Palo Alto as a fireman for many years in the service of our city. We appreciate that. I am here on behalf of the neighbors who don’t want to look at any old thing that you want to put up, quoting Vic. We oppose it because one, it will be a visual intrusion in our neighborhood and along the Foothill Expressway which is a designated scenic route. In your material I thought it was interesting that in the AT&T papers AT&T calls the Foothill Expressway a freeway. So it is no longer a designated scenic route as far as AT&T is concerned. There have been comments that it will be fully screened by existing trees but the ARB minutes state clearly that the tower must be ten feet higher than the existing trees or the tower won’t work. So it won’t be screened by existing trees. Also, according to the City Arborist in the ARB minutes the trees are in very bad shape and are going to die soon. So they are going to plant some little ones to take over when these die. So we don’t think it will be very effective in terms of screening. Page 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Some people have said they can’t see the tower and some people say they don’t care what it looks like but I am here to tell you that we can see it and some of us do care. We are not against cell phones. We are not against antennas. We are not against technology. We are not complaining about the RF. We just think that it could and should be located not in an R-1 area. When you start locating cell towers in R-1 areas you are setting a policy for the city and you are going to have to make decisions on a case-by-case basis and what are your criteria going to be? We think it can and should be located in the Stanford Industrial Park to the north of Arastradero. Now, the claims in the material you have that they can’t consider sites north of Arastradero because, "the applicant is proposing a separate telecommunications site inside the Hillview-Arastradero triangle at Roche Labs." But no one has even asked them what is being planned at that site and why it precludes an antenna somewhere in the same industrial park area where you wouldn’t be setting a precedent for R-1. Now, the proposed pole that the Staff continues to recommend in spite of the ARB recommendation for a mono-pine the Staff goes back to the ugly smokestack-like monopole. We think that is very ugly. I have visited the two existing antennas in R-1 zones in the city. One is totally and I might say nicely concealed in the huge cross on the Congregational Church at Embarcadero and Louis Road. The other is a faux pine tree at the end of a very long driveway at the back of the Achieve School on Middlefield just north of Charleston. The faux pine is next to the Mitchell Park fence among other tall pine trees. It looks realistic from Middlefield and it is not contiguous to any residential area. The ARB has recommended the faux pine, mono-pine, for the Aldersgate site but the Staff has rejected this and had opted for the industrial-looking monopole. The reason that I could divine from the material is that they think that the branches of the real trees could interfere with the branches of the faux pine. The minutes from the ARB meeting indicate that that argument was rejected by the City Arborist. He said it wouldn’t interfere. As I have stated we do not want any antenna on this R-1 site but if there is to be an antenna forced on us we should be given the same consideration as the other R-1 neighborhoods and have as much concealment as possible. We should have just as bushy and realistic a faux pine as the one on Middlefield that borders Mitchell Park. Thank you. Chair Burt: Thank you. At this time we will return to the Commission for questions of Staff. Commissioners, who would like to go first? All right, I have a question. Would Staff just share a little bit more of their thinking on why they have the preference for the monopole versus the mono-pine? Ms. Campbell: In that immediate area for the location of the pole there are a lot of existing mature trees. When Dave and I were out there looking at the site we felt that the standard monopole would be a better fit just because when you do the construction of the pole and the new branches won’t conflict with the existing natural branches of the trees. In discussions at the ARB Dave did mention that we could carefully review how they do Page 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4o 41 42 43 44 45 46 the installation. The applicant is more than willing to work with us on this project to modify the lengths of the limbs of the tree-pole to try to get the best fit for something that will go in there. So that was the general logic behind why we were going with the monopole originally. Chair Burt: Have you had comments from other neighbors on their aesthetic preferences? Ms. Campbell: Other than the tree? It has really basically been about the tree. There was a community meeting that the applicant held and they showed the tree-pole at that community. I wasn’t there for that meeting but it seemed to be something that they seemed to be more agreeable with. Staff is not opposed to a tree-pole. I just want to reiterate that. The initial recommendation was for a monopole because we thought it would be a better fit for that site. Ms. Amy French, Current Planning Mana,~er: I was also at the ARB meeting and heard their debate and views on it. We are certainly in support and concur with the ARB as well for the reasons they mentioned. I believe you have the minutes. Certainly if the neighbors are more favorable or seeing the tree as the more protective of their views then we are in support of that as well. Chair Burt: I just want to be clear because we only had two neighbors speak tonight, one who really wasn’t speaking on the aesthetics. Out of the other neighbor comments that you have received either last year or more recently I think that I understood Clare to be saying that the neighbors seem to be favoring the mono-pine. Ms. Campbell: The comments primarily were not in favor of anything but the neighbors were made aware of the mono-pine design by the applicant’s community meeting. So what I perceive from the feedback is from the original Staff recommendation for the monopole the reaction was they would prefer the mono-pine versus the monopole. Chair Burt: Karen. Vice-Chair Holman: The handout that was delivered by Mr. Emslie and prepared by Ms. Berman it says that she is here on behalf of neighbors who oppose the Staff recommendation to construct a 45-foot monopole. I don’t know how many neighbors that is. Public comment isn’t closed I guess she could comment. It says on behalf of her neighbors. Chair Burt: I had one other question. Ms. Berman raised a question as to why the pole could not be located in the Research Park and that evidently the applicant had alluded to something to do with an upcoming pole near the Roche facility. Ms. Campbell: Right. The Roche facility had an application in file approximately the same time this came through. That was approved and it is probably up and running for some time already. So they already have a site in place for this particular carrier. So I Page 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 think to answer the question that particular site covers a certain range and it doesn’t cover far enough to reach this particular site where we are at Manuela. Chair Burt: Does that also mean that other sites on the southwestern edge of the Research Park are not viable sites to provide the range that is necessary? Ms. Campbell: Let me have the applicant speak to that. Mr. James , RF Engineer: I am the RF engineer working on this project. In response to the question as to why we can’t go further north that would bring us close to other wireless towers and would not provide us with the coverage that we are looking for further south on Foothill Expressway. That is the primary reason - we would not achieve our coverage objective. Chair Burt: So this neighborhood immediately surrounding the pole might be covered but the intention of this pole is basically to cover a certain radius from the pole and further south would not be covered by a pole at the edge of the Research Park. RF En~neer: That is correct. It would not connect with the cell site further to the south on Foothill Expressway. Chair Burt: Thank you. Lee. Commissioner Lippert: I just wanted to hear from the City Arborist in terms of being able to install this and preserve the existing trees and whether the existing trees are going to be stressed and whether they will need to be replanted. Commissioner Garber: I understand we also need to be careful about asking about expertise and bird habitat. Mr. Dave Dockter, City Arborist: To respond to Commissioner Lippert’s question, the Monterey pine trees are in various stages of health. I made a statement in the ARB meeting that they are probably in the same status they will be there for another 15 years. There may be a tree here and there that does suffer mortality from beetles or other things. We have provided for an arborist assessment and replanting of trees if that does occur whether it is a faux pine or a monopole. So either way I believe it is conditions 14 through 19, well several conditions apply to either one. The fate of the pines I think is not something that we can really determine with certainty at this point but we have provided for the replacement if there is one or if there are ten trees then there is provision for replacement. Chair Burt: Dave, about how many pines in the vicinity of the 30 to 35-foot height level are nearby to this proposed tower? Mr. Dockter: I don’t have the number of trees. Page 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4o 41 42 43 44 45 46 Chair Burt: Just a ballpark. Mr. Dockter: The area for the pole is surrounded by Monterey pines and beyond that there is another layer of coast live oaks that is the fn’st barrier that one would see going northbound on Foothill Expressway. Chair Burt: Karen. Vice-Chair Holman: The ordinance says and I just want clarification on this ifI could please, Dave. The ordinance under the conditions of approval says replacement trees, this is presuming some will die off, that replacement trees shall be one of the following: [corcus] species, canary island pine, coast redwood or other approved species. Just for clarity for my own mind, I don’t know how invasive the beetle is it is attacks the pine and you replace pines in there are those pines going to be subject to the same beetle infestation? I trust that the tree pine would not be subject to the infestation. Mr. Dockter: The latter is correct. Of the pine trees selected for replacement canary island pine is significantly more resistant to the beetle attack than these Monterey pines. Any new pine also would be required to be replaced with a watering system to it so the new pines would benefit from the irrigation to support that new pine. So that is another resistor against the beetle too. Commissioner Lippert: Does that mean that the pine pole is subject to electronic bugs? Mr. Dockter: No comment. Chair Burt: Dave, I just want to make sure I grasp the essence of what you are saying. So is it correct that while some of those pines may succumb to disease over the next 15 years you don’t anticipate a wholesale loss of that grove of pines and a wholesale loss of the screening that they provide? Mr. Dockter: I would not expect that because if we have an annual report from an arborist assessment which we have provided for that would immediately catch if there were an epidemic of one tree after another falling to the beetle. There are treatments that can be applied to those trees. If the Commission were to condition the project to say even add extra water to the existing pines that could extend the life and survivability of the existing pines. If you added that condition that would be probably appropriate. That could be done very cheaply with a soaker hose or that type of thing. Chair Burt: Thank you. Commissioners, any discussion or should we go to a motion? MOTION Commissioner Bialson: I would be happy to go to a motion because I feel the ARB covered this ground very completely and they also couldn’t control themselves and had some jokes in there too. So I feel that the matter has been discussed and I would like to Page 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 move the recommendation that the Director of Planning and Community Environment’s decision to allow a conditional use permit be forwarded with the change that instead of a monopole we would have the tree-pole. SECOND Commissioner Lippert: I’ll second that. Commissioner Bialson: I have seen these tree-poles and they need to be pointed out to me when they are within an area that has regular trees. The mind sort of fools itself as it looks at a group of trees and whether they are real or not assumes that they are all real. I think that we are going to be benefiting this area. The conditions already on the approval I think are solid ones. I don’t think saving the trees that are there is necessarily something that we should impose. I think they have a useful life if one wants to look at it that way and some of them are probably reaching the end of those lives. I would like to see different types of trees in there. I think aesthetically that would look better and having that be the obligation of the applicant makes it even more comfortable for myself and I am sure the City and the neighbors. So I would expect that in four or five years time the site will look better than it does today. As to having a precedent with regard to an R-1 area I think we are seeing this as an unusual location and one that is necessary. I think that there are places in Palo Alto where we have much like the first speaker mentioned rather poor coverage. Since I stand out in the middle of my street to get any coverage I know of exactly what he speaks. People are asking for these things and I think they are necessary. Chair Burt: Would the seconder like to speak? Commissioner Lippert: Well, the only reason I seconded actually is because I had made the original motion to refer this to the Architectural Review Board. They have done their work in terms of reviewing this and made their recommendation and I would like to support their recommendation in terms of going forward to Council and also the tree solution I think is the most appropriate solution. They are the arbiters of quality and character in our community and therefore I believe that their recommendation here is important and should be heard by Council. I just wanted to say I want to second Annette’s comments with regard to flushing out and looking at the R-1 regulations and whether we allow these further in the future. I know that Staff is in the process of creating regulations for cell towers, are you not? So with all speed I hope you will come up with your guidelines for that. Chair Burt: Phyllis. Commissioner Cassel: Annette, would you consider adding the condition to add watering to the existing trees? Page 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 Commissioner Bialson: I would not because as I expressed before I am looking forward to some of those trees that are there reaching the point where they would be necessary to be removed and be replaced by the various trees that Dave has indicated. Commissioner Cassel: Okay. I will support the motion anyway. There are a couple of things we should comment about. One is the single-family issue. Even though we have some various faux trees and poles in areas that are commercial that doesn’t mean that they are necessarily very far from residential spaces. They are often very close but it somehow seems to calm people down just because they are in the commercial space. The situation is the same. They need to be buffered or concealed or placed in a way in which they are not too obvious. The distances are as appropriate by our existing laws that we must be governed by. This particular tower is set way back from the road. You would really have to be looking for it if you were driving down Foothill. It is quite some distance from any of the other residential areas and there is a considerable amount of buffering for trees in that area. Thank you. Chair Burt: Dan. Commissioner Garber: I will be supporting the motion. I was simply going to remind the Commission that at the previous hearing in August we had had some thorough investigation conversation/discussion on alternative sites. At that time we had become satisfied with the site that was being proposed. Chair Burt: Karen. Vice-Chair Holman: I am also going to be supporting the motion. I have one question if I might I don’t know if it is for Planning Staff or the City Arborist. Other projects that come along similar to this one of the conditions is, as number nine is here, for the first ten years of the life of the project the following tree monitoring project will be in effect or should be implemented. Why just the first ten years? This pole could be there for say 30 years. Why just the first ten years? Ms. Campbell: I think at the very end of that condition there is an item here that says that after these ten years have passed then we make a decision on whether or not there needs to be continued monitoring on this site. Then if so we would draft a new set of conditions for the site if we had to do that. Vice-Chair Holman: Okay. Thank you for that clarification. Now if I could and this is going to sound like wordsmithing but to me it is kind of important and then I might ask the maker of the motion if it is okay. It probably doesn’t need to be in the motion. Nine- D, it is a nit but again it may make a difference depending on who is reading it. For trees determined to be in poor condition and then you go down and it says a replacement tree shall be installed. It doesn’t sound like on a one-for-one basis and I am just wondering if that was the intention, a one-for-one basis. Ms. Campbell: It would be a one-to-one basis. Page 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 Vice-Chair Holman: It doesn’t need to be a part of the motion but maybe a little clarification of that language might be helpful. I am happy to support the motion and also concur with other Commissioners comments about the R-1 issues. AMENDMENT Chair Burt: I also support the motion but I agree with Commissioner Cassel regarding the preference for providing irrigation. I think it is important that we attempt to preserve a full canopy that exists there. We heard the City Arborist indicate that a fairly low cost irrigation will help preserve the vitality of these existing trees and they consequently fend off disease. So that is I think just a constructive approach. I think it is concurrent with what we heard would be the preference or the recommendation of the City Arborist as well as the one member of the public who spoke. So it would be an amendment to the motion if I have a seconder. SECOND Commissioner Cassel: I’ll second it. Chair Burt: Okay, do other Commissioners wish to speak to the amendment or to the motion? Commissioner Bialson: I would like to speak to the amendment. Chair Burt: Okay. Commissioner Bialson: The reason that I would look for a gradual change or turnover in those trees is that I think that you will have them at various states of maturation and it would be less likely that all of those trees that seem to have been planted all at same time will all reach their end point at the same time and then you will not have anything there. So if you allow trees to naturally pass on to greater things and replace those as they come up you will have differing ages of trees and perhaps differing species which I think allows for a canopy to be preserved rather than trying to freeze in place the canopy that now exists. Because there is no provision for putting additional trees there now. So what you would hope for is that you would be able to start replacing those trees that die off and able to have a canopy that has different ages and will expire at different rates of time. AMENDMENT PASSED (5-1-0-1, Commissioner Bialson voted no with Commissioner Sandas absent) Chair Burt: Okay. So let’s call the motion. All those in favor say aye. (ayes) This is the amendment. So the amendment passes five to one with Commissioners Cassel, Garber, Lippert, Holman and Burt in favor and Commissioner Bialson voting nay. MOTION PASSED (6-0-0-1, Commissioner Sandas absent) Page 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 So back to the primary motion. Any other discussion? All those in favor? (ayes) That passes unanimously with Commissioner Sandas absent. So I think that concludes this item. Thank you all very much for coming. We look forward to better reception and hopefully an aesthetically acceptable environment. Thank you for coming and participating. Okay, we have a couple of things remaining approval of two sets of minutes and then some discussion of upcoming meetings. APPROVAL OFMINUTES: Regular Meeting of May 10 and Special Meeting of May 24, 2006. Chair Burt: We have minutes for May 10 and May 24. Commissioner Bialson was absent on both of those and Commissioner Sandas is absent tonight. We can take a motion to approve. MOTION Commissioner Garber: So moved. Chair Burt: That would be on both sets of minutes. SECOND Commissioner Cassel: Second. MOTION PASSED (5-0-1-1, Commissioner Bialson abstained due to her absence at these meetings and Commissioner Sandas absent). Chair Burt: Great. Second by Commissioner Cassel and moved by Commissioner Garber. No amendments. All those in favor say aye. (ayes) That passes five to zero with Commissioner Bialson abstaining and Commissioner Sandas absent. Page 12 Attachment I 1 2 3 4 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD HEARING Draft Verbatim Minutes Thursday, May 18, 2006 Board Members:Staff Liaison:Project Reps.: Kenneth Kornberg (Chair) David Solnick (Vice Chair) Judith Wassermann Clare Malone Prichard Grace Lee Chris Riordan, Planner Staff: Amy French, Current Planning Mgr. Steven Turner, Senior Planner Beth Bourne, Senior Planner Clare Campbell, Planner Lorraine Weiss, Contract Planner Aficia Spotwood, Staff Secretary David Dockter: Planning Arborist Pamela Nobel NSA Wireless 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 4243 Manuela Drive [04PLN-00143]: Request by Cingular Wireless on behalf of Aldersgate Methodist Church for a Conditional Use Permit to allow the installation of one telecommunications facility, comprised of a 45-foot mono-pole with six panel antennas concealed within the top region of the pole and associated equipment cabinets. Zone district: R-1 (20,000). Environmental Assessment: Exempt from CEQA per section 15303. Chair Kenneth Kornber.q: Clare. Ms. Clare Campbell, Planner: Good morning. The project before you today is for a new wireless communication facility located within the parking lot area of an existing church site. Typically, wireless Communication projects require a Conditional Use Permit and architectural review. Both of these reviews