HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 203-05Architectural Review and Design Enhancement Exception applications were approved with
conditions on December 21,2004 and March 16, 2005, respectively.
The approved plans (Attachment N) do not refleCt the changes required through the conditions of
approval. It should be noted that both the CUP and Architectural Review approvals include a
number of conditions to insure that the constructed project will be high quality aesthetically. A
significant condition of approval, to be reviewed at the building permit phase, is that the revised
building permit plans shall show a natural tree shape that mimics an evergreen broad leaf tree
(the plans do not accurately represent the shape of the finished project). A photo-simulation is
provided as Attachment D that shows an approximation of what the project can look like. The
final landscape plans and fence detail will also be reviewed at the building permit phase. The
complete list of the conditions of approval is in Attachment A, Section 6.
A common issue raised by concerned citizens regarding telecommunications sites is that they are
a potential health risk. As mandated by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (see page 2 of
Attachment I for more details) the City cannot deny a project based on potential environmental
or health risks due to the radio frequency emissions as long as the facility complies with the
Federal Communications Commission regulations regarding such emissions. This project would
meet these regulations.
COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS
On March 9, 2005, this project was reviewed by the Commission, who recommended that the
City Council uphold the Director of Planning and Community Environment's decision to
approve Conditional Use Permit 04-CUP-11 (4-2-0-1).
The Commissioners discussed several aspects of the proposed project:
• Potential health risks were discussed by several Commissioners with the understanding that
these potential health related issues could not be considered in making their recommendation.
• Alternative placements of the faux tree-pole were discussed within the project site and within
street right-of-ways adjacent to or near the project site.
• Existing site conditions regarding the landscaping were discussed; as a result a condition was
added to the project to prohibit issuance of a building permit for the proposed project until
the existing landscaping is brought up to compliance with the prior Architectural Review
approvql.
Other than the applicant, there were four members of the public who spoke. Three speakers were
not in support of the project, citing potential health risks as their concern. Additional comments
were made by one of these speakers about the poor upkeep of the existing landscaping of the
project site. There was one speaker in support of the project, citing her concern about the
importance of basic communications service in her neighborhood.
The Commission staff report and minutes are attached to this report (Attachment I and J).
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act per
Section 15301.
CMR:203:05 Page 2 of3
VI " -"1. ."
. "','
ATTACHMENT A
complies wi th 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 wi th the Palo Al to Comprehensi ve Plan and the
purposes of Title 18 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code in that:
The proposed telecommunications use is consistent with the
Comprehensi ve Plan Policy B-13. This policy supports the
development of technologically advanced communications
infrastructure and other improvements that will facili tate the
growth of emerging telecommunications industries. The proposed use
does not conflict wi th the promotion and protection of public
health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, convenience, and general
welfare.
SECTION 4. Conditional Use Permit Granted. Conditional
Use Permit No. 04-CUP-11 is granted to allow the installation of
one telecommunications facility, comprised of a 40-foot faux tree-
pole with three panel antennas concealed within the top region of
the tree'and associated equipment cabinets
SECTIONS. Plan Approval.
The plans submitted for Building Permit shall be in
substantial conformance with those plans prepared by Diamond
Services titled SF-971-01 Blockbuster, consisting of six pages,
dated June 23, 2004 and received December 6, 2004, 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"
1. A complete copy of this Record of Land Use Action shall be
printed on the first page of the plans submitted for
building permit.
2. The tree shall be constructed to resemble a broadleaf tree,
with a decurrent and spreading form. Branches on the lower
half of the tree shall be wider than the top half. The final
tree form shall be reviewed with the building permit
submittal.
2
Site Id Name Adress
BA340 101 Alma Building -American Tower 101 Alma St. Palo Alto CA
BA351 Mayfield Station #2test 2675 Hanover St. Palo Alto CA
SF141 Palo Alto Hole 2666 E. Bayshore Road Palo Alto CA
SF142 Embarcadero Hole 711 Colarado Ave. Palo Alto CA
SF179 Public Stroage 1961 E. Bayshore Road Palo Alto CA
SF530 Coyote Hill 1501 Page Mill Road Palo Alto CA
SF533 EI Camino Park Pac Bell CO 345 Hamilton Ave Palo Alto CA
SF556 Hwy85TOP 1280 L'AvenidaAvenue Mountain View CA.
SF610 SanAntonioHwy1 2700 Garcia Ave. Mountain View CA
SF613 Pole -Parking Lot B Lot 13, Charleston & N. SI Mountain View CA
SF614 Stanford EST 531 Stanford Ave. Palo Alto CA
SF619 W.CharlestonHwy 82 4249 EI Camino Real Palo Alto CA
SF637 Light Standard 901 Junipero Serra Palo Alto CA
SF654 Middlefield 2488 Wyandotte St. Mountain View CA
SF902 Whisman Substation PG&E Tower 750 Moffett Blvd. Mountain View CA
SF904 Canaan Taiwanese Church 1904 Silverwood Ave. Mountain View CA
SF904 Sierra Vista Church 342 Sierra Vista Avenue Mountain View CA
SF914 First CongregationClI Church of Palo Alto 1985 Louis Road Palo Alto CA
SF914 First Congregational Church of Palo Alto 1985 Louis Road Palo Alto CA
SF934 Achieve School 3860 Middlefield Road Palo Alto CA
SF176 University Circle Project -Bldg. B 1950 University Avenue Palo Alto CA
SF620 W. EdithG5 394 State Street Los Altos CA
SF627 EI Mente Ave WST 26410 Duval Way Los Altos CA
SF628 Little League Field -La Cresta Water Tar 12863 La Cresta Drive Los Altos Hills CA
SF915 Deer Creek Light Standard 3401 Deer Creek Road Palo Alto CA
SF632 Roche 3401 Hillview Ave. #R-7 Palo Alto CA
BA357 Seventh Day 1425 Springer Rd. Mountain View CA
SF582 Rengstroff Hwy 82 2020 EI Camino Real We~ Mountain View CA
Diamond Services
APPENDIX A
Term Definitions
Exposure Exposure occurs whenever and wherever a person is subjected to electric, magnetic
or electromagnetic fields other than those originating from physiological processes in the body
and other natural phenomena.
Exposure, partial-body. Partial-body exposure results when RF fields are substantially
nonuniform over the body. Fields that are nonuniform over volumes comparable to the human
body may occur due to highly directional sources, standing-waves, re-radiating sources or in the
near field.
General population/uncontrolledexposure. For FCC purposes, applies to human exposure to
RF fields when the general public is exposed or in which persons who are exposed as a
consequence of their employment may not be made fully aware of the potential for exposure or
cannot exercise control over their exposure. Therefore, members of the general public always
fall under this category when exposure is not employment-related.
Maximum permissible exposure (MPE). The rms ~nd peak electric and magnetic field
strength, their squares, or the plane-wave equivalent power densities associated with these fields
to which a person may be exposed without harmful effect and with an acceptable safety factor.
Occupational/controlled exposure. For FCC purposes, applies to human exposure to RF fields
when persons are exposed as a consequence of their employment and in which those persons
who are exposed have been made fully aware of the potential for exposure and can exercise
control over their exposure. Occupational/controlled exposure limits also apply where exposure
is of a ·trans ient nature as a result of incidental passage through a location where exposure levels
may be above general population/uncontrolled limits (see definition above), as long as the
exposed person has been made fully aware of the potential for exposure and can exercise control
over his or her exposure by leaving the area or by some other appropriate means.
Cingular Site No. SF 971-01
Page 6 of7
Diamond Services
Table 1. LIMITS FOR MAXIMUM PERMISSIBLE EXPOSURE (MPE)
(A) Limits for Occupational/Controlled Exposure
Frequency Electric Field Magnetic Field Power Density
Range Strength (E) Strength (H) (S)
(MHz) (Vim) (Aim) (mW/crrr)
0.3-3.0 614 1.63 (100)*
3.0-30 1842/f 4.89/f (900/f)*
30-300 61.4 0.163 1.0
300-1500 moo
1500-100,000 5
(B) Limits for General Population/Uncontrolled Exposure
Frequency
Range
(MHz)
0.3-1.34
1.34-30
30-300
300-1500
1500-100,000
Electric Field
Strength (E)
(Vim)
614
824/f
27.5
Magnetic Field
Strength (H)
(Aim)
1.63
2. 19/f
0.073
Power Density
(S)
(mW/crrr)
(100)*
. (180/f)*
0.2
fI1500
1.0
Averaging Time
IEI2, IHI2 or S
(minutes)
6
6
6
6
6
Averaging Time
IEI2, IHI2 or S
(minutes)
30
30
30
30
30
f = frequency in MHz *Plane-wave equivalent power density
NOTE 1: Occupational/controlled limits apply in situations in which persons are exposed as a
consequence of their employment provided those persons are fully aware of the potential for
exposure and can exercise control over their exposure. Limits for occupational/controlled
exposure also apply in situations when an individual is transient through a location where
occupational/controlled limits apply provided he or she is made aware of the potential for
exposure.