are done at staff level unless a hearing is requested. The architectural review portion of this project was completed at staff level and approved without a request for a formal Board review. For the use permit a request for public hearing was submitted, and the Planning Commission reviewed the project on August 31st, 2005. At the meeting the issues that were raised by the speakers focused on the aesthetic qualities of the project, and based on these issues the Commission directed the project to go back to the Architectural Review Board for review, and then they continued the item. After the Commission meeting the applicant submitted a package of information on December 5 addressing issues that were raised at the meeting. The submittal included alternative design options other than the staff’s recommendation of a standard mono- pole. The alternative design options illustrated in the photo simulations in your package City of Palo Alto Page 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 were a pine tree pole, a palm tree pole, and a light standard. Based on the aesthetic issues that were raised, the applicant wishes to proceed with the pine tree pole and will present that project today. Staff’s primary concern with a tree pole is that it may conflict with the existing branches of the existing trees on the site. We’re not fully opposed to a tree pole in itself. I’d like to mention a few things to clarify some of the recent e-mails that were sent regarding the project. This project was properly noticed as required, and the notice cards were sent out on May 4 to a 600-foot radius. The project filed with all the applicant’s submittal information as well as the August 31 Planning Commission staff report and meeting minutes have been available for public review. Courtesy copies of the ARB staff report were mailed to the speakers who attended the Planning Commission meeting. And finally, there was an error in the Web posting of the staff report that was done on Friday, but that error was pointed out by one of the concerned neighbors this past Wednesday. It was corrected early in that morning. So after today’s meeting your recommendation on the design will be forwarded back to the Planning and Transportation Commission for the recommendation to City Council. In conclusion, staff recommends that the ARB review the proposed project and the design options and recommends to the Planning and Transportation Commission the most appropriate design solution. This concludes staffs report. Pamela Nobel, the applicant, is here to make a presentation for you. Thank you. Board Member Kornberq: Thank you, Clare. Pamela, would you like to make a presentation. I guess this is minor, so maybe it’s five minutes - is five minutes enough for you? Ms. Pamela Nobel, Applicant: Oh, yes. My name is Pamela Nobel. I am a consultant with NSA Wireless, Inc., representing the applicant, Cingular Wireless. As you can see in your package, this project has been originally started when Cingular was still AT&T. Perhaps maybe by the time we’re finished, we’ll be back to AT&T with the way of all the telephone companies keep going back and forth. As Ms. Campbell has indicated, this application began in December of 2004 and was approved by staff in July of 2005, both for the planning and also architectural review. And as was noted, no hearing request was requested for architectural review. However, one requested a hearing, which was held last August. At the public hearing the concerns seemed primarily to be of an aesthetic nature, and Cingular is sensitive to the concerns of the community that this project does not negatively impact the aesthetics and integrity of the area. So here before you we have actually four possibilities that Cingular is willing and able to accommodate the neighbors on to make sure that this fits in and blends into this beautiful area. The mono-pole, which 1 believe is actually in the staff recommendation, which would be the picture there with a minimum of 20" in diameter, as the antennas would be inside. City of Palo Alto Page 2 1 And then of course, the pole would be painted green. But in looking at the area and 2 doing a number of site surveys on that, and actually a community meeting that was held 3 I believe some time last year with the community, I think they favored more of a tree. 4 So you have pictures of the mono-pine there, and we feel that the mono-pine would be 5 the best design for this area. I do want to note that a pole is less expensive than a tree, 6 so we’re not advocating a tree because it’s less. It’s actually the most expensive of the 7 installations before you. I want to make the point that we will do whatever this Board 8 would like us to do of those four choices - the light pole that you have, the light 9 standard; the photo-sym appears that it’s more slender than the other pole, which if we 10 put a light pole or a regular pole, it would have to be the minimum of the 20" in diameter, 11 so please note that. The palm tree of course is one, and 1 personally think it looks kind 12 of goofy, but the mono-pine is the one - I don’t know where that palm tree came from. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 The other thing that I’d like to propose to you is that there are other carriers in that area, and I know we’re not to talk about coverage and this is strictly just aesthetics, but just as a note that would affect this Board is that - I don’t have the number here, staff may have it - but there’s a lot of people that travel that Foothill Expressway and a lot of people perhaps don’t have Cingular and have other carrier phones. So if another carrier were to need a site in that same area, and I do have information that there are some other carriers that are looking, that the tree pole, the mono-pine, would support another carrier there without any additional poles. They would just have to have additional equipment on the ground, which is easily accommodated. This mono-pine would accommodate two carriers. We’re not proposing that now; this will just be a one carrier pole, but it is just something to keep in mind. I’m available for any questions. Board Member Kornberq: Okay; thanks very much. You probably will get some. Judith, do you want to start? You seem to have lots of questions. Board Member Judith Wassermann: No, I don’t have lots of questions. I have one question for the applicant and one question for the staff arborist. Were there other alternate locations that you considered that were not in the R-I district? Ms. Nobel: Yes, there was quite an extensive search on that whole area. You’re all familiar with the topography there and the hills and the bends. Basically, when we go farther up where the Veterans is and then the other side of it, you’re getting out of the range, and then you’re also - I have this, it’s the coverage map showing where there’s other sites that if you’re in a different area, if you’re too close to an existing site, then there will be refractions and interference. So this really is - we’re right in the middle of this R-1 area, and of course the church sites are the most - because it isn’t a home. We did look at some existing PG&E poles, which sometimes we can go on those, but there wasn’t enough height, and also the poles are loaded with PG&E stuff and there has to be separations and there’s a lot of restrictions on the ocean, how we locate. Board Member Wassermann: On the pine tree option, there’s nothing functional about the branches, right? They’re just decoration. City of Palo Alto Page 3 1 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 Ms. Nobel: Yes, it’s actually a totally false tree, and I forgot to mention in my presentation that because we will be putting the tree with the surrounding trees which will look very nice. But a lot of times a tree pole just sticking out nowhere looks kind of goofy and it looks fake. But when you have the other trees around it, and Cingular will be providing an arborist and making sure that it’s all done very - to protect what trees are there and replant. Board Member Wassermann So those fake branches could be shorter, or there could be fewer of them? There’s no requirement - if the branches were long and interfering with a living tree, you could make them shorter? Ms. Nobel: Oh, right. We’ll be able to, and you want to have a lot of branches because you want it to look real, because a lot of times you’ll see those trees and they’re real sparse and they look fake. We’re going to give you a nice tree. 13 Board Member Wassermann: David, staff said that they thought that the fake tree would 14 interfere with the living trees. Is there some way that the fake tree can be adapted so 15 that it doesn’t interfere with a living tree? 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 Mr. David Dockter: Yes, we can tailor it to shorten the branches on one side or the other. We’ve got a condition to stay about eight feet away from other tree branches, and that’s just to allow that tree to grow towards the non-growing mono-pine if that’s the direction we were going. We can customize it. Board Member Wassermann: if eventually the living trees got big enough the fake branches could all be removed and you’d never see the stupid thing anyway; yes. Mr. David Dockter: If there was conflict, the City would be in the position to require that the branches be shortened. We would have to discuss and see if we need to modify an existing condition to allow that, but I think the City’s in the driver’s seat to ensure the quality of the pole and the surroundings be maintained carefully. Board Member Wassermann: Thank you. Board Member Kornberq: Grace, do you want to continue. Board Member Grace Lee: Yes, I have a question for David also. From the staff report it said that staff rejected the mono-pine for specific reasons. Can you address what are those reasons that you chose the mono-pole over the mono-pine, mono-palm - false palm the false pine tree. Ms. Campbell: I can speak to that. It’s a pretty dense area with a lot of existing trees, and exactly what Judith was just talking about - we were thinking that because of all these existing trees and with the existing branches, if you were to bring the fake tree, it has potential conflict with these existing trees, and that’s basically the primary reason. 36 Board Member Lee: That’s basically it. Talking about the pine - there are no pines in 37 that area. It’s all oaks City of Palo Alto Page 4 1 Ms. Campbell: There are pines. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 Board Member Lee: They’re all pines. Ms. Campbell: But from the photos they don’t look anything like the false pine. Board Member Lee: Would you just talk about that. David Dockter: There are pine trees in the immediate area of the exact location for the mono-pine or the pole. They’re Monterey pines. Board Member Lee: Those are Monterey pines, right. David Dockter: And to the south there’s a row of oak trees that one would see. That’s probably the first thing coming from Los Altos that one does see is the whole screening of oaks. But the next grouping of trees are the Monterey pines, which is exactly where this pole would be. Board Member Lee: And how soon would the existing trees grow taller, or obscure this false tree would you guess? David Dockter: I think the Monterey pines that are there now are becoming pretty maxed out as it is. They’re not very vigorous, I think they’re just holding their own barely. They’re not irrigated, so they’re not going to be growing very much at all. So I think their status is what will be there for another 15 years. There are provisions for if one dies that it would need to be replaced. Board Member Lee: Okay. My other question is for the applicant. You’d mentioned that this pole would be able to carry an additional carrier if that were to happen in the future. Is it true then that the mono-pole would also be able to carry an additional carrier in the area? Ms. Nobel: Well, the way the mono-pole, and if you look at the two drawings, the mono- pole, there’s six antennas total and if we’re at 45 feet, three of the antennas to be inside of the ray dome at the top and three need to go stacked below, which would bring the RAD center that gets the signal, would be lower on that second row. So any other carrier would have to then come down another five feet minimum of separation, so they would be getting down pretty low down in the 30s or even 28, which may be a little bit of a problem. On the mono-pine, because we have the branches, we’re able to put all six antennas up at the top so that then another carrier could then come down and still be able to have their coverage. It would be more difficult to co-locate on just the pole without extending that height. Board Member Lee: And the likelihood of another would want to come in or that would happen, is it likely? Ms. Nobel: Well, I had one call from the church stating that Metro PCS was looking for a site. It had approached them, and he called Cingular and said can they co-locate. And City of Palo Alto Page 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 I said - Well, with this mono-pine we could - and again, I don’t want to complicate the issue because it was only a phone call and there’s no application and I can’t speak for Metro PCS. 1 don’t have any authority to do that. I’m just letting this body know that for the future, because I know in all the different places that I go, one of the concerns of all the communities is that you try to co-locate as much as possible without having to put another structure on. So I give you those two options just for your own. Board Member Lee: Okay. And then in terms of the overall height of the mono-pine, what was the overall height? Does it match the mono-pole? Ms. Nobel: Yes, it would be the same. Board Member Lee: Thank you. Those are my questions. Board Member Kornberq: Clare, do you have any questions. Board Member Clare Malone Prichard: Just one for the Planning arborist. There’s a condition here, #7, asking for three 24" box Canary Island pines to be planted. Why Canary Island pines as opposed to what is currently on site, and secondly, how tall will they eventually get? David Dockter: The Canary Island pines were specifically recommended because that is a very, very tall, more columnar type of pine tree. There are examples of a Canary Island pine in the median of Page Mill Road as you go up towards Foothill. That’s pretty much the classic shape that would be the most screening for the pole or pine behind it. The three pines would be closer towards Foothill, strategically placed in a small opening so that they would be pretty much the key i9nterrupter from a visual standpoint of the pole or pine behind it, so that was intentionally recommended for screening. Board Member Kornberq: David. Board Member David Solnick: Just one question. There’s a condition in there for an annual arborist’s report. Do you feel strongly that it should be that frequent? If it were say, every other year? 27 David Dockter: I think no, it should be annual because of the state of the Monterey 28 pines’ susceptibility to pitch canker disease and beetles. We saw a lot of beetle activity 29 on the existing trees there. Some have just recently been removed, so it’s a pretty 30 foreseeable scenario that the surrounding Monterey pines will continue to suffer some 31 mortality. It’s very probable, and if there weren’t this condition - for an arborist to be 32 able to catch it and treat the bark and keep a lot of water on the pines, I think they would 33 for sure all be gone in maybe ten years if there wasn’t some proactive maintenance. 34 35 36 Board Member Solnick: That’s all my questions. Board Member Kornberq: I have a couple of questions for David and the applicant. The diameter you say of the mono-pole is 20-22 inches? City of Palo Alto Page 6 1 2 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 Ms. Nobel: Yes. Board Member Kornberq: And the light pole, is it also 20-22 inches? Ms. Nobel: Yes, because it would be the same installation. We would just be making it a light. Board Member Kornberq: So we just have a light fixture on it, you don’t have a proposed light fixture. Do you propose any particular fixture, or were you just... Ms. Nobel: No, that would be open to what design. My feeling was that that was really not the installation that we should pursue. A light there isn’t really even required. Originally I was not the person who proposed that. This going back a year ago and 1 think the planner at the time was just trying to give the City all of the options. We have some cities that want totem poles, so we didn’t give you that because that wasn’t appropriate. But light standards are typically in parking lots and such. But I think in this particular site we are just really talking about the mono-pine unless you’re leaning towards the light. We certainly can put a light there. Board Member Kornberq: There’s no problem if the trees grow taller than the 45-foot goal. They don’t produce an obstruction? Ms. Nobel: No, that would, and I think that question was answered, that those trees are pretty much not going to be going any higher - if so, just marginally higher. Board Member Kornberq: So it’s important that there not be an obstruction around? Ms. Nobel: That’s correct. Board Member Kornberq: So this pole has to be higher than the trees that are there. Ms. Nobel: Yes, that’s correct. Ms. Campbell: Can I just clarify that as well. I think the height is also important, but the clearance, too. Even if the trees do grow taller, as long as the antenna is a pointing in the break between the trees, that’s also a critical component of it as well. Ms. Nobel: Right, because we’re not trying to shoot behind. It’s actually down Foothill. So even if they’re a little bit taller, if they’re behind the tree, there’s not a problem. But 1 don’t think the height is going to be an issue. Board Member Kornberq: So if the Canary Island pines get taller, because they’re farther away it’s not an issue either? Ms. Nobel: As long as they don’t block - this is line of sight. In other words, there can’t be anything blocking the antennas. Board Member Kornberq: blocking the top ten feet? City of Palo Alto Page 7 1 Ms. Nobel: Yes. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 Board Member Kornberq: So nothing should be higher than 35 feet. Ms. Nobel: Right. Board Member Kornberq: The elements that are on grade inside that fence, those can’t be buried, can they put in vaults underneath, or do they have to be sitting up on the grade? Ms. Nobel: There are certain cases where we do underground, but unless there’s some really pressing need to do that, it’s a better application to be above ground because then we can sometimes get into water tables, and it evokes a lot of other environmental situations. The shelter is going to be very aesthetically invisible in the area. I don’t know if you’ve visited the site, we’re putting landscaping around the fence and I dare say, when people are driving by Foothill you’re passing very quickly. In fact, I believe there was an e-mail in your packet from one of the residents that stated that there shouldn’t really be any aesthetics here, to quote him, "The aesthetic impact is not that negative. Folks driving on Foothill Expressway will pass this very rapidly. Folks on Miranda are almost entirely shielded by trees, and folks on Manuela are even more shielded." This was an e-mail I believe from one of the citizens. Board Member Kornberq: I’m more disturbed by the structure around it than the pole itself, and 1 was just thinking you could dispense with all of that - the shrubs, the maintenance of the shrubs, the gates and the fence around it if you just had one underground vault that this thing sat on or was next to. I just wonder from a maintenance standpoint, is that impossible? Ms. Nobel: We’ve never explored a vault. If I could ask the staff to comment - we’ve never even discussed a vault in this location. Ms. Campbell: We don’t have any issues with a vaulted equipment enclosure. The only thing that we need to consider is how it may impact the existing tree roots that are there. That we would have to explore to see if that would be okay. Board Member Kornberq: How big would a vault have to be, do you know, for a single station? Ms. Nobel: It would be the same areas, the same footprint, which is approximately 10x25 is our typical. And again, we haven’t done any soils or any - all the trees and the slope. There’s a number of issues that come up when we start talking about a vault. I’m not saying that it’s impossible, but it wasn’t a likely or indicated application here. Because it was such a wooded area it was felt that this would disappear. Board Member Kornber.q: David, I had a question. Does there have to be any trenching other than what’s inside the enclosure, the 14.6x23.6? City of Palo Alto Page 8 1 2 3 Ms. Campbell: Yes there is. Let me find out which sheet on the plans that shows that. The tree survey, it shows the trenching going out to the light pole, that’s out on Foothill to get the power. 4 Board Member Kornberq: Yes, so that goes all the way down Foothill. And that 5 trenching seems to go very close to those pines that are shielding this. There’s either a 6 double 18" pine and then there’s a single 18" pine. I was just wondering, how deep is 7 that trench? Was it just conduit, or is it actually... 8 Dave Dockter: The route there was specifically selected, and that would also be under 9 the auspices of the arborist to make sure that it was trenched properly. There’s a 10 technique called "air spade" that doesn’t cut any tree roots at all actually. It just blows 11 out the soil and the conduit could be strung underneath any roots that might be there. 12 But this location is safely clear from the trees. 13 Board Member Kornberq: You got a chance to walk around and see that you can find a 14 good location for it? 