NOTE 2: General population/uncontrolled exposures apply in situations in which the general
public may be exposed, or in which persons that are exposed as a consequence of their
employment may not be fully aware of the potential for exposure or can not exercise.control over
their exposure.
Cingular Site No. SF 971-01
Page 7 of7
DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS
Front setback
Rear setback
Street Side setback
Height
ZONING COMPLIANCE TABLE
3990 EI Camino Real
PROPOSED
PROJECT
132'
42'
3'*
40'**
Attachment G
CN ZONE DISTRICT
STANDARD
10'
0'
20'
25'
* A Design Enhancement Exception has been approved to al1o~ placement in the street side
setback.
**PAMC 18.88.100: Height exceptions, additional 15' allowed for antennas.
The ZOU will be specifically reviewing telecommunications facilities as part of the update.
City of Palo Alto Page 6
· .
consideration for the aesthetic goals of the project. The existing pathway is to be maintained and
a new fence would be constructed adjacent to it. The new six foot tall redwood fence would be
articulated, with a minimum of three inset sections, to provide pockets for landscaping on the
street side. These landscape pockets would be planted with carpet rose ground cover and
climbing roses on espalier training wires. These Rosa varieties are hearty and disease resistant
and will perform well over the long term with a minimum of maintenance. The proposed plant
species for the site would match or compliment the existing plants. The new landscape features
are designed to screen the equipment cabinets and tree pole base and enhance the overall
appearance of the site.
City of Palo Alto
Review Process
The typical telecommunications project (antennas mounted on a free-standing pole or roof-
mounted) requires both a Conditional Use Permit and Architectural Review. The expansion of an
existing site requires a CUP 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. On sites where the
use is already permitted, an Architectural Review application only would be required.
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
substantial 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 Federal 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 CUP 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 sites 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
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 ofthe California Environmental Quality Act per Section
15301.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Record of Land Use Action
B. Location Map
C. Timeline
City of Palo Alto Page 2
· '
1 Pennit based upon the findings and conditions in the Record of Land Use Action attached
2 to the Staff Report contingent upon the approve of the design enhancement exception. A
3 condition will be added to the Record of Land Use stating that this additional approval
4 requirement. This concludes Staffs report and the applicant, Mr. Stevens, is here and he
5 is ready to make a presentation. Thank you.
6
7 Chair Cassel: We are here tonight to discuss the conditions that have been placed on this
8 project and to be able to make the findings. We are not allowed to make our decision
9 based on the health considerations, Would someone please explain that?
10
11 Mr. Don Larkin, Senior Deputy City Attorney: Under the Telecbmmunications Act
12 essentially the Commission cannot regulate the placement, construction and modification
13 of wireless services facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency
14 emissions to the extent the facilities comply with the FCC regulations concerning those
15 emissions. So in other words typical zoning and use permit analysis applies except with
16 the exception that the Council can't consider radio frequency emissions in making its
17 decision. If Commission is interested there was a case that came out of the Ninth Circuit
18 just two days ago, Metro PCS vs. the City and County of San Francisco. What that case
19 says is in part is that the federal government will take applicable state and local
20 regulations as they find them and evaluate the city's decision based on local regulations.
21 The only exception to that is the radio frequency issue that cannot be consider by the
22 Commission.
23
24 Chair Cassel: Thank you. Do any Commissioners have questions of clarification for
25 Staff at this time? Michael.
26
27 Commissioner Griffin: Perhaps Staff can address this or the applicant might deal with it
28 in due course. I am wondering about the necessity of these 40-foot tall antenna panels
29 needing to be directly aimed at the two to three story apartments directly across the street
30 from the site. On page A-2 ofthe plans it would look as ifthe orientation ofthe antennas
31 is such that in fact they would be aimed directly across the street and I am wondering
32 about the placement of these panels and what kind of an effect that has vis-a-vie RF
33 emissions on the people that live over there. I am concerned about this directionality
34 aspect and the fact that there appears to be a line of sight aiming of these panels directly
35 at the bedroom windows of these apartments that are about 150 feet away fromthe
36 installation. I guess I have to tell you that I don't want to be sitting at my breakfast table
37 ten years from now reading a newspaper article that talks about the fact that new studies
38 show that by golly these cell towers have been emitting hazardous radiation after all and
39 we have been basically micro-waving people in their beds in the meantime. So if you
40 would like to address that topic I would be interested in your comments.