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 David Dockter: Yes. Board Member Kornberq: I was worried more about the damage around these than the pole itself. One last question. David, if you were a bird and you were coming down towards this fake tree, what would you think about the Architectural Review Board and the City staff? David Dockter: I usually think about if I was a root how I would be growing, but I’ve never... Board Member Kornberq: You shouldn’t ask an arborist. Is there an ornithologist in the room, please? David Dockter: Let me point out that there’s a mono-pine at the Hanover Fire Station, and the squirrels are using it, wildlife is actually using it. And birds will pick any perch they want to pick. It doesn’t have to be a living thing for them to perch. They perch on wires and whatnot all the time. Beyond that I think we need an environmental specialist. Board Member Solnick: If you’re a diver you know that shipwrecks are some of the greatest places for animals to live, so there’s nothing counter-intuitive. Board Member Kornber.q: Any follow-up questions from the Board? None. Then I have one public card, and that’s from Philip Green. Is Philip Green here? Mr. Philip Green: My name is Philip Green; I live on Miranda Green. That is actually aligned with this site, so we would see it from the street at all times. You’ve been asked to consider four designs. I’d like to address the mono-pole first. I don’t think any of these options have been officially eliminated. A brief historical note - in 1997 the Planning Commission emphatically denied a permit for substantially the same mono- pole installation, and they stated, and these are their words: "The project conflicts with City of Palo Alto Page 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 three existing Comprehensive Plan policies, and also the proposed use would be detrimental and injurious because the mono-pole would be visible from adjacent residential sites and Foothill Expressway." I hope that Palo Alto’s will be no less vigilant now in enforcing the Comprehensive Plan. Since the first question here was addressed not to appearance but to alternative sites, I’d like also to mention that in 1997 the Planning Commission asserted that the applicant had failed to show, and these are their words, "the proposed site for the facility was essential to the operation of the utility, and provision of a utility service to the neighborhood in that there was no reasonable alternative, especially locations and commercial or industrial districts where a commercial operation would be more compatible with surrounded uses." That was their opinion in 1997, and I would assert that the current applicant has also not made a good faith effort to find a suitable alternative location, although they suggest otherwise. The mono-pole officially proposed - that’s what’s before you in writing - would look much like an industrial smoke stack. It has been widely discussed and vigorously objected to by my neighbors, and I think you’ll find if you look at the Planning and Transportation Commissioner’s verbatim minutes of August 31 of last year that there’s ample agreement among the commissioners with that objection. As to the other three design concepts, as you’ve heard, the Planning staff has already objected to the pine tree. This pine tree will have to extend considerably above the height of the other trees and will not be effectively shielded by it. And you’ve also heard today, those trees are in bad shape and very shortly will have to be taken out and replanted. For a long time to come there will be effectively no cover, even at lower elevations on the pole. I urge the ARB to decline approval of these four designs and to reconsider antenna proposals for this site only when and if adequately prepared documentation can be provided in a timely manner, both to the concerned neighbors and to the ARB. The Planning staff I think improperly bypassed the ARB in sending this to the Planning Commission in August. As you will see, in the Planning Commission’s verbal minutes, commissioners, in referring this issue back to the ARB asked the ARB to come up with better ideas. They did not ask the ARB to choose between three or four alternatives. Those alternatives were provided by the Planning staff, and I urge you to give fuller consideration to this issue and not be bound to select from these four proposals. Board Member Kornber.q: Thanks very much. I’d like to return back to the Board. Judith. Board Member Wassermann: I went out to the site, and before I went over to Aldersgate Church I went over to Miranda Green so that I could see what was going on there. What I found was a large screen of bushes and trees that ran between Miranda and Foothill Expressway, and I was hard pressed to see the site at all without actually going up to the chain link fence and trying to find a hole in the shrubbery that would allow me to see across the road. So it is unclear to me what the problem is from the Miranda side City of Palo Alto Page 10 1 of Foothill. I could see that maybe in the scenic Foothill corridor, that if you were a 2 passenger and not driving, you might catch a glimpse of this thing. But I don’t really see 3 that there’s a problem. I would support the tree proposal because they do tend to blend 4 in with the shrubbery, although I got to tell you - I was in Westchester County a couple 5 weeks ago, and there was one of these tree poles that was visible for miles up and 6 down the freeway, and it was a redwood tree, and it was hilarious. So I would not 7 recommend the palm solution in this case. I would recommend the pine solution 8 because it blends in with the existing vegetation. People do the funniest things. That 9 was really a riot. 10 There is a proposal that we each support a different look to this thing, and there are only 11 four proposed. So if everybody else wants to support one of the other proposals, I 12 would support a pole designed by an artist. But if we don’t have support for every 13 different member of the ARB proposing something different, then I would go for the pine 14 tree. 15 16 Board Member Kornberq: We just need three votes on one I want to add. Grace, help me. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 Board Member Lee: My experience at the site was similar to Judith’s. I got out of the car, I tried to look while I was driving, I tried to look and you really have to climb over things. This is a beautiful area. You definitely see these great trees. You also see existing utility poles that are there, it’s just part of our environment that there’s infrastructure. Of the proposals I am inclined to support the mono-pole. I think that has the least impact. One thing that I might consider - we haven’t seen a color for this pole - and what I see out there is it’s actually pretty light colored, the ground and the tree canopies. So I would support a lighter green color. Right now it’s simply darker green to make it more complex. At the same time, if push comes to shove and everybody loves the mono-pine, my issue is that it is a large Christmas tree, and I feel that especially if the existing trees are to stay up 35 feet, I feel that it would draw more attention to an ornamental false tree, which is what it is. That’s where I stand. Board Member Kornberq: Thank you. Clare. We’ve got two votes now. Board Member Prichard: I went into this, first having read the application. Before I went out to the site I was thinking that I liked just the mono-pole for the same reasons Grace mentions. There is infrastructure around. You generally don’t notice it unless you’re looking for it. However, when I went out to the site and took a look at the condition of the existing trees and now also hearing that those trees may be declining and certainly aren’t going to get any bigger, I’m leaning more towards wanting to see the pseudo pine tree instead. I think that’ll be a little bit less obvious when you’re driving by at a fast rate of speed on Foothill Expressway. Board Member Kornberq: Thank you. David. City of Palo Alto Page 11 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Board Member Solnick: When I was looking through this packet I was aghast. My first reaction was - this to me seemed like a classic example of a Palo Alto process run amok. I think the staff made the right decision to make a decision at the staff level. As I understand it, it was appealed and that’s why it went to the Planning Commission. I think the Planning Commission - obviously somebody has a right to appeal - the Planning Commission should have made a decision and not kept bouncing it around between boards and commissions. I think this is an utter abuse of our time to tell you the truth, this amount of time. My vote is whichever creates a majority and gets this thing passed because I think that’s really - we need to just move on. Board Member Kornberq: Since I went a mono-pole... Board Member Solnick: 1 will do whatever I can to make this thing pass. Board Member Kornberq: Okay, so it’s up to you. Board Member Solnick: I’d also like to make one other point, which is this public utility pole - they can do whatever the hell they please. They can make it as tall as they want, they can add this bar, that bar, transformers, telephone wires, cable wires - they can do whatever the hell they want, there’s no design review. But yet when a private utility comes in, we start shooting guns at their feet, for a year, and I think that is completely unfair and downright hypocritical. The City owns this power pole, and here we are shooting at this company that’s just trying to do something that’s far less visible than the City’s own poles. Board Member Kornber.q: So David, you have to now decide between the mono-pole and the pine. [MOTION] Board Member Solnick: The pine. Board Member Kornberq: Okay; I have a motion. Board Member Wassermann: I second. Board Member Kornberq: All in favor of the pine solution: [three in favor; two against] [MOTION PASSED FOR MONO-PINE 3-2-0-0.] City of Palo Alto Page 12 Attachment J PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT TO:PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION FROM: AGENDA DATE: SUBJECT: Clare Campbell Associate Planner DEPARTMENT: Planning and Community Environment August31,2005 4243 Manuela Drive [04PLN-001431: Request by Cingular Wireless on behalf of Aldersgate Methodist Church for a Conditional Use Permit to allow the installation of one telecommunications facility, comprised of a 45-foot mono-pole with six pane! antennas concealed within the top region of the pole and associated equipment cabinets. Zone District: R-1 (20,000). Environmental Assessment: Exempt form the California Environmental Quality Act per section 15301. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission recommend that the City Council uphold the Director of Planning and Community Environment’s decision to approve Conditional Use Permit 04PLN-00143 based upon the findings and conditions in the Record o( Land Use Action (Attachment A). SUMMARY OF KEY ISSUES On July 18, 2005, the Director of Planning and Community Environment tentatively approved the request for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow the installation of a new telecommunications facility (see Attachment J for the approval letter). Within the prescribed timeframe, one request for a public hearing was received for the CUP application. The associated Architectural Review application, .reviewing the aesthetic qualities of the project was approved with conditions on July 18, 2005; no hearing request was received for this entitlement. The approved plans do not reflect the required modifications as stated in the conditions of approva!. It should be noted that both the CUP and Architectural Review approval include a number of conditions to insure that the constructed project will meet and be maintained at a high aesthetic standard. A significant condition of approval, to be shown in the revised building permit plans, is that instead of the proposed tree-pole structure, a standard monopole shallbe i .n. stalled. An illustration of this modification can be seen on the"project plans-(Attachment M) as well as in the photosimulations (Attachment H). In the evaluation of the existing site conditions, with many tall mature trees, a monopole structure was deemed to be less intrusive physically than a tree-pole. Within the setting of the mature trees, the pole will not significantly impact the view, especially for the few seconds that a vehicle takes to drive by on Foothill Expressway. The final landscape plan for the equipment screening and the fence detail will be reviewed at the building permit phase. The list of the conditions of approval is in Attachment A, Section 6. The City has a record showing that a Conditional Use Permit was filed in 1996 for a telecommunications facility at this same site. That application was denied for not meeting the required findings. The background and discussion can be found in the related Planning Commission staff report (Attachment L); there are no project plans available for this previous submittal. Review Process The typical telecommunications project (antennas mounted on a free-standing pole or roof- moun.ted) requires both a Conditional Use Permit and Architectural Review. The expansion of an existing site requires a CL~ amendment. A different review process occurs when the site is a Planned Community (pc) zone and the use is specifically permitted; then Architectural Review is required only. To add telecommunications as a new use to an existing PC zone, an amendment to the zone would be required. Currently, telecommunications facilities fall into the use category of"utility facilities," which is a conditional use in all standard zone districts. Telecommunications Act of 1996 Personal wireless telecommunications facilities are regulated by the federal government pursuant to the Telecommunications Act of 1996 ("Act"). (47 U.S.C. § 151 et seq.) Under the Act, local governments retain control over decisions regarding the placement, construction and modification of personal wireless service facilities so long as they are in writing and supported ,by substantia! evidence; and do not: (a) unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services; (b) prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services; or (c) are not based on the environmental effects of radio frequency emission to the extent that such facilities comply with the Federa! Communications Commission’s regulations concerning such emissions. (47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)). Conditional Use Permit There are two required findings that must be met for a CLIP approval. The first finding is that the use shall not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience. The second finding is that the use be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of Title 18 (Zoning). The findings for approval for this project are described in detail in Attachment A, the Record of Land Use Action. A common issue raised by concerned citizens regarding telecommunications projects is that they are a potential health risk. As mandated by the Telecommunications Act of 1996, as stated above, the City cannot deny a project based on potential environmental or health risks due to the radio City of Palo Alto Page 2 frequency emissions as long as the facility complies with the FCC regulations regarding such emissions. This project would meet these regulations. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW This project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act per Section 15301. ATTACHMENTS: B. C. D. E. F. G. H. I. K. L. M. Record of Land Use Action Project Aerial & Zone Map Timeline Applicant Submittal Information Radio Frequency Analysis for Proposed Project (submitted by applicant) Comprehensive Plan Compliance Zoning Table Background/Proj ect Description Planning Commission Report for 1996 CUP Submittal, dated February 26, 1997 (without. attachments) Conditional Use Permit Approval Letter, dated July 18, 2005 Architectural Review Approval Letter, dated July 18, 2005 Correspondence Project Plans (Commissioner’s Only) COURTESY COPIES: Marsha Converse, Applicant Aldersgate Methodist Church, Property Owners Jacqueline Berman, Requestor of Public Hearing Prepared by: Reviewed by: Department/Division Head Approval: Clare Campbell, Project Planner John Lusardi, Planning Manager City of Palo Alto Page 3 Attachment K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 Planning and Transportation Commission Verbatim Minutes August 31, 2005 EXCERPT NEW BUSINESS: Public Hearings. o 4243 Manuela Avenue* - Request by VelociTel, on behalf of Aldersgate Methodist Church, for a Conditional Use Permit to allow the installation of (1) one 45-foot, 20-inch diameter, monopole with six telecommunications antennas concealed within the top region, (2) two associated equipment cabinets, and (3) fencing and landscape improvements in the parking lot area of the existing church and landscape improvements in the parking lot area of the existing church. The proposed service provider is Cingular Wireless. Zone District: R-1 (20,000). Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act per section 15303. Mr. Larkin: As most of the Commissioners are aware pursuant to the Federal Telecommunications Act the city calmot regulate the placement, construction or modification of wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmenta! effects of radio frequency emissions provided that the proposed facilities meet the FCC regulations concerning those emissions. The Commission can consider typical zoning and use permit considerations just not the RF emissions. Commissioner Cassel: Can we have the Staff Report then? Ms. Clare Campbell, Associate Planner: Good evening Commissioners. The project before you tonight is for a telecommunications facility comprised of a 45-foot tall monopole and associated equipment on the Aldersgate Methodist Church property. The project will be located along the side perimeter of the rear parking lot within the existing grove of mature trees. The six proposed antenna mounted at the top region of the pole would be shielded within a cover that would blend with the pole design and the equipment would be screened by a fence enclosure and new native planting landscaping. The applicant originally submitted a proposal to locate the facility near the rear corner of the property adjacent to Foothill Expressway in full view of all passersby. In a resubmital the project was pulled back 70 feet from Foothill Expressway and located within the existing trees. The revised plans not only included a less visible location for the proj ect but also proposed a tree pole instead of the original monopole. Staff did give consideration to the proposed tree pole knowing that these structures can be well designed and crafted to resemble existing pine trees at the site. After extensive evaluation including consideration of the tree arrangement around the project area Staff made the determination that a slim design monopole would be a better design option. Page 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 The monopole design has significantly less mass than the faux tree and in this scenario the less is more approach is taken. It seemed unnecessary to require a tree pole when the visible impacts would not be significantly different than the approved monopole. The project site abuts Foothill Expressway, which is a designated scenic route and for the most part has a special setback of 60 feet to preserve the scenic views from the road. In the immediate area of the project parcel there is no special setback requirement. There are a total of nine R-1 lots that backup to Foothill Expressway that have the potential of building a 30-foot tall structure 20 feet away from the scenic route. This project proposes a 70-foot setback from Foothill Expressway and in doing so minimally impacts the scenic qualities of this route. I would also like to point out that this area does not require Site and Design Review because it doesn’t have the D overlay. As mentioned in the Staff Report an application was filed for a telecommunications facility in 1996. That application was denied for not meeting the required findings. Over the nine years that have elapsed since that submittal the telecommunications industry has improved both technologically and aesthetically. Staff was unable to locate a copy of the project plan submitted in 1996 but feels confident in saying the project before you today is a more attractive project than what was previously proposed. Another difference in the decision-making between 1996 and now is that there is a more general understanding and acceptance of the impacts and benefits of these types of projects. I have provided at places a list of proposed additional conditions of approval that have specifically addressed the existing trees around the project area. These trees are a necessary component to the success of this project as they function as the major screening for this project. The proposed additional conditions require annual monitoring of the trees and replacement of trees that are in poor health. Also Staff would like to point out that we added a condition of adding three new trees right at the comer, the southeasterly comer, that is currently an open area on this lot. Staff recommend the Planning and Transportation Commission recommend that the City Council uphold the Direct of Planning and Community Environment’s decision to approve this conditional use permit based upon the findings and conditions in the Record of Land Use Action attached to the Staff Report with the inclusion of the additional proposed conditions of approval. This concludes Staff’s report and the applicant is ready to make a presentation. Thank you. Commissioner Cassel: Do we have questions of Staff before we go to the applicant? Okay. Do I have the cards? Would you please state your name and the city you come from and who you are representing? Page 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 Ms. Marsha Converse, Applicant: I work for VelociTel, I am the applicant and I am here on behalf of the proposed wireless for Cingular Wireless and Aldersgate Methodist Church. Commissioner Cassel: You have 15 minutes for your presentation for you and all the people who are presenting with you. Ms. Converse: As Clare stated another carrier, I think it was Pacific Bell, applied for this back in 1996 and back then it didn’t meet aesthetics in regard to design. You are going to have to excuse me because I took this over from another planner and I just got this a month ago. I am prepared to ask questions more than I am to make a presentation. I would like to promote this location. As you know disasters do happen more often than not some are contrived and some are natural and this covers - there are no emergency services on this busy corridor and we are required by law to put emergency services on main corridors in case of a disaster. One of the reasons we seek these sites in a residential neighborhood, it is not our preference to go in residential neighborhoods, but we do get a lot of complaints of no coverage. So we have to go back out and look. When we are given a search ring to look we have to come back with four candidates but they have to meet all criteria. They can’t just meet geographic we have to have a willing landlord, we have to have height requirements. We have to be able to meet certain criteria. We did find one other location that met that criteria however we did not have a willing landlord. We have a willing landlord here. So I am here to address any questions that I can on this. I would like to have your support and I would like to see this go forward. I think it is a much needed site. That is why we are approaching it again. We really need this coverage. Commissioner Cassel: Thank you. Does anyone have any questions they would like to ask of her? Lee. Commissioner Lippert: Actually I have a question for the City Attorney. With regard to federal law trumping local land regulations specifically residential sites when it comes to houses of worship located in residential areas how does this site fit in? Mr. Larkin: Under the telecommunications act the federal law just deals with the consideration of the RF frequencies and then prohibitions on precluding wireless access. It doesn’t apply to normal site review so some of those things can be considered by the Commission. Commissioner Lippert: Here we have a house of worship located in a single-family residential neighborhood on an R-1 site, correct? And federal law right now says that you have to permit houses of worship on those sites. If the house of worship says we want to have a cell site there do we have to allow for that or other uses? Mr. Larkin: No, the RULPA law wouldn’t apply to a cell site. Page 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 Commissioner Lippert: Okay, thank you. Mr. Emslie: I think what the question is referring to there is a federal law and an acronym is R-U-L-P-A which established some federal preemptions for local agencies to preclude religious or faith-based organizations, houses of worship. I think just to reinforce what Don is saying is that does not apply in this case because it is not for religious purposes it is for commercial purposes. Commissioner Lippert: Thank you. Commissioner Garber: Thank you. A couple of questions for perhaps the applicant or the Staff. One, immediately to the south of the proposed site and I am not talking about the parcel but the actual site of the equipment and the antenna there is an easement for electrical lines and there are some telephone poles that run up that easement. Do you know the height of those? Ms. Converse: We looked at two poles and they were very overloaded and congested. According to General Order 95 of the CPUC you have to be at least 20 feet [HTL] and you have to come down at least 10 to 14 feet from above. So you have to clear the last line at least by that much. Commissioner Garber: Let me clarify my question. I am not actually asking about alternative sites here. Bordering the property there is an easement to allow for electrical lines to run through and on that there are one, two, possibly three telephone poles that exist there now. I was just curious if anyone knew how tall those were. Ms. Converse: They are usually 35, a standard PG&E pole. Commissioner Garber: So therefore they are ten foot lower than the proposed. Ms. Converse: Yes, they usually are. First and foremost we really would like to go with PG&E because we have a standard MLA with them and it is a lot easier. So we actually would prefer to go on a transmission tower if possible. Usually what we end up doing is replacing the pole. Commissioner Garber: Those poles .... Ms. Converse: If it doesn’t meet the height requirement that we need. Commissioner Garber: Okay. The second question is a matter of clarification for my education here. The conditional use permit that is being proposed if I am remembering the report correctly states generally that is allowing for a telecommunication use, is that correct? Should the applicant come back at some future date and want to do something else that is also related to telecommunications would they be required to revisit the permit or would they be able to say if they wanted to store a truck there or something of that sort would that be allowed under this existing permit? Page 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 Ms. Campbell: If they expand the use in any way they would have to amend the existing use permit. So if they were to either add antennas or rearrange the footprint of the equipment or do things like that they would have to amend the existing conditional use permit to provide for that. Conmaissioner Garber: Thank you. Commissioner Cassel: Any other questions at this time? Lee. Commissioner Lippert: With regard to locating a cell site like this on an R-1 property does it begin to set any sort of precedent? Mr. John Lusardi, Planning Manager, Special Projects: Although the zoning is R-1 the use is a church and that is generally how we approach these types of facilities in an R-1 district. So we generally don’t support them on the R-1 properties themselves or a single- family use. Because this is a church use and because of the size of the property and the amount of trees we take all of that into consideration for a conditional use permit. Mr. Emslie: In the issuance of a conditional use permit it is quasi-judicial as was announced at the beginning and that means that it is reviewed based on the facts pertaining to it on this particular instance. Your review depends on whether or not the facts support making the required findings in this. So to the extent that each case is reviewed based on the individual circumstances and the facts in the case and whether or not those facts support the findings that the extent to which any precedent would be established. Commissioner Cassel: Are there any other questions at this time? Commissioner Lippert: So if a person like myself decided that they wanted to donate their house to a religious institution, I happen to live in Downtown North, and they wanted to thereby turn it into a house of worship and wanted to have a cell site to supplement their income that would be something that would be considered? Mr. Emslie: No, the individual facts in that case, the example that you gave, would pertain to the location, its visual impact, where it would be located on the site, a variety of factors that would be I would imagine greatly different than the case in front of you this evening. So I don’t think there would be a precedent-setting nature that would allow someone to make a decision like you described. Commissioner Cassel: Are there any other questions at this time or can we go to the public hearing? Thank you very much. Ms. Converse: Thank you Commissioners and Chair. Page 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Commissioner Cassel: You are welcome. I have three cards on this item. The first one is Jackie Berman. The second one is Phil Green and the third one is Amy Smiley. If you will come forward you will have three minutes to speak. Ms. Jackie Berman, Palo Alto: I was told we would have five by Clare. Commissioner Cassel: I think I only have three items I will give you five minutes. Sometimes we give five depending on how many people there are in the audience. So you will have five minutes to speak and I need your name and I need your city that you come from. Ms. Berman: Okay, my name is Jackie Berman and I live in Palo Alto. I believe you have a copy of my remarks? Yes, okay. Some of the neighbors are to shy to stand up and speak so I would like the neighbors who are here opposing it to stand up so that you can see that we do have some shy neighbors. Thank you. Your packet states that no hearing was requested at the Architectural Review phase and that is because we weren’t aware for whatever reason that a hearing could be requested. So it wasn’t out of lack of interest. I want to say that a similar proposal was rejected by the city in 1996 all the same conditions apply. For those in the Planning Staff that have not seen the other proposal, who couldn’t find the 1996 proposal, we have it and it is no improvement. The 1996 proposal is no better or worse than the present proposal. So at that time it was found that it would be detrimental and would add to the visual clutter along the Foothill Expressway which is designated a scenic route and that the applicant had not demonstrated that other locations were not viable. The alternate sites cited by VelociTel in your packet are really ridiculous. They cite two utility poles on Miranda Avenue and I don’t think those are the poles you were talking about. You were talking about the ones on the church side of the expressway. So they were citing two poles on Miranda Avenue, which they said are too cluttered, and then the cemetery one. Also I want to mention that the photos in your packet are very misleading. None of them are direct shots across looking at the site. They all sort of are looking north or south down Miranda Avenue or up or down the expressway. There is an implication then that even if you are driving that way that you have no peripheral vision that you wouldn’t see something out here to the side. There is no photo in the packet that shoots directly at the site from our neighborhood. We are also very interested in VelociTel’s reason as stated in the packet that they are not considering any location north of Arastradero because "the applicant is proposing a separate telecommunications site inside the Hillview Arastradero triangle at the Roche Labs administration building and any site along Foothill Expressway north of Arastradero Road would create co-channel interference with the proposed Roche Labs communications facility." We would like to know more about that proposed installation and the issue of interference. Page 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Palo Alto does not have a coherent policy about the placement of antennas in the city. That might be a good subject for your joint meeting sometime. I suggest that before the Planning and Transportation Commission considers this application any further it should in consultation with the Architectural Review Board drafl such a policy for consideration by the City Council. This is especially needed if the city is to grant a conditional use permit to place an antenna tower in an R-1 residential area as this permit is proposing. I would say that the conditions that the Staff said, oh, that wouldn’t apply because if you gave your house to a religious institution and put up a tower then this would not set precedent for it because that would be in a residential area well, believe me this impacts our residential area. I am sure you know the story of our very narrow road Miranda that has been a real problem for us and this will further have a negative impact on our neighborhood. So in conclusion I urge you to uphold the previous decision on this tower at this site and I urge you to reject the proposal. Thank you. Commissioner Cassel: Thank you. I don’t see any questions. Thank you very much for speaking. Phil Green. Please give us your name and the city you are from and stand in front of that mike. Mr. Phil Green, Palo Alto: I live in Palo Alto and am Jackie’s next-door neighbor. I am here also to oppose the Aldersgate Church site for a cell phone tower. First I want to say that the proposed installation is strongly objected to by many of our neighbors but we are not indifferent to the benefits of better cell phone coverage. It is just that we don’t think that the case has been made that only by erecting a tower on the Aldersgate property can the communication needs of our neighborhood be served. Jackie has made many points that I will touch on too so I will touch on them perhaps more briefly. I think you may have in your hands a copy of my remarks. I am too surprised that this issue of the Aldersgate site has been resurrected. It was so emphatically denied in 1997. The Commission’s words were given to you by Jackie and won’t repeat them here and nine years later the same objections apply. I found in the Comprehensive Plan policy L-69 and N-7 pretty much characterize what you should not do along the Foothill Expressway and this tower does not conform to those requirements. At one point as you know the applicant’s representative met with some of us and proposed to disguise the tower as a pine tree. I don’t know how convincing a pine tree this tower would make but apparently the Planning Staff did not see it as a suitable solution. So instead, and I would refer you to the photograph on the bottom of the page, it is the last page of what is probably Exhibit 11, Exhibit 12 is on the back of it, it is photograph that has been rendered to indicate what that tower will look like. I think I can find no better way to describe it but as an industrial smokestack. It is out of place there and we are going to be looking at it. Now regarding the applicant’s due diligence requirements to establish that there was no alternative appropriate site to this one there were as the applicant’s representative just told us three other sites. I would call them token sites that were offered and rejected in their proposal. The utility poles on Miranda Avenue were clearly objectionable and I Page 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 think we can understand why Alta Mesa Cemetery was not interested in seeing one of these towers in the middle of their grounds. The applicant also made reference to a site at Roche Labs at which it plans, as we understand to develop another cell phone antenna system. I don’t know the details of that. The applicant asserts but does not attempt to substantiate that any tower located north of Arastradero to serve our area would interfere with the signals from the Roche site. This would seem to eliminate from consideration what I believe is a reasonable possibility for serving the section of the expressway that we are dealing with and that is the existing antenna tower on the VA Hospital which has an excellent line of site orientation to Foothill Expressway. A directional array might serve this corridor without any interference with the Roche site. I would like to know has that Roche site been proposed yet to the City? Has it been approved? If not, let’s solve our problem first and then deal with the Roche site afterwards. Perhaps an antenna system on the VA tower would serve both areas. I did during the time of the original application I did discuss briefly with the responsible person at the VA whether that would be entertained and they seemed to be very receptive. I think the City has a responsibility to explore these and other possible alternatives rather than simply accept the applicant’s assertions and I would like to endorse what Jackie said about having a master plan so that these are not all treated on an ad-hoc basis without overview of what is happening to the City. Commissioner Cassel: Thank you. Amy Smiley. Ms. Amy Smiley, Palo Alto: I live in the same neighborhood as Jackie and Phil. I just want to reiterate what they said. I think the proposal was denied previously. I don’t see that anything has substantially changed to merit approving it now. I think the cell phone towers are ugly and unattractive. The Aldersgate Church looks like a large property on the aerial photo but if you look at how far it is from our neighborhood it is essentially one cu!-de-sac over. It would be the same as sticking the tower in Arroyo Court or on the end of Miranda. The last thing I want to say is maybe you were referring to 911 coverage but my provider is Cingular and I do have cell phone coverage in my home and on Miranda. Thank you. Commissioner Cassel: Thank you. The applicant has another three minutes to respond if they would like to answer any of these questions. Ms. Converse: To the first speaker I am not an RF expert so I can’t answer why Roche Lab would interfere in some way or another with this proposed site. What I can do is if the speaker would like to give me their email address they can send me their questions and I can have them addressed by a professional. In regard to Cingular’s network it is very congested right now. I don’t know if you are aware but Cingular bought AT&T’s network but then they sold theirs to T-Mobile. So instead of having two networks we have two customer bases on one network which is AT&T’s. It is only going to get worse and it is not going to get better. Page 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 We are only here again because we can find no alternative site. We do not want to make enemies. We don’t want to be your enemy. A lot of times Cingular or the wireless carriers will go away because they don’t want to be in bad standing with the neighborhood. They want to work with you. I would just like to say that if you are not happy with the design we are going based on the Planning Commission we are available to work with you on any design you would like. We have moved it several different ways to make it less obtrusive and aesthetically we have worked really closely with Clare to make it a much better site. I disagree, although I am not the original planner on this, I just took it over a month ago I disagree that we haven’t put every possible effort into this to prove that aesthetically and geographically it is the best location for this corridor to get coverage. That’s it. Commissioner Cassel: Thank you. Would the Staff like to respond to any of the comments? Ms. Campbell: I don’t have any comments at this time. Commissioner Cassel: I think I should have asked the applicant. I would like to know about that VA site. Why has that not been used? I understand the VA has to use site and maybe it is already being used. Ms. Converse: I would have to go back and research the records further but it could be that it is not in the search ring. Roche Lab because of its high trees is only going to cover a certain geographic area. I believe to the north we don’t have it covered because there are very high pine trees. Again, when I say we look at a site we have to look at everything. We have to look at is it going to work and meet our coverage needs, is it going to work with the topography? So the VA site I am willing to do that for you as well but I can almost already say that it probably was because it wasn’t in the search ring. If it was I am sure we would be looking at it because we do work with hospitals as well and we are on several VA hospitals. Commissioner Cassel: Lee. Commissioner Lippert: What about Gunn High School? I know that Gunn has a number of cell sites located on their property. Ms. Converse: Well, we used to choose schools and churches after exhausting other areas. If we went into a residential area we like giving the money to churches and schools because they can always us it. Again the VA hospital and the school are not mentioned here but if you give me their address I can go back and see if it was in the search ring. Schools are very opposed to this as well. Commissioner Cassel: Thank you. Does anyone else have any questions? Dan. Page 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 Commissioner Garber: For the Staff, just to reiterate in this particular case for this particular application the letter of the law has been followed in terms of edifying of the required neighborhood, etc.? Ms. Campbell: Yes, all the required notifications were done according to the regulations, yes. Commissioner Cassel: Any other questions? Pat. Chair Burt: Could Staff expand upon some of the questions that were raised by Commissioner Lippert and other and members of the public regarding alternative sites and what has been explored and why you believe that this is the best site? Ms. Campbell: In evaluating the packet of material that they submit we primarily go with what they are proposing. We do look at some of the materials that they submit regarding the other sites but we do primarily with their first choice of their site selection unless other issues come up along the way. I don’t think the VA site and I haven’t been around long enough to really know that history, it never came up as an option or as a potential site for this particular project. Some of the other questions that Lee brought up about locating in the R-1 zone we do have other applications that were approved in the R-1 zone for the comer church on Louis and we do have other applications, one is approved and one is in process for a site on a schoo!, Achieve, on Middlefield. So I don’t know if that answers your question. Commissioner Cassel: That is in a residential neighborhood. Ms. Campbell: Correct, it is all R-1 zoning. Commissioner Cassel: Pat. Chair Burt: This is more of a process question. One of the neighbors had indicated that they were not aware of a prerogative to request an ARB hearing. So with the notifications that are given to neighbors are they informed of what their rights are in terms of requesting hearings? Ms. Campbell: For the conditional use permit it is clearly outlined with what the steps are. When we send out the informational card we let them know that this is just an informational card and a tentative decision will be mailed out at a furore time and then they can go through that process of requesting a public hearing. For the Architectural Review element of this, this was a staff level architectural review, and for that particular review there is no required notification for that review process. We did initially with the informational card that was sent out when the project first came in we did initially include that this was an Architectural Review application was being reviewed in association with the conditional use permit. When the decision letter was sent out there Page 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 was no notification sent out to the neighborhood as we do for the 600-foot radius with a conditional use permit. Commissioner Cassel: But the ARB review was done which was not done in the previous time and they recommended this pole rather than the tree. The applicant actually proposed a tree and they changed it. The last time that we saw tiffs the ARB did not review this project I believe. Mr. Lusardi: The previous project was just reviewed under a conditional use permit that is correct. This project was reviewed as a conditional use permit and a staff level ARB. Commissioner Cassel: And the ARB review was not appealed. Mr. Lusardi: That is correct. There was no call up to the Architectural Review Board for a hearing on this item. Commissioner Cassel: Karen. Vice-Chair Holman: Could Staff clarify to the best of their ability given that there aren’t plans available what would make this application for a CUP different than a previous one where the findings could not have been made? Could Staff speak to that please? Mr. Lusardi: I think the difference is in the original proposal the Stafffelt that at that time the monopole was much more visually intrusive than the designs that are proposed today. As we pointed out in the Staff Report we thought the original proposal for this application as a tree would also be intrusive so we went with the more sleeker moderu contemporary design that we thought would be less intrusive. I think part of the issues at the time of 1997 in the consideration was probably the extent or the application in the industry of telecommunications and the needs today are much greater for the telecommunications facility. So we look at it in that context of the industry needs and the community’s needs of telecommunications. We try to work with the applicant to reduce the visual impact and we felt that we achieved that this time rather than in 1997. Commissioner Cassel: If I remember right the original application came in and it had poles that looked a little like the telephone poles with the arms on it and that was pretty awful. They had adjusted it in but even then the design was different so now it is a single pole and you have the monitors visually not standing out, even the adapted pole had six pieces hanging off the pole so it was a more awkward and larger pole. Mr. Lusardi: That is correct. It was a much more industrial looking piece. It had horizontal elements attached to it with fins for the antennas. As I said, the industry today as far as the design goes has changed and we felt it was much more compatible with this application. Commissioner Cassel: Paula. Page 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Commissioner Sandas: Thank you. I just have one quick question for you. About how long do these last? Once they are plugged into the ground how long do we have them? Ms. Campbell: Let me defer to the applicant to answer that I don’t know. Ms. Converse: I never had a question like that before but they cost about $100,000 to $150,00 so they are made to last. They take into account wind factors they can withstand certain winds. They are made to withstand disasters and emergencies so they will last. They are not built to be taken down. Commissioner Cassel: While you are there, speaking of disasters and emergencies, are these solar powered or can they be solar powered? Ms. Converse: The technology is always improving. I know that they do a lot of fiber optic whenever possible now so that they don’t even have to have power into this but I would say that the power in telecommunications is probably not there yet with solar. You mean solar to provide the power, right? Commissioner Cassel: Right or as an alternate power. Ms. Converse: I can’t answer that that would be .... Commissioner Cassel: There is no power down in the gulf and there are no communications. If the electricity goes out there still won’t be. Ms. Converse: What they do in times like that what they do is take what are called COWS, and right now my memory is failing me as to what that means, they are for emergency services and they are amazing. When 9/11 happened one of the things the mayor did in New York was he got rid of all the stringent rules that applied and said get down here as soon as you can and they were able to bring these COWS in. They can set up these cellular towers virtually anywhere. I don’t know what is going on in the disaster right now in the gulf but I would think that a lot of people are probably using their cellular phones to get help. Commissioner Cassel: They are not getting a hold of anyone. There is no communication. The cell towers are down, everything is down and the only way would be - even the alternate powers have been flooded and because it has been flooded they are out too. So the most major problem they are having there is there is no communication to keep people. So that is what made me think of solar power might help. Ms. Converse: That would be another question for radio frequency or a telecom power person. Commissioner Cassel: Okay. Are there any other questions before I bring this back to the Commission? Karen. Page 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 Vice-Chair Holman: I do have a question for Staff. Looking at the photo where this pole has been put into place it does look, I think one of the speakers referred to it as rather like a smokestack, was there consideration given to some other kind of a design? I don’t want to get into designing it of course but I have seen some of the tree kind of configurations and they look rather fake and they don’t look very attractive and they look like they are kind of forced onto the environment. So the smaller it can be I think the better at the same time was there consideration given to something that would look rather like something still out of nature rather than just a single pole coming up that looked like a smokestack? Ms. Campbell: I can answer briefly and then maybe the applicant can add a little bit more to that. I don’t think that the technology is out yet to produce other types of natural looking tree poles or vegetative poles of some kind. We have just basically started out with the fake palm trees and pine trees and the broadleaftree that you guys recently have reviewed. We have the redwood looking trees. I don’t know of any other types of faux plant material that could have been produced for this. Vice-Chair Holman: Actually that isn’t quite what I was intending. What I was intending that it still stay in a single pole but that the pole itself had some kind of articulation, an aspect to it so that it wasn’t such a slick skin, blunt topped kind of looking facility. Mr. Lusardi: I suppose we could look at the color of the pole and the painting of the pole in a more camouflage manner. The applicant can probably add to this but I think what really dictates the pole is the size of the pole, the diameter of the pole, to fit the facilities in them and the height of the pole to make it function. I think those are the two constraining aspects of how big a pole is and how it looks. We can certainly look at the colors of it and we have added more landscaping but I don’t think you are going to get landscaping that completely screens the pole. We can look at some color aspects of it to reduce that kind of visual impact but I don’t think we can reduce the size of the pole in either diameter or height. Vice-Chair Holman: That still wasn’t what I was getting at. I was trying to indicate that the articulation of this size and this height, the articulation and the top be configured differently not that I was trying to impact the height or the diameter. Ms. Campbell: Perhaps the applicant may know of some other design concepts that I am not aware of that she can share. Ms. Converse: Well, yes but actually the trees have come a long way. I don’t know that you would say that about the trees initially when they started out building these things there was one manufacturer and there are about five different companies now that design these. Yes, there are different designs. Whether you would like them I am not sure. There are bell towers, there are crosses, and they all have to be a certain diameter to fit the coax in there. We have a standard coax size that goes in there. There are many different designs. They have lollypop designs where it actually looks like just a round Page 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 circle on top. I think as Clare was saying you want something that is not going to catch your eye. You want to drive by on that freeway and just wiz right by and not have it be caught or stare at it. You want something that is not going to catch your attention. I think the other designs out there are more to fit in for instance for the church if it worked at another location where it does not, to get the coverage this is where we need it. But we have done bell towers and different types of bell towers. There are all different designs out there where they can actually be hidden in the columns of the tower they don’t even show. Just like the tree you won’t even see the antennas in the tree because the branches will cover them they will stick out far enough. They are do need to be transparent so in that sense you can’t have anything really - you might think a better job can be done at it, but they do a pretty good job of camouflaging. They only get better. Commissioner Cassel: Do you have a question or can we bring it back to the Commission for discussion? Okay. Commissioner Lippert: I have a couple of questions. IfI understand the process this was noticed to go before Architectural Review Board it was noticed that unless there was a appellant, somebody that was appealing the decision, then it would go before the Architectural Review Board, is that correct? Ms. Campbell: That is correct. For the Staff level architectural review we send out the tentative decision letter to the applicant and the property owner and then it is posted and then unless we get a request for a public hearing, which would go to the Architectural Review Board, then it would be approved after the 14 days. Commissioner Lippert: The next question I have is with regard to the permit streamlining act where does this fit into that? Does this fall under that? Is there a deadline that we are working towards? This is discretionary, correct? So it is not subject to permit streamlining, correct? Mr. Lusardi: Well, I will defer to these hearings but after the Commission’s recommendation we have 30 days to take it to the Council and that is the requirement we have to meet. Commissioner Lippert: Okay, so you have 30 days to take it to Council, correct? Mr. Emslie: Yes but there is not a restriction on the amount of time you have to deliberate. Commissioner Lippert: Okay and this board does have the ability to recommend that the Architectural Review Board does take a look at this project, is that not correct? Mr. Emslie: That is always your prerogative. Commissioner Lippert: I would like to formulate a motion, please. Page 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Commissioner Cassel: Go ahead. MOTION Commissioner Lippert: Okay. I would move this item subject to review by the Architectural Review Board and the Architectural Review Board taking action prior to City Council action. Commissioner Cassel: Do I have a second? SECOND Vice-Chair Holman: For purposes of discussion, yes. Commissioner Cassel: Lee, would you go ahead and explain why you put forward this motion. Commissioner Lippert: Technically I don’t have a problem with the cell site. I think that the cell site is appropriate however I do have some problems with it being on an R-1 site as I alluded to in my questioning. In addition to that I think that there are other ways of concealing the cell site on the property. I think, and I have alluded to this in other hearings, that incorporating the cell tower into architecture is probably the most desirable approach. We have looked at a number of properties and the applicant has been reluctant to do that. We have seen it masqueraded as a tree that was not appropriate but yet the Board took action that that was appropriate. I have also talked about cell sites being located in the public right-of-way or in areas where there is a public utility easement, which is another potential location for it. I don’t have a problem with it being on this site. I do have a problem with the way it is currently being presented. I think that the Architectural Review Board is probably the best body to deal with the aesthetic issue, the issues of quality and character. Thank you. Commissioner Cassel: Karen, do you wish to speak to your second? Vice-Chair Holman: Yes, just briefly. I actually concur with pretty much everything that Lee said if not everything. I think that a lot more attention can be given to this though so that it is much more compatible with the environment and not disruptive to the environment. I think one of the speakers, as I alluded earlier, one of the speakers who refers to this rather as a smokestack I think has something to be said for that. So I think the Architectural Review Board would be the body to make this much more compatible with the environment. I think our direction to them from our minutes would be to do just that. Commissioner Cassel: Would anyone else like to speak to this motion? Well, I think this is an appropriate site. It is set way back from the street. I did drive and get out of my car from different directions. I am not as concerned about people driving up and down the street catching their eye on it. The concern that I think neighbors have is that they may Page 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 see it. The neighbors, from my observation in walking around the site, that are going to see it the most obviously are the people in Los Altos and they aren’t here and they have been noticed. I have been informed that they were noticed for this meeting and they did not seem to be complaining about this. They are really going to see it. It is going to be very obvious. This is a much smaller pole than we have had before. I do not remember how I voted last time. I remember being very concerned about the alternate site not having been explored at the VA and it is still wise to look at that site. I understand from other work that we have been doing that you are looking at a variety of sites moving along a neighborhood so I can support this motion. I also want to note that we have in addition to what is there a condition that we received at our desk and I would like to have that condition added if we do this. It is a proposed addition to the conditions of approval adding some pine trees. I think that was mentioned earlier, including some maintenance or better maintenance of the trees that are there and replacement of the trees that are there. Otherwise this will be very obvious if the trees that are there go down it will not be a good situation. Commissioner Lippert: Is that a friendly amendment? Commissioner Cassel: That is a friendly amendment if you will take it. Commissioner Lippert: Yes, I will accept the friendly amendment but I think it should be subject to the Architectural Review Board’s review as well because I don’t want to tie their hands. Commissioner Cassel: Absolutely. It is just that some of the trees were not in the best condition and they are going to age and they will need to be replaced. Commissioner Lippert: I will accept that. Commissioner Cassel: Karen, you agree? Vice-Chair Holman: I will. Commissioner Cassel: Paula, you would like to make a statement? Commissioner Sandas: Just one really quick comment. I can’t help but observe that everybody who wrote in and spoke this evening the majority of the people who did were concerned about the aesthetic so I think this is a really wonderful idea and a smart motion. Commissioner Cassel: Karen. Vice-Chair Holman: Could I ask Staff a quick question? Does Staff feel like our motion is clearly enough giving direction to the ARB that the purpose of our sending it to them is to make this blend into the environment? Page 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Mr. Larkin: Two comments. First the answer to your question I will defer to Planning Staff but I believe that the answer is yes. The other comment is that if this motion were to pass it wouldn’t get to Council with the 30 days so the recommendation would be to continue the item subject to ARB review. It could come back to Planning Commission and Planning Commission could then finish up with the motion to approve the conditional use permit or whatever ARB is recommending and then it would get passed on to Council. Commissioner Lippert: Fine, I will make that amendment to my motion. Commissioner Cassel: You will just change your motion to make sure that this is a continued item to come back to the Commission after ARB review. Dan. Commissioner Garber: I will voice a contrary opinion to the motion that has suggested. I do think I hear the issues of aesthetics that have been presented by the residents and they are real. The issues of trying to place cell towers into the communities are very troublesome, cumbersome, and contentious and they are difficult. I am no expert on them. I am no expert on the aesthetics of them or what can possibly be done. I do know that when I drive by it is almost impossible not to notice them whether they are trees or dead stumps or poles or whatever if I happen to be looking for them. It is not clear to me that even going to the ARB that a suitable aesthetics solution will be arrived at to the satisfaction of the neighborhood. So ends my comments. MOTION PASSED (5-1-0-1, Commissioner Garber voted no, Commissioner Bialson absent) Commissioner Cassel: Thank you. I will now call a vote. All those in favor please say aye. (ayes) Opposed? (nay) So that will be five to one with Paula Sandas, Lee Lippert, Pat Burt, Phyllis Cassel and Karen Holman voting yes and Dan Garber saying no. Pat, you have a related comment? Chair Burt: Yes, I would like to ask of Staff and the Commission’s interest in exploring whether future proposals for cell towers, telecommunication towers, should have a greater Staff review of alternative sites rather than what appears to be a deferral to the applicant to have determined the site because frankly I think that on many occasions as we are struggling with whether a particular proposal is appropriate or not if we don’t have a comparison of say a VA Hospital or whatever we really don’t know whether this the most feasible alternative. Nobody loves these things to be standing there and everybody or most people like the fact that we have the ability to have cell coverage. So we are always struggling with this and I would like to see a greater scrutiny of that by Staffprior to presentations if the Commission also would like to see that in the future. Commissioner Cassel: Do you want a general consensus of ideas or are other people interested in that same thing? Page 17 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 1 I think I want to make one other comment to the people who came to speak to us about 2 having an overall plan for the city. The Commission has talked about that before and we 3 have been told that in this tight funding market they have not been able to fund such a 4 study to do this fairly complicated issue. It has come up with the Commission before and 5 we have mentioned it to Staff and have dutifully made them aware of our concerns about that issue. Lee. Commissioner Lippert: Just as a side comment to that it might be appropriate to consider when the ZOU picks up again to include a section on cell sites and their appropriateness in neighborhoods just the way we do with parking. Mr. Emslie: We already have that assignment. That was given to us by Council I believe several months ago. So that has already been folded into the ZOU. Commissioner Cassel: Now, I would like to call a break. We will take a seven-minute break. Don, go ahead. Mr. Larkin: Just as a reminder, when we do have these kind of off subject comments that they should probably be made at the end of the meeting under Commissioner Comments. Commissioner Cassel: Thank you. I will call a break and we will come back in seven minutes. Thank you. Let me call this meeting back to order. Page 18 July !8, 2005 City uf Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment Attachment L Planning Division Jim Mattison VelociTel 4160-B Hacienda Drive Pleasanton, CA 94588 Subject: 4243 Manuela Avenue; 04PLN-00143, Conditional Use Permit Dear Mr. Mattison: I am writing to inform you of my decision on behalf of the Director of Planning and Community Environment regarding your request for a conditional use permit. Your request has met the two required findings, as set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Section 18.76.010(c), as is hereby approved. This determination is based on the review of all information contained within the project file, all public comments received and the review of the proposal in comparison to all applicable zoning and municipal code requirements. Responses by staff as to how the project, as described below, meets the findings are described within this letter. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Request by VelociTel, on behalf of Aldersgate Methodist Church, for a Conditional Use Permit to allow the installation of (1) one 45-foot, 20-inch diameter, monopole " with six telecommunications antennas concealed within the top region, (2) two associated equipment cabinets, and (3) fencing and landscape improvements in the parking lot area of the existing church and landscape improvements in the parking lot area of the existing church. The proposed service provider is Cingular Wireless. Zone District: R-1 (20,000). Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act per section 15301. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL (1)The proposed use, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience. The proposed telecommunications use, located on an existing non-residentially developed site, will not negatively impact the project site or the.surrounding properties. This new use is ancillary tothe primary religious institution use of the site. The project is designed and located to minimize visual impacts from off-site views. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) rules require transmitting facilities 250 Hamilton Avenue EO. Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 650.329.2441 650.329.2154 fax 4243 Manuela Avenue Conditional Use Permit Page 2 of 4 to comply with Radio Frequency exposure guidelines. The limits established in the .guidelines are designed to protect the public health with a very large margin of safety. The proposed use shall be conducted in accordance with all the City’s regulations (Planning, Building, Fire, etc.) and complies with the FCC regulations and, therefore, will not be detrimental to public health, safety, and welfare. (2)!7~e proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of Title 18 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. The proposed telecommunications use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Policy B-13. This policy supports the development of technologically advanced communications infrastructure and other improvements that will facilitate the growth of emerging telecommimications industries. The proposed use does not conflict with the promotion and protection of public health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, convenience, and general welfare. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL In granting a conditional use permit, reasonable conditions or restrictions may be imposed if appropriate or necessary to protect the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience, and to secure the purposes of Title 18 (Zoning). The following conditions of approval apply in this case: The project shall be constructed in substantial conformance with the plans submitted and received on June 1, 2005 that are onfile with the City except as modified by these conditions of approval. o A copy of this entire approval letter shall be printed on the. first page of the plans submitted for building permit. The buildingpermit will not be approved without this letter printed on the plan set. 3.This Conditional Use Permit approval is contingent upon the approval of the associated Architectural Review application. The design of the pole shall be a standard monopole with a 45-foot height limit and a 20-inch maximum diameter. The proposed monopine structure is not approved for this site. 5. The fence enclosure shall be redesigned with a more rustic appearance to 4243 Manuela Avenue Conditional Use Permit Page 3 of 4 compliment the existing rural setting of the site. The enclosure shall be painted to match the matte color of the bark of the existing trees. 6. The project shall maintain a minimum distance of 8-feet from all existing trees. 7.Building permit plans shall show the accurate placement of the required tree protection fencing of the existing trees in the proj ect/access area. 8.Modifications, to the satisfaction of the planning staff, are required for the landscape plan. With the building permit submittal, a revised landscape plan shall be submitted for review and final approva!. 9.Contractor shall call for Planning staff’S advice if a conflict arises with any of the adjacent trees during construction (Clare Campbell/Dave Dockter 650-329-2442). 10.No vehicle access beyond the existing paved area of the parking lot is allowed during construction of for future site maintenance. 11.The gravel access path shall be dug down no deeper than 4 inches. This detail- should be shown on the building permit plans. 12.Prior to final inspection, the applicant shatl provide a letter to city staff with the following two submittals: (1) Provide Owner/operator contact information for future reference, maintenance issues or complaints and (2) provide photographs of the tree tower from at least two sides in a 8 x 10" format and a digital copy for City records. 13.Maintenance. For the li.fe of the project,-the City shall retain the right to require the monopole be maintained consistent with the condition at time of"final" building permit approval. Associated plantings, fencing and materials shal! be maintained consistent with the approval. Failure of any portion of the monopole or planting shall be repaired by the owner/operator within 30 days of discovery or contact by the City. 14.Revocation or Modification of Use Permit Approval: The director may issue a notice of noncompliance for any failure to comply with any condition of this permit approval, or when a use conducted pursuant to a conditional use permit is being conducted in a manner detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare. After due process~ the Director may revoke or modify the origin!l conditions of approval (PAMC 18.77.110). 4243 Manuela Avenue Conditional Use Permit Page 4 of 4 15.An amendment to this Conditional Use Permit is required if the facility expands in size ancVor capacity. In accordance with the provisions ofPAMC Ctiapter 18.77.060 (c), any person may request a hearing of this item before the Planning and Transportation Commission. Such request mus.t be made in writing to the Planning Division within 14 calendar days of the publication or mailing of this decision. Should you have any questions regarding the Director’s determination, please do not hesitate to contact the Project Planner, Clare Campbell, at (650) 617-3191. Sincerely, Copies to:Neighbors within 600 feet of the subject property Property Owner July 18, 2005 Attachment M City Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment Jim Mattison VelociTel 4160-B Hacienda Drive Pleasanton, CA 94588 Subject: 4243 Manuela Avenue; 04PLN-00143, Architectural Review Planning Division Dear Mr. Mattison: The Architectural Review application for the project referenced below is hereby approved with conditions by planning staff pursuant to the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Section 18.76.020(b)(3), as follows: PROJECT Request by VelociTel, on behalf of Aldersgate Methodist Church, for Architectural Review of a proposed installation of (1) one 45-foot, 20-inch diameter, monopole with six telecommunications antennas concealed within the top region, (2) two associated equipment cabinets, and (3) fencing and landscape improvements in the parking lot area of the existing church and landscape improvements in the parking lot area of the existing church. The proposed service provider is Cingular Wireless. Zone District: R-l(20,000). Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act per section 15301. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL The approval is based upon the findings that the proposed project, as described above, complies with the design guidelines adopted by the Architectural Review Board. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL The project shall be constructed in substantial conformance with the plans submitted and received on June 1, 2005 that are on file with the City except as modified by these conditions of approval. o A copy of this entire approval letter shall be printed on the first page of the plans submitted for building permit. The building permit will not be approved without this letter printed on the plan set. 250 Hamilton Avenue P.O. Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 650.329.2441 650.329.2154 fax 4243 Manuela Avenu_ Architectural Review Page 2 of 3 o o The design of the pole shall be a standard monopole with a 45-foot height limit and a 20-inch maximum diameter. The proposed monopine structure is not approved for this site. The monopole and all hardware and materials attached shall be painted to a non-reflective dark green to match the existing tree foliage. Provide this note on the building permit plans. All access openings on the monopole shall be covered. The fence enclosure shall be redesigned with a more rustic appearance to compliment the existing rural setting of the site. The enclosure shall be painted to match the matte color of the bark of the existing trees. The project shall maintain a minimum distance of 8-feet from all existing trees. 8.Building permit plans shall show the accurate placement of the required tree protection fencing of the existing trees in the proj ect/access area. The proposed new plant material shall be California native species. Staff recommends alternating 15 gallon Flannel Bush and Marina Madrone (multi- stem) in a staggered pattern around the equipment fencing on 6-foot centers. ! 0. Submit an in~gation plan with the building permit. Plants shall be irrigated with bubblers and should use a solar timer clock valve. 11.Contractor shall call for Planning staff’s advice if a conflict arises with any of the adjacent trees during construction (Clare Campbell/Dave Dockter 650-329~2442). 12. No vehicle access beyond the existing paved area of the parking lot is allowed during construction of for future site maintenance. 13. The gravel access path shall be dug down no deeper than 4 inches. This detai! should be shown on the building permit plans. 14. Maintenance. For the life of the project, the City shall retain the right to require the monopole be maintained consistent with the condition at time of "final" building permit approval. Associated plantings, fencing and materials shall be maintained consistent with the approval. Failure of any portion of the monopole or planting shall be repaired by the owner/operator within 30 days of discovery or contact by the City. 4243 Manuela Avenu,. Architectural Review Page 3 of 3 Prior to Building Permit Submittal 15. Submit a color sample of the proposed paint color of the monopole with a statement-on its reflective properties with clear color photo of the project area. 16.-Submit a detailed plan of the fence enclosure for review and approval. This project decision shall become final fourteen (14) calendar days from the postmark date of this mailing (or on the next business day if it falls on a weekend or holiday) unless a request for a hearing of.this project is requested. The request for a hearing shall be in writing and submitted to the Planning Division prior to the end of the business day of the fourteenth day. If a hearing is not requested, any necessary building permits may be filed for on the fifteenth (15) day after the post date of this letter. Should you have any questions regarding this action, please do not hesitate to call me at (650) 617-3191. Clare Campbell Associate Planner Copies to:Property Owner CORRESPONDANCE 4243 Manuela Drive Attachment N There were several communications received on this project. Including phone messages and emails, staff received communications of support for the project as well as non-support. The primary reason for support of the project was the improved cell phone reception that was anticipated. The primary issue raised by non-supporters was projected visual blight of the project. The written communications follow this sheet. City of Palo Alto Campbell, Clare From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Gregory Rayzman [mrayzman@yahoo.com] Wednesday, May 17, 2006 4:47 PM Campbell, Clare Jackie Berman; Phil Green; Amy Smiley; Barbara Leighton; Veronica Chou; shirley schafer; Myrna/Robert Reid; Cheryl Wood Architectural Review Board May 18 Antenna Hearing Aldersgate Church 4243 Manuela Drive Dear Clare, Whether the error has occurred inadvertently or not, and regardless of "proper" logistical notification given to the public about the date of the meeting, the fact remains: the public has not received access to the vital information pertaining to the purpose of the above referenced item until a) late yesterday afternoon in a form of a completed mailed packet, and b) this morning in a form of online report that has been properly corrected with adequate links. Therefore, the public has not had the chance to become familiar with vital content until exactly ! day prior to the meeting. We believe that this does in fact invalidate the hearing of the project tomorrow. We find it unacceptable that the office insists on proceeding with the discussion of this item despite of the above. Further more, this hearing has been previously postponed in order to accommodate the applicant and allow ample time for the petitioners to familiarize themselves with the issue. Clearly, same consideration ought to apply to the public. We are also concerned with the fact that "It was suggested that the project file contained nothing but the meeting minutes of the public hearing last year " while there had been further development set out in the 38 pages of documentation unavailable for public review, based on which the staff is making a recommendation for approval. Please make all communication below available to the ARB members in addition to other written statements you may have received in the past. Thank you. Sincerely, Gregory Rayzman & Marina Chudnovskaya Jackie Berman <juberman@pacbell.net> wrote: From Jackie Berman Wed May 17 11:25:13 2006 From: "Jackie Berman" <juberman@pacbell.net> To: "Campbell, Clare" <clare.campbell@cityofpaloalto.org>, "Gregory Rayzman" <mrayzman@yahoo.com> CC: "Phil Green" <Phil.green@sbcglobal.net>, "Amy Smiley" <Alsmiley@pacbell.net>, "Barbara Leighton" <leightonb@sbcglobal.net>, "Veronica Chou" <veronicachou@yahoo.com>, "shirley schafer" <sschafer@sbcglobal.net>, "Myrna/Robert Reid" <Mreid@kw.com>, "Chery! Wood" <gcwood@pacbell.net> Subject: Re: Architectural Review Board May 18 Antenna Hearing Aldersgate Church 4243 Manuela Drive Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 11:25:13 -0700 Response to Clare Campbell’s clarification: Phil Green and I behaved as responsible citizens. Upon receipt of the notice of the May 18th hearing that was postmarked May 4th, as "interested persons"we arranged to go to city hall and review the file one week prior to the May 18th meeting. We reviewed everything in the file on May Ii. Nothing in the file was new since the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting. The 38 pages of new material was not in the file on May ii. The exact same material was on line--nothing new since the Planning Commission minutes. The relevant material for tomorrow’s meeting was not put on line until today when I called to ask why the mailed packet was so very different from what was on line and the Planning Department’s error was discovered.. The mailed packets arrived late yesterday afternoon. This process may or may not conform to the legal requirements for notice to the public, but it is not consistent with an objective of providing adequate information to the public in a timely way. Because it has been acknowledged that "an error" was made and the information put on line was incomplete, I would think Planning Department staff would want to insure that the public has ample time to review and consider this important issue and delay the hearing. In this way they might demonstrate that they want to give the public the courtesy that they extended to the applicant by allowing months of delays and postponement of a scheduled hearing for 3 months. However, this seems to be too much to expect. Jackie Berman Original Message ..... From: "Campbell, Clare" <clare.campbell@cityofpa!oalto.org> To: "Gregory Rayzman" <mrayzman@yahoo.com> Cc: "Jackie Berman" <juberman@pacbell.net>; "Phil Green" <Phil.green@sbcglobal.net>; "Amy Smiley" <Alsmiley@pacbell.net>; "Barbara Leighton" <leightonb@sbcglobal.net>; "Veronica Chou" <veronicachou@yahoo.com>; "shirley schafer" <sschafer@sbcglobal.net>; "Myrna/Robert Reid" <Mreid@kw.com>; "Chery! Wood" <gcwood@pacbell.net> Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2006 10:27 AM Subject: RE: Architectural Review Board May 18 Antenna Hearing Aldersgate Church 4243 Manuela Drive For all those concerned: I received a message this morning regarding the meeting tomorrow from Jackie Berman. I would like to clarify a few statements that were made for the benefit of all those who are interested. i. The project file has been available for public review. This file contains at least two inches of documents: the applicant’s submittals, plans, staff report from last year, etc... It was suggested that the project file contained nothing but the meeting minutes of the public hearing last year. 2. The requirements for "proper" notification for a meeting have been met. A notice card was sent out on May 4, which most, if not all of you, received if you are within the 600’ radius of the project site. 3. The ARB staff report was posted on the web this past Friday. The report was divided into two sections: Staff Report with Attachments A-E & Attachments F-I. Inadvertently, the same document (Attachments F-I) was attached to both links. This error was corrected this morning. Three of you (Jackie Berman, Phil Green, Amy Smiley) were mailed hard copies last week of the report. The error made on the web posting of the staff report does not invalidate the hearing of this project tomorrow. I hope this information is helpful and clarifies some concerns raised. 2 > > ARB Staff Reports: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/cityagenda/publish/arb-meetings/arb-meetin > gs.html > > > --- "Campbel!, Clare" <clare.campbell@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote: From Campbell, Clare Wed May 17 10:27:55 2006 Subject: RE: Architectural Review Board May 18 Antenna Hearing Aldersgate Church 4243 Manuela Drive Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 10:27:55 -0700 From: "Campbell, Clare" <clare.campbell@cityofpaloalto.org> To: "Gregory Rayzman" <mrayzman@yahoo.com> CC: "Jackie Berman" <juberman@pacbell.net>, "Phil Green" <Phil.green@sbcglobal.net>, "Amy Smiley" <Alsmiley@pacbell.net>, "Barbara Leighton" <leightonb@sbcglobal.net>, "Veronica Chou" <veronicachou@yahoo.com>, "shirley schafer" <sschafer@sbcglobal.net>, "Myrna/Robert Reid" <Mreid@kw.com>, "Cheryl Wood" <gcwood@pacbell.net> For all those concerned: I received a message this morning regarding the meeting tomorrow from Jackie Berman. I would like to clarify a few statements that were made for the benefit of al! those who are interested. I. The project file has been available for public review. This file contains at least two inches of documents: the applicant’s submittals, plans, staff report from last year, etc... It was suggested that the project file contained nothing but the meeting minutes of the public hearing last year. 2. The requirements for "proper" notification for a meeting have been met. A notice card was sent out on May 4, which most, if not all of you, received if you are within the 600’ radius of the project site. 3. The ARB staff report was posted on the web this past Friday. The report was divided into two sections: Staff Report with Attachments A-E & Attachments F-I. Inadvertently, the same document (Attachments F-I) was attached to both links. This error was corrected this morning. Three of you (Jackie Berman, Phil Green, Amy Smiley) were mailed hard copies last week of the report. The error made on the web posting of the staff report does not invalidate the hearing of this project tomorrow. I hope this information is helpful and clarifies some concerns raised. ARB Staff Reports: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/cityagenda/pubiish/arb-meetings/arb-meetin gs.html Jackie Berman <juberman@pacbell.net> wrote: >From Jackie Berman Wed May 17 10:26:37 2006 >From: "Jackie Berman" <juberman@pacbell.net> >To: "Campbell, Clare" <clare.campbell@cityofpa!oalto.org> >CC: "Veronica Chou" <veronicachou@yahoo.com>, >"shirley schafer" <sschafer@sbcglobal.net>, 3 "Phil Green" <Phil.green@sbcglobal.net>, "Myrna/Robert Reid" <Mreid@kw.com>, "Gregory Rayzman" <mrayzman@yahoo.com>, "Cheryl Wood" <gcwood@pacbell.net>, "Barbara Leighton" <leightonb@sbcglobal.net>, "Amy Smiley" <Alsmiley@pacbell.net> Subject: ARB Meeting Item Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 10:26:37 -0700 Dear Clare, Please deliver this communiqu@ to ARB Members before they consider 4243 Manuela Drive 104PLN-00143 at the May !8th, 2006 meeting. Dear ARB Members: The purpose of this communiqu@ is to object to the process of providing needed information to the public for this meeting on the above referenced item and to request postponement of the hearing on this item. Late yesterday afternoon Phil Green and I received the packets of materials for this meeting. Imagine our surprise when we discovered 38 pages of material that had not been available to us on line as part of the agenda for this meeting. All that had been available on line was the verbatim minutes of the August 31, 2005 Planning Commission meeting and that was all that had been available to us when we came to the Planning Department to review the file May Ii. At that time we asked if that was all that the ARB would consider and were told that a packet would be going out that afternoon at 4:00 p.m. and the entire packet would be put on line after the packets were mailed. In a telephone conversation this morning with the staff person responsible for distribution of the packets and for putting them on line, she acknowledged that it was an error that the relevant materials for your consideration had not been included on line. However, she said it was our responsibility to have realized that the material on line was incomplete and to have come in again to review the packet materials at the Planning Department. We do not accept that it was our responsibility to have known that the relevant material would be missing when she specifically told us May II that it would al! be on line. When asked who instructed her not to put all the materials on line, she replied that it is not routine to put all the materials on line and that she had not been instructed to do so in this case. We have informed the neighbors that the ARB would be considering exactly the same proposal that had been before the Planning Commission based on the information that was available to us, that which was available on line--the verbatim minutes of the Planning Commission meeting. We directed tham to the agenda that was on line, that we now know was incomplete. Now, for the first time, the day before the hearing we learn that staff is recommending approval of one of four options--a discussion of which is set out in the following 38 pages--all of which is new to us. Suffice to say, this is the day before your scheduled hearing, Phil Green and I have not had time to review the materials ourselves, let alone inform our neighbors about what you will be considering. In view of the fact that the staff made a decision to by-pass an hearing and approve the project administratively in 2005, and that the information you are to consider now has not been available on line for the neighbors to review and discuss in a timely way, as we had been told it would be, I request that you postpone consideration of this item so that we, the public, can become informed about a proposal that will have a major impact on our neighborhood. Sincerely, Jackie Berman 810 Miranda Green Palo Alto, CA 94306 Do You Yahoo[? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com Page 1 of 1 Campbell, Clare From:Jackie Berman [juberman@pacbell.net] Sent:Wednesday, May 17, 2006 10:27 AM To:Campbell, Clare Cc:Veronica Chou; shirley schafer; Phil Green; Myrna/Robert Reid; Gregory Rayzman; Cheryl Wood; Barbara Leighton; Amy Smiley Subject: ARB Meeting Item Dear Clare, Please deliver this communique to ARB Members before they consider 4243 I~lanuela Drive 104PLN-00143 at the May 18th, 2006 meeting. Dear ARB Members: The purpose of this communiqu6 is to object to the process of providing needed information to the public for this meeting on the above referenced item and to request postponement of the hearing on this item. Late yesterday afternoon Phil Green and I received the packets of materials for this meeting. Imagine our surprise when we discovered 38 pages of material that had not been available to us on line as part of the agenda for this meeting. All that had been available on line was the verbatim minutes of the August 31,2005 Planning Commission meeting and that was al! that had been available to us when we came to the Planning Department to review the file May 11. At that time we asked if that was all that the ARB would consider and were told that a packet would be going out that afternoon at 4:00 p.m. and the entire packet would be put on line after the packets were mailed. In a telephone conversation this morning with the staff person responsible for distribution of the packets and for putting them on line, she acknowledged that it was an error that the relevant materials for your consideration had not been included on line. However, she said it was our responsibility to have realized that the material on line was incomplete and to have come in again to review the packet materials at the Planning Department. We do not accept that it was our responsibility to have known that the relevant material would be missing when she specifically told us May 11 that it would all be on line. When asked who instructed her not to put all the materials on line, she replied that it is not routine to put all the materials on line and that she had not been instructed to do so in this case. We have informed the neighbors that the ARB would be considering exactly the same proposal that had been before the Planning Commission based on the information that was available to us, that which was available on line--the verbatim minutes of the Planning Commission meeting. We directed tham to the agenda that was on line, that we now know was incomplete. Now, for the first time, the day before the hearing we learn that staff is recommending approval of one of four options--a discussion of which is set out in the following 38 pages--all of which is new to us. Suffice to say, this is the day before your scheduled hearing, Phil Green and I have not had time to review the materials ourselves, let alone inform our neighbors about what you wil! be considering. In view of the fact that the staff made a decision to by-pass an ARB hearing and approve the project administratively in 2005, and that the information you are to consider now has not been available on line for the neighbors to review and discuss in a timely way, as we had been told it would be, I request that you postpone consideration of this item so that we, the public, can become informed about a proposal that will have a major impact on our neighborhood. Sincerely, Jackie Berman 810 Miranda Green Palo Alto, CA 94306 61712006 Page 1 of 1 Campbell, Clare From:Moran, John M.D. (x3620) [MoranJ@SateltiteHeatth.com] Sent:Wednesday, February 15, 2006 2:16 PM To:Campbell, Clare Subject:Cell phone tower to be erected on Manuela Dear Ms. Campbell, I am writing to express my support for the erection of this tower. Where we live on Miranda Avenue we have no effective cell phone coverage. It is impossible to either receive or place calls whether inside our home or in the yard. Thank you for your consideration in this matter, John Moran, 4309 Miranda Avenue, Palo Alto 94306 5/10/2006 Campbell, Clare From: Sent: To: Subject: Gregory.Simons@Sun.COM on behalf of Greg Simons [Gregory.Simons@Sun.COM] Wednesday, February 15, 2006 1:08 PM Campbell, Clare Foothill Expwy Cell Tower Hi Clare, We are in favor of the plan to have a cell phone tower at the church on manuela (in the back, c!ose to foothill expressway). We feel that the benefits of safety and convenience outweigh the aesthetic costs. Those of us who live off Miranda Avenue, down towards adobe creek, currently have very poor to non-existent cell coverage. The tower wil! improve safety in that having more options if phone land lines are down for some reason (e.g. earthquake). Convenience: being able to answer an important cell call at home. The aesthetic impact is not that negative. Folks driving on Foothill expressway will pass this very rapidly. Folks on Miranda are almost entirely shielded by trees (this is the case for us). Folks on Manuella are even more shielded. That said, I hope every effort is made to make the tower blend into the surrounding trees etc. A good example is the green cell tower on foothill expressway just south of san antonio. Also, the option of having the tower camoflaged like a tree seems workable. Greg and Dilshad Simons 4311 Miranda Ave. Palo Alto, CA 94306 I am Jackie Berman, 810 Miranda Green (Palo Alto, 94306). I am speaking in opposition to the Planning Department’s Administrative decision to grant a conditional use permit for a cell phone antenna in our residential neighborhood. 1. Your packet states that no hearing was requested for the Architectural review phase. I was not aware that a hearing could be requested, or I would have requested it. 2. A similar proposal was rejected by the city in 1996. All of the same conditions apply. Why is it being approved now? The information about that application is in your packet. At that time it was found that it would be detrimental and would add to the visual clutter along the Foothill Expressway which is designated as a Scenic Route, and that the applicant had not demonstrated that other locations were not viable. 3. The alternate sites now cited by VelociTel in your packet are ridiculous--a utility pole on my corner, and another one further down Miranda Ave--do not demonstrate a credible effort to find alternative sites that are not in an R-l, residential, zone. 4. We are very interested in VelociTel’s reason as stated in the packet for not considering any location north of Arastradero because "applicant is proposing a separate telecommunications site inside the Hillview-Arastradero triangle at the Roche labs administration building, and any site along Foothill Expressway north of Arastradero Rd. would create co-channel interference with the proposed Roche Labs communications facility." We would like to know more about that proposed installation and the issue of interference. 5. The photos of the proposed site submitted by VelociTell do not give a true picture of the negative visual impact of a 45 foot tower with antennas from Miranda Avenue, (the only entry to our neighborhood,) nor from Miranda Green, nor from either direction of the expressway -a designated "Scenic Route". Absent is any photo directly facing the proposed site from Miranda Ave. And, the photos imply that anyone driving along Miranda Ave. and the Foothill Expressway has no peripheral vision. 6. Palo Alto does not have a coherent policy about the placement of antennas in the city. I suggest that before the Planning and Transportation Commission considers this application any further, it should, in consultation with the Architectural Review Board, draft such a policy for consideration by the City Council. This is especially needed if the city is to grant a Conditional Use Permit to place an antenna tower in an R-l, residential area as this permit is proposing. Palo Alto is supposed to be a city of trees, but it seems as if there are more cell towers sprouting in residential areas than nature’s trees. 7. In conclusion, I urge you to uphold the previous decision on this tower at this site and reject the proposal. Statement of Opposition to the ATT Aldersgate Cell Phone Tower Proposal The proposed installation is strongly objected to by many of our neighbors. However, I want to emphasize that: We are not indifferent to the benefits of better cell phone coverage. It is just that We do not think that the case has been made that only by erecting a tower on the Aldersgate property can the communications needs of our neighborhoods be served. I am surprised that the issue of a cell phone tower on the Aldersgate property is even under consideration today. In 1997 the Planning Commission emphatically denied a permit for this installation, stating that (these are the Commission’s words): © © "...the project conflicted with three existing Comprehensive Plan policies" "...the proposed use would be detrimental and injurious because the monopole would be visible from adjacent residential sites and Foothill expressway..." The applicant failed to show that "...the proposed site for the facility was essential to the operation of the utility and provision of a utility service to the neighborhood and that there were no reasonable alternative locations, especially locations in commercial or industrial districts where a commercial operation would be more compatible with surrounding uses." Nine years later, the same objections under the Comprehensive Plan apply: ~Policy L-69 lists the Foothill Expressway among those routes that require the preservation of a rural character. Policy N-7, regarding development criteria, requires: The development should not be visually intrusive from public roadways. As much as possible, developments should be sited so as to be hidden from view. Site and structure design should take into consideration impacts on privacy and views of neighboring properties. Built forms and landscaping should mimic the natural topography. Building lines should follow the lines of the terrain, and trees and bushes should appear natural from a distance.] At one point, Applicant’s representatives met with neighbors and proposed to disguise the tower as a pine tree. I don’t know how convincing a pine tree this tower would make, but apparently the Planning Division staff did not agree to this. No reason was given in the staff’s communications. August31,2005 Instead, (here I refer you to the final photograph of what appears to be Exhibit 11 of the Staff Report) what we are to end up with looks like an industrial smoke stack. Regarding Applicant’s due-diligence requirement to establish that no appropriate alternative site exists, they have, once again, fallen short. Three token sites were offered up, and then rejected. Two were on the tops of utility poles on Miranda Avenue, immediately adjacent to the Expressway. These sites are so evidently objectionable as to have never deserved mention. I think we can understand why the third site, in the middle of Alta Mesa Cemetery, was rebuffed. The Applicant also made reference to a site at Roche Labs, at which it plans to develop another cell phone antenna system. Applicant asserts, but does not attempt to substantiate, that any tower located north of Arastradero Road would interfere with the signals from the Roche site. This would seem to eliminate from consideration the possibility of locating their antenna on the existing antenna tower of the VA Hospital (in 1996, I raised this possibility with the VA management and was given a receptive response.) The VA tower has a line-of-site orientation to Foothill Expressway. A directional array might well serve this corridor without interfering with the Roche site. Has the Roche site yet been proposed to the city? Approved? If not, let’s solve our problem first. Perhaps the VA tower could serve both areas. The City has a responsibility to explore these and other possible alternatives rather than simply accept the Applicant’s assertions. It is our understanding that the Architectural Re~iew Board should have had the opportunity to review this proposal, but that the proposal had not been brought to them. Philip S. Green 820 Miranda Green Palo Alto, CA 94306 650-948-2622 2 Page 1 of 1 Campbell, Clare From: Sent: To: Cc: Brian Steen [blsteen@yahoo.com] Monday, January 10, 2005 11:09 PM Campbell, Clare Juberman@pacbell.net; Leightonb@sbcglobal.net; nielsonz@pacbell.net Subject: Miranda ATT wireless Dear Ms. Campbell: We’re in favor of the proposed ATT cellular antenna proposed for the Aldergate Methodist Church across Foothill if it improves wireless reception in the Miranda area neighborhood. As you may know, wireless reception in the Miranda neighborhood is very poor, rendering most cellular telephones useless. Many of us use cell phones for the majority of our communication and !osing calls is one of the few drawbacks to our wonderful neighborhood. Police and Emergency service personnel also rely on cell phone communication which leaves our neighborhood with less protection than other areas of Palo Alto. An improvement is in order and welcome. Thanks for your work on this. Sincerely, Brian Steen Sandra Wilson 877Moana Ct. 8/23/2005 Page 1 of I Campbell, Clare From:Jackie Berman [juberman@pacbell.net] Sent:Saturday, January 08, 2005 5:46 PM To:Campbell, Clare Subject:Notice of Propossed Development Project Dear Ms. Campbell, Thank you for the clarification contained in the "Revised Notice of Proposed Development Project" that arrived in the mail today, January 8, 2004. The proposed project for a Conditional Use Permit to allow the installation of a 45’ tall telecommunications antenna at the rear of the Aldergate Church has been considered in the past in rejected for good reason. On behalf of the Miranda neighborhood, I want you to be aware that our objections to the antenna at this time are the same as they were last time it was proposed. This proposed antenna will effect every resident of our neighborhood. We do not want an antenna right across the Expressway from the entrance to our neighborhood, Miranda Avenue. We believe now, as we did when the antenna was previously rejected by the city, that the antenna is an eyesore that will have a negative impact on our neighborhood .We will recieve no benefit from it. If the Adergate Church wishes to place an antenna on its property, they will recieve the benefit of the rent payments from ATT. Therefore, it should be placed in front of the church where the beneficiaries-- the church members--can have the pleasure of viewing it with the knowledge that it is financially supporting their church. In the past we were the victim of the expansion of the Alta Mesa cemetery that resulted in the creation of a too narrow road, Miranda Ave., as the only street to get into and out of our neighborhood. I’m sure you are aware of the tragic event that occurred on this narrow road. We do not want to be a victim of placing an unwanted antenna directly in our view everytime we enter or leave our homes. We will oppose this antenna in every possible way. Please notify us when a hearing is scheduled. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Jackie Berman 810 Miranda Green Palo Alto, CA 812312005 Page 1 of 1 Campbell, Clare From:Barbara Leighton [leightonb@sbcglobal.net] Sent:Monday, January 10, 2005 2:34 PM To:Campbell, Clare Subject:Fw: Proposed Development Project - communicatons tower Dear Ms. Campbell, We have received the "Revised Notice of Proposed Development Project" that arrived in the mail on January 8, 2004. The proposed project is for a Conditional Use Permit to allow the installation of a 45’ tall telecommunications antenna at the rear of the Aldergate Church. We were shocked to see this issue come up again. This has been considered in the recent past and rejected for good reason. One of the reasons stated in November of 1996 City report was: "..the monopole will be visible from adjacent residential sites despite improvements made to the design of the facility during the public review process and will add visual ’clutter’ along Foothill Expressway, which is noted as a scenic route on the ’Scenic Highways’ Map in the current Comprehensive Plan;.." We object strongly to the antenna. Nothing has changed since the last application. It is a commercial use in a R-1 neighborhood. There are commercial areas within one mile of the requested site that could be used for an antenna.. Other sites would provide the same service coverage. This proposed antenna will effect every resident of our neighborhood. We do not want an antenna right across the Expressway from the entrance to our neighborhood, Miranda Avenue. We believe now, as we did when the antenna was previously rejected by the city, that the antenna is an eyesore that will have a negative impact on our neighborhood .We will receive no benefit from it. We do not want to be a victim of placing an unwanted antenna directly in our view every time we enter or leave our homes. We will oppose this antenna in every possible way. Please notify us when a hearing is scheduled. Sincerely, Barbara Leighton Philip Green 820 Miranda Green Palo Alto, CA 8/23/2005 Campbell, Clare From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Amy Smiley [alsmiley@pacbell.net] Monday, January 10, 2005 11:36 PM Campbell, Clare leightonb@sbcglobal.net; Juberman@pacbell.net cell phone tower at 4243 Manuela Avenue Dear Ms. Campbell, I am writing you in regard to the "Notice of Proposed Development Project" that my husband Brian and I received as residents and property owners at 870 Moana Court, Palo Alto citing the request to install a cell phone tower at 4243 Manuela Avenue. This email is to inform you that we are opposed to the installation of said cell phone tower in such close proximity to our home. There are severa! reasons. Firstly, this has been proposed in the past and the neighborhood in 1997 opposed the tower then. I do not understand why this issue is coming up again. Secondly, a 45 foot tall cell phone tower certainly would detract from the visual aesthetics of the neighborhood. This is a negative impact on the neighborhood without any positive benefit to us. Finally, there is insufficient evidence on the effects of the radiation from cell phone towers to say that they do not pose a health risk to persons exposed long term to their effects. We have three children. I do not want them living right next to a cell phone tower with six cell phone antennas. For the reasons stated above, we are strongly opposed to the installation of the cell phone tower at 4243 Manuela Avenue now and at any time in the future. Thank you for your attention. to my email. I would appreciate it if you would reply Respectfully, Amy Smiley Page 1 of 1 Campbell, Clare From: Sent: To: Cc: Lincoln A. Brooks [Ibrooks@reorglaw.com] Tuesday, January 11,2005 7:19 AM Campbell, Clare juberman@pacbell.net; leightonb@sbcglobal.net Subject: Conditional Use Permit:AT&T Tower Near Miranda Green I oppose construction of an antenna tower at the back of the Aldergate Methodist Church property across Foothill Expressway from Miranda Green. A similar proposal was rejected by the city in 1997 after we residents of the Miranda Neighborhood expressed our opposition to the construction of an antenna at the same location. We pointed out that ~vhile the tower would be located at the back of the church property, and therefore would not be an eyesore for those at the church, it would be facing Miranda Ave., and would be very unsightly for our entire neighborhood. The city denied the use permit then, and it is difficult to understand why the city is again entertaining this idea. Lincoln A. Brooks 4285 Miranda Ave. (650) 917-9939 8/23/2005 Campbell, Clare From: Sent: To: Subject: Malzbender, Tom [tom.malzbender@hp.com] Tuesday, January 11,2005 10:02 AM Campbell, Clare Cell Tower Dear Clare, I am a resident of Miranda Ave (4331 Miranda Ave.) and have just learned that there are plans on building a 40 foot tower on the Aldergate Methodist Church property along Foothill Expressway. Although I would question whether the tower really needs to be 40 feet tall, I am in support of such a project, as the ATT Cell phone service along Miranda Ave. is nonexistant. Regards, Tom Malzbender malzbend@hpl.hp.com 650-949-2600 Campbell, Clare From: Sent: To: Subject: Don Nielson [nielsonz@pacbell.net] Tuesday, January 11,2005 10:29 AM Campbell, Clare Cell tower near Foothill Expressway Dear Ms. Campbell, I’d like to make a reasonable suggestion about the placing of a cell tower on the Aldergate Church property along Foothill Expressway. Unquestionably, placing a 4-story tower near the Expressway would be an ugly imposition on our Miranda neighborhood. But, given the need for better coverage in the area, there is a much better solution. Clearly, locating the tower near the Expressway requires it being a lot higher for the same coverage area than if it were located at the top of the ridge on which Aldergate sits. Coverage is directly related to antenna height so the same effective height could be gained by moving the tower up to the crest of the ridge. Please look at a topographic map of the site to see 20-30 foot elevation change available. A much lower tower height at the crest there would also enable use of the various camouflage approaches often given to such towers. If you permit a 45-foot tower in the lower part of the property, you are unnecessarily aggravating al! who have to look at it and inviting some strident opposition. Please make the best use of the terrain and the environmental impact will be minimized. Don Nielson 850 Miranda Green Page 1 of I Campbell, Clare From:shirley schafer [sschafer@sbcglobal.net] Sent:Wednesday, January 12, 2005 5:57 PM To:Campbell, Clare; Juberman@pacbell.net; Leightonb@sbcglobal.net Subject:Construction of At&t wireless antenna tower Clare Campbell, This is to oppose the construction of the antenna tower at 4243 Manuela. A similar request was rejected in 1997 when the Miranda neighbors stated that it would be an eyesore every time we entered or exited our neighborhood. Our opinion has not changed since 1997. The Aldergate Methodist Church would not be impacted by the unsightly view as the antenna would be at the back of their property facing us, plus they they would gain monetarily. Once again I must request that the permit to construct this tower be denied. Shirley Schafer 830 Miranda Green Palo Alto, CA 8/23/2005 Campbell, Clare From: Sent: To: Subject: Larry Hootnick [Hootnick@btuepumpkin.com] Thursday, January 13, 2005 7:59 PM Campbell, Clare RE: 4243 Manuela Avenue thank you- I would think you should be able to tell me if the top of the tower wi!l be below or above the church ..... Original Message ..... From: Campbell, Clare [mailto:clare.campbell@cityofpaloalto.org] Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2005 5:17 PM To: Larry Hootnick Subject: RE: 4243 Manuela Avenue The corner of your front property, closest to Manuela Avenue, is approximately 948 feet away from the proposed project location. I do not know how tall the church is. .....Original Message ..... From: Larry Hootnick [mailto:Hootnick@bluepumpkin.com] Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2005 4:35 PM To:Campbell, Clare ¯ Cc: hootnick@bluepumpkin.com Subject: RE: 4243 Manuela Avenue I am on the other side of the church- 4249 Manuela Court- if the top of the tower is lower than the church roofline I don’t think i will be able to see it ..... Original Message ..... From: Campbell, Clare [mailto:clare.campbell@cityofpaloalto.org] Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2005 4:26 PM To: Larry Hootnick Subject: RE: 4243 Manuela Avenue Can you please provide me with your address. I can only tell you the approximate distance the project is from your home. I would not be able to tell you if you can see it or not. That would be something that you would need to determine based on your own knowledge of your views from your windows. Thanks ..... Original Message ..... From: Larry Hootnick [mailto:Hootnick@bluepumpkin.com] Sent: Tuesday, January II, 2005 9:10 PM To: Campbell, Clare Subject: FW: 4243 Manuela Avenue ..... Original Message ..... From: Larry Hootnick Sent: Tuesday, January !I, 2005 9:08 PM To: clare.campbell@paloalto.org Cc: hootnick@bluepumpkin.com Subject: FW: 4243 Manuela Avenue please respond to my question- thank you ..... Original Message ..... From: Larry Hootnick Sent: Friday, January 07, 2005 3:20 PM To: Campbell, Clare Cc: Hootnick@Bluepumpkin:com Subject: RE: 4243 Manuela Avenue thank you for your prompt reply- if this tower is to border Foothill Expressway it may not be visible from Manuela Court and it would be ok with me. Can you tell me if it will be Visible from my property? ..... Original Message ..... From: Campbell, Clare [mailto:clare.campbell@cityofpaloalto.org] Sent: Friday, January 07, 2005 2:45 PM To: Larry Hootnick Subject: RE: 4243 Manuela Avenue Hello Mr. & Mrs. Hootnick, Thank you for your email and phone messages. I understand that you are opposed to this project. The project was recently submitted (12/28/04) and is under review. No decision has been made on the project at this time. During the review period, I can offer you the contact information of the applicant who can answer technical questions for you. The applicant is David Minger, his phone number is 925-922-1858. I can answer questions related to the City’s review process. The proposed project entails the installation of one 45 foot tall, 20 inch diameter, monopole that conceals six telecommunications panel antennas, and associated equipment cabinets. The cell phone carrier is AT&T Wireless. The monopole and cabinets are proposed to be located at the rear of the property, adjacent to Foothill Expressway. For your information, I have explained below the position that the City must take on the issue of potential heath risks of these projects. The official position that the City is required to take on the health issues of these cell sites is mandated by the FCC (Federal Communications Commission). I have an excerpt from a FAQ list (http://www.fda.gov/cellphones/wireless.html#2) that states the regulation simply: " Can local and state governmental bodies establish limits for RF exposure? Although some local and state governments have enacted rules and regulations about human exposure to RF energy in the past, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 requires the Federal Government to control human exposure to RF emissions. In particular, Section 704 of the Act states that, "No State or local government or instrumentality thereof may regulate the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmenta! effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the Commission’s regulations concerning such emissions." Further information on federal authority and FCC policy is available in a fact sheet from the FCC’s Wireless Telecommunications Bureau at www.fcc.gov/wtb. " The City must abide by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and cannot deny a project for a cell site based on the potential risks of the RF emissions. Until the Federal Government changes this regulation, there is no room for debate on this particular issue. Please let me know what other questions you have about this project. Thanks, Clare Campbell Associate Planner 650-617-3191 .....Original Message ..... From: Larry Hootnick [mailto:Hootnick@bluepumpkin.com] 2 Sent: Friday, January 07, 2005 2:00 PM To: Campbell, Clare Cc: hootnick@bluepumpkin.com Subject: 4243 Manuela Avenue I have a major problem with a 30 foot transmission tower being erected down the street from me- please cal! me at 650-941-3301 so I can understand how to stop this Campbell, Clare From: Sent: To: Subject: Reni Narayen [rnarayen@hotmail.com] Friday, January 14, 2005 3:37 PM Campbell, Clare Re: wireless tower Thanks we will research it at the FCC. on 1/14/05 2:28 PM, Campbell, Clare at clare.campbell@cityofpaloalto.org wrote: The sentence reads "ALTHOUGH some local and state governments have enacted rules and regulations about human exposure to RF energy IN THE PAST, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 requires the Federal Government to control human exposure to RF emissions." Prior to 1996, some local governments imposed regulations. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 governs the entire U.S. There are cases in which municipalities have denied projects based on heath risks but then have been sued for not abiding by these federal regulations. I do not have, or know where to research this information. Perhaps you can start with the FCC. -Clare ..... Original Message ..... From: Reni Narayen [mailto:rnarayen@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, January 14, 2005 9:31 To: Campbell, Clare Subject: Re: wireless tower Clare, Thanks for your response. From your note it appears that "some local and state governments" have taken action in this regard. Is there information available on these progressive local governments? Maybe Palo Alto has a lesson or two to learn from how these governments went about dealing with this health hazard despite Federal regulations. How can I access the data on these local and state governing bodies that have tried to circumvent this problem in favor of their citizens’ health? Will appreciate your response. Sincerely, Reni Narayen on 1/13/05 4:13 PM, Campbell, Clare at clare.campbell@cityofpaloalto.org wrote: >> Thank you for your email. I understand that you are concerned about the >> potential health risks of the proposed cell site. You are not alone in your >> concerns, there have been other projects in Palo Alto that citizens have >> expressed similar concerns. >> >> The official position that the City is required to take on the health issues >> of these cell sites is mandated by the FCC (Federal Communications 1 >> Commission). I have an excerpt from a FAQ list >> (http://www.fda.gov/cellphones/wireless.html#2) that states the regulation >> simply: >> >> " Can local and state governmental bodies establish limits for RF exposure? >> >> Although some local and state governments have enacted rules and regulations >> about human exposure to RF energy in the past, the Telecommunications Act of >> 1996 requires the Federal Government to control human exposure to RF >> emissions. In particular, Section 704 of the Act states that, "No State or >> loca! government or instrumentality thereof may regulate the. placement, >> construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the >> basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent >> that such facilities comply with the Commission’s regulations concerning such >> emissions." Further information on federal authority and FCC policy is >> available in a fact sheet from the FCC’s Wireless Telecommunications Bureau >> at >> www.fcc.gov/wtb. " >> >> The City must abide by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and cannot deny any >> use permit for a cell site based on the potential risks of the RF emissions. >> Until the Federal Government changes this regulation, there is no room for >> debate on this issue. >> >> Each project is reviewed primarily for its aesthetic qualities,, and can be >> denied based on those issues. >> >> Please let me know what other questions you have about this project. >> >>Thanks, >>Clare Campbell >>Associate Planner >>650-617-3191 >> >> >> .....Original Message ..... >>From: Reni Narayen [mailto:rnarayen@hotmail.com] >>Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2005 9:39 PM >>To: Campbell, Clare >>Subject: wireless tower >> Dear Clare, >> >> We received the Notice of Proposed Development Project at 4243 Manue!a Ave. >> for the creation of a wireless facility. My husband and I are extremely >> disturbed by the possibility of this happening in the neighborhood. We own >> and reside at 4229 Manuela Ave - just two houses away from the proposed >> project ..... >> >> Development can be good or bad. While there is no denying that we all use >> cell phones and such wireless forms of communication require towers, it >> behooves the city and its residents to ensure that these forms of >> development occur to enhance the quality of life and not take away from it. >> As many educated professionals like you and I are aware, there are many ways >> in which our health is negatively impacted by cell phones and similar >> instruments. Many individuals may have vested interest in such development >> and may argue that there is not enough evidence showing the harm done by >> these towers. Being educated parents of two children we don’t believe that >> the axiom "innocent until proven guilty" applies to development where there >> is potentia! for long term harm to people. On the contrary, we would like >> the city and the developer to prove to us that there can be absolutely NO >> impact of this project on our long term health. Until this "innocence" is >> proven, we will continue to object to this development in our neighborhood. >> If this proposa! is passed, the city can rest assured that this neighborhood >> will gear itself for a strong opposition. >> >> Sincerely, >> >> Reni Narayen Campbell, Clare From: Sent: To: Subject: veronica chou [veronicachou@yahoo.com] Tuesday, January 18, 2005 11:15 PM Campbell, Clare Concern over proposed AT&T antenna tower at the back of Aldergate Methodist Church I am a resident on Miranda Avenue, and I am concerned about the possible construction of the AT&T antenna tower at the back of Aldergate Methodist Church.I understand it was proposed seven years ago but was rejected; I do not understand why the issue need be contested again. The antenna would be an aesthetic drawback to our neighborhood, as I do not wish to see a gigantic antenna every time I drive up and down our street. To be frank, it is simply ugly. AT&T has plenty of eligible places to choose as a site for their antenna that would not infringe upon the Miranda neighborhood.I strongly urge the city to again reject the proposal on behalf of the residents of Miranda Avenue. Veronica Chou 4363 Miranda Ave 650 269-2187 Do you Yahoo!? Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone. http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo Campbell, Clare From: Sent: To: Subject: Myrna Reid [mreid@cashin.com] Tuesday, January !8, 2005 !2:25 PM Campbell, Clare AT&T antenna tower This is in respone to the notice that AT&T have requested a use permit at the back of the Aldergate Methodist Church. This is directly across the expressway from Miranda Green.I understand that wireless companies have found a way to get towers up by going to churches--in fact a wireless company asked our own church in Cupertino to allow them a tower, the ad board said no the the $$, as the church is located in a residential area like Aldergate. I would think the City of Palo Alto would consider the impact this could have on residential real estate. This tower may affect the real estate values of the residential area--who wants to look at a tower. As owner and trustee of 3 properties on Miranda Green I oppose the City of Palo Alto allowing this use permit. I urge you to place the tower in the many parking lots of the close by industrial sites. Robert A. Reid Coldwell Banker Myrna R. Reid Cashin Company Realtors Owners and trustee of: 880 Miranda Green, 878 Miranda Green, and 876 Miranda Green. Page 1 of I Campbell, Clare From:Gregory Rayzman [mrayzman@yahoo.com] Sent:Tuesday, January 18, 2005 5:02 PM To:Campbell, Clare Subject:Notice of Proposed Development Project (Revised) at 4243 Manuela Avenue, Installation of 45-foot tall telecommunications monopole and equipment cabinets Dear Ms. Campbell, Thank you for mailing out the notice of the proposed development project at 4243 Manuela Avenue. All residents in the Miranda neighborhood are worried about proposed cell-phone tower, a 45-foot tall telecommunications monopole and equipment cabinets housing six(!) telecommunications antennas. This issue needs to be given a public hearing as part of the standard city process, prior to making a decision. Neighbors oppose to be simply notified by mail of the City’s decision after the fact. (1) Health impact Public health experts throughout the country have researched the potential radiation dangers. This research indicates that brain cancer, memory impairment, and neurological problems can occur with radio frequency exposure. The proposed tower, which would receive and transmit radio signals, could be hazardous to public health. Has this issue been reviewed with regards to the expected radiation levels and professional opinion provided? The notice is limiting the review process to the Architectural Review only, with no reference to the potential Health Impact review. (2) Eye sore in the residential neighborhood This is a residential neighborhood with one-story single-family homes residing in the lower part of the gradient slope. The proposed tower is way too high, and it would be erected on the elevated portion of the foothills, directly across from the neighborhood. At 45 feet, the cell- phone tower would stand taller than any other foliage in the area. (3) Previous project rejected This is not the first time that cell-phone tower have raised concerns and stirred considerable public opposition among Miranda neighbors, and was rejected by the city. This is a strong indication that proposed location of the project needs changed. Please inform us when this project is scheduled to be reviewed by the Planning and Transportation Commission. Thank you for your consideration of our input, Sincerely, Marina Chudnvskaya and Gregory Rayzman 890 Niranda Green Palo Alto, CA 94306 Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com 812312005 Page 1 of I Campbell, Clare From:Greg & Cheryl Wood [gcwood@pacbell.net] Sent:Thursday, January 20, 2005 10:41 AM To:Campbell, Clare Subject:FW: Proposed development project at 4243 Manuel Hillview Ave. ..... Original Message ..... From: Greg & Cheryl Wood [mailto:gcwood@pacbell.net] Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2005 10:02 AM To; claire.campbell@cityofpaloalto.org Subject; FW: Proposed development project at 4243 Manuel Hillview Ave. ..... Original Message ..... From: Greg & Cheryl Wood [mailto:gcwood@pacbell.net] Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2005 9:54 AM To: claire.campbell@cityofpaloalto.org Cc: ’Wood, Greg’ Subject: Proposed development project at 4243 Manuel Hillview Ave. Claire, I went yesterday and looked at the proposed project for this site. I have some definite concerns. We live at 816 Mesa Ct, which means our entire property is within 600 feet of this project. Looking at the pictures they presented in the project, everything was from quite a distance away and not really facing where the project would be. There was also only a sketch of their plan for the pole. I would like to see more visual detail and would also like to know where I can see a pole nearby that looks like what they are projecting. I don’t feel like the proposal, especially the pictures give a clear picture of what they are planning to do. Please get back to me and let me know where this project goes next. I would also like to be on record that at this time, I am against this project going thru. Cheryl Wood 8/23/2005 Page 1 of 2 Campbell, Clare From:Jackie Berman [juberman@pacbell.net] Sent:Thursday, January 20, 2005 11:44 AM To:Campbell, Clare Subject:Re: Conditional Use Permit Dear Ms. Campbell, Thank you very much for this information. neighbors. Jackie Berman It is very comprehensive, helpful and much appreciated.I will pass it on to my ..... Original Message ..... From: Camp_bell, Clare To: Jackie Berman Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2005 11:24 AM Subject: RE: Conditional Use Permit Thanks for the email and message, you can imagine how busy I must be answering all those emails and phone calls that I have been receiving, in addition to my regular workload. At this time the project is still under review and no decision has been made. If you would like more detailed information that the project file does not contain, please contact the project applicant directly. His name is David Minger and his phone number is 925-922-1858. A community meeting will be held, hosted by the applicant, within the next 4-6 weeks to answer questions and to review the project proposal. After the review is deemed complete, which will not happen till after the community meeting and other project revisions are completed, a tentative decision is made on the project. The same people who received the informational card (within 600 feet of the project site)will receive another notice to inform them of this tentative decision. It is at this time a formal request can be made for a public hearing and the item will be scheduled for the Planning and Transportation Commission within 30 days of that request. The recommendation of the planning and transportation commission on the application shall be placed on the consent calendar of the city council within thirty days. The decision of the city council is final. The city council may: (1) Adopt the recommendation of the planning and transportation commission; or (2) Remove the appeal from the consent calendar, which shall require three votes, and schedule it for a future council date to take action to uphold, overturn, or modify the action or determination of the director. Thanks, Clare Campbell Associate Planner 650-617-3191 ..... Original Message ..... From; 3ackie Berman [mailto:juberman@pacbell.net] Sent; Tuesday, January 18, 2005 9:27 PM To= Campbell, Clare Subject; Conditional Use Permit Dear Ms. Campbell, I left you a voice mail message last week, but have not received a reply to my question. My question is: When do you expect to make a decision on the application to install an antenna tower at the rear of Aldergate Church, and how will we be informed about your decision? As you can tell by the Emails you are receiving, our Miranda neighborhood opposes the installation of the tower. We are very anxious to understand how the decision-making 812312005 Page 2 of 2 process works. Please reply with an answer to the above question. Thank you, Jackie Berman 810 Miranda Green 812312005 Campbell, Clare From: Sent: To: Subject: John Zoglin [jzoglin@speakeasy.net] Thursday, January 20, 2005 1:49 PM Campbell, Clare RE: Baron Park Cell Tower Clare, Thanks so much for taking the time to write. Could you give me a little feel for the process -- Could the Planning Commission make a decision in March or do they make a recommendation to another body? If another body, what is that process? All I’m trying to do is figure out whether to keep my ATT phone since service doesn’t really work here. Regards, John 739-0769. ..... Original Message ..... From: Campbell, Clare [mailto:clare.campbell@cityofpaloalto.org] Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2005 11:38 AM To: John Zoglin Subject: RE: Baron Park Cell Tower Thanks for your email and phone message. The project is scheduled to go to the Planning Commission in March, which is the start of the appeal process. You will be notified if you are within a 600 foot radius of the project about the meeting date and time. The person who requested the hearing may (but not likely) withdraw his request for a hearing and then the original approval will stand. The applicant is AT&T. ..... Original Message ..... From: John Zoglin [mailto:jzoglin@speakeasy.net] Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2005 9:04 AM To: Campbell, Clare Subject: Baron Park Cell Tower Was interested in status of what I’ve heard was a cell tower that might be going up near us? Interested in which provider, heard ATT? and if its been approved or ?? Actually would be in favor since it would help our service (-: John Zoglin (650) 739-0769 787 Los Robles, 94306 Page 1 of 1 Campbell, Clare From: Sent: To: Cc: Phil Green at Miranda Guitars [psgreen@miranda-tech.com] Friday, January 21,2005 10:05 AM Campbell, Clare Jackie Berman; Barbara Leighton Subject: Conditonal use permit for AT&T monopole installation Dear Ms. Campbell, Regarding the AT&T monopole proposed for the Aldersgate property, yesterday I examined the application for this project. I note that the proposed location for the monopole and equipment structure is substantially the same as the one proposed by Pacific Bell in 1996. In its report of February 6, 1997, the City denied the Pacific Bell application on the grounds that: (1) "...the project conflicted with three existing Comprehensive Plan policies", (2) "...the proposed use would be detrimental and injurious because the monopole would be visible from adjacent residential sites and Foothill Expressway..." (3) The applicant failed to show that "... the proposed site for the facility was essential to the operation of the utility and provision of a utility service to the neighborhood and that there were no reasonable alternative locations, especially locations in commercial or industrial districts where a commercial operation would be more compatible with surrounding uses." The current application fails the very same tests. With regard to (2), the photographs included in the application misrepresent the substantial visual impact of the proposed installation. With regard to (3), the applicant illustrates two alternative sites: One in the middle of Alta Mesa cemetery and one mounted on the top of an existing electrical utility pole located at the corner of Miranda Avenue and Miranda Green. No doubt, the applicant was well aware, from prior experience, that putting communications equipment above power lines would not be acceptable. Other objections to these alternatives are self evident. I do not see evidence that the applicant made a good faith effort to find a suitable location for their installation, and I ask that the City deny the conditional use permit. Respectfully, Phil Green 820 Miranda Green Palo Alto, CA 650-948-2622 8/23/2005 Page 1 of 1 Campbell, Clare From:Jackie Berman Uuberman@pacbell.net] Sent:Wednesday, July 20, 2005 9:51 AM To:Campbell, Clare Subject:VelociTel/Aldersgate application Clare, We arevery disappointed that the Director has given the antenna on Manuela Ave. a green light. We intend to appeal and hereby request a hearing in front of the Planning and Transportation Commission. Please reply by return emai! that you have received this request and with the date that the hearing will be scheduled. Jacqueline Berman 810 Miranda Green Palo Alto, CA 94306 8/23/2005 Campbell, Clare From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Gregory Rayzman [mrayzman@yahoo.com] Thursday, June 08, 2006 12:15 AM Campbell, Clare Jackie Berman Public Hearing of the Planning Commission Meeting June 14, 7 p.m. Re: 4243 Manuela Drive Dear Clare, Please kindly include this email into the Planning Commissioners’ packets. In support of the neighborhood association we would like to object to the proposed installation of a 45-foot faux pine tree with 6 antennas. The installation in the R-I neighborhood and within the designated Scenic Route is deemed to negatively impact the integrity of this beautiful area. Regretfully, our concerns about the aesthetics of this project have been overlooked in favor of commercial interests of AT&T. A 45-foot high faux tree with six panel antennas in its top region would be very intrusive and unnatural to the surrounding area. Although there are existing tall trees in the immediate vicinity of the proposed structure, they are not nearly as high, and prone to fail to camouflage the obscure new construction. This construction is going to stand higher than any existing foliage, or in the near future its newly planted replacements. The structure would become highly visible and add to the visual clutter along the scenic Foothill Expressway. This very issue was one of the reasons for the previous rejection of this project I0 years ago in 1996. The City has reported that "...it will be visible from adjacent residential areas despite improvements made to the design of the facility during the public review process and will add visual clutter along Foothill Expressway, which is noted as a scenic route on the Scenic Highways Map in the current Comprehensive Plan;..." It appears that subsequent improvements to the monstrous design, such as concealing the structure under a disguise of a faux pine-tree, would trigger very predictable extension in the form of the second antenna array below AT&T’s and will become inevitable. The proposed installation would also include necessary equipment buildings, associated cabinets, fencing and other artificial landscape improvements, which would undoubtedly add to the overall industrial look of the project. We do not think the petitioner has made a good faith effort to find another, more suitable, site, and the reasons the application was rejected by the city in 1996 are still valid. We believe that applicant’s proposal is not appropriate in this location. Sincerely, Gregory Rayzman & Marina Chudnovskaya Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com