41
42 Ms. Amy French, Current Planning Manager: I would like to have you ask that of the
43 applicant as far as their directional issue.
44
45 Chair Cassel: Are there any other questions at this time? Go ahead, Pat.
46
Page 2
1 Commissioner Burt: Now I am confused and maybe Don could clarify again. Is the
2 scope of that question permissible as a basis for us reviewing this application?
3
4 Mr. Larkin: That is not a permissible ground for denial of the application.
5
6 Chair Cassel: Let ~e open the public hearing. Would the applicant wish to speak? I
7 need the cards. Bill Stevens please. If you would come over here to this mike. You have
8 15 minutes for your total presentation by you and other members of your staff.
9
10 Mr. Bill Stevens, T -Mobile, Applicant: Thank you very much. Good evening
11 Commissioners. I would like to put up just the photo simulations that you have in your
12 packages so we can have some graphic illustration. I know that Staff has presented a
13 comprehensive Staff Report and I know that you have the same graphics that we have
14 because we have presented them, as did my predecessor for this application.
15
16 I would like to address some of the questions that I have heard here tonight and take other
17 questions. Before I do that I also want to indicate to you that in attendance is Bill
18 Hammett of the consulting engineering firm of Hammett and Edison that provided a lot
19 of the calculations for the RF initial study and the calculations that you find in your
20 packet. So if there are engineering questions we can direct those to Mr. Hammett as well.
21 Just to reiterate I and my predecessor worked with Staff over the length of time that this
22 application has been in process, just about ten months, and part of the result as you will
23 see in the photo simulation is a broadleaf faux tree concealing a monopole where the six
24 antennas are to be located. This design was reached after a great deal of consideration by
25 your in-house arborist as well. So that is probably the best design that we can come up
26 with at this location. This location as you know is a commercial location on the
27 intersection of two thoroughfares and it is hidden from the main thoroughfare ofEI
28 Camino by the building itself.
29
30 Not withstanding what counsel has said let me address the RF emissions. They are a
31 concern and we address them at every application that we present. In terms of direct line
32 of sight to any obstruction, a building or any other physical obstruction is detrimental to
33 the network. As soon as you posed that question I looked to see what the actual azimuth
34 or direction of that antennas are and I don't see it on A-2. I think this is really a
35 placeholder. Our network engineers would take every reasonable activity to make sure
36 that they don't shoot into any building regardless of whether it is residential or
37 commercial or uninhabited or unmanned just because it would detrimentally impact the
38 network and the coverage that we are looking for with that site. We want it have the
39 greatest coverage through the clearest path. I hope that begins to address your question.
40
41 Concerning what Ms. Campbell brought up with the name change from Cingular to T -
42 Mobile you may be aware that AT&T and Cingular have recently combined forces to
43 become one entity. Though that activity Cingular has necessarily had to divest of certain
44 network assets. There has been a license agreement in place for several years between T-
45 Mobile and Cingular. T -Mobile can operate with exactly the same equipment and in the
46 same places as Cingular and as a result is taking over many of these sites to continue
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
40
41
42
43
44
45
operation. The ones that are in process such as this application will continue as it is. I
want to give this to your clerk as well, this is a letter of authorization from Cingular
indicating the transfer of that authority to T -Mobile and we will set that in the record.
With that I will conclude and open this open this up for questions either of myself or Mr.
Hammett is there is ,something I haven't addressed.
Chair Cassel: Lee, you had a question.
Commissioner Lippert: Why was this particular site selected? Why not a different
location?
Mr. Stevens: Well, as you know better probably than I there are limitations on any
candidate that can be considered within the parameters that the City sets forth within the
compliance of your zoning ordinance. So we are limited at looking at commercial
parcels or institutional parcels but we are also driven by where there is a lack of wireless
coverage for the carrier. There is no coverage for this carrier at this location up and down
El Camino. I would be happy to show you a coverage map. I think there is a copy of that
in your package but I can certainly put it up on the display.
, '
Commissioner Lippert: Why don't you put it up on the display and I have a follow up for
the City Attorney.
Chair Cassel: Can we ask him the questions? Do you want to ask it right now?
Commissioner Lippert: Okay.
Chair Cassel: Are there any other questions for Mr. Stevens? Did you have a question?
Go ahead, Karen.
Commissioner Holman: I was wondering why the location of this on the Los Robles site
as opposed to in the parking lot. The reason I question that is because that would get it
further away from residential. It is actually two questions. It is that we get it further
away from residential so the impact might be less as far as sight lines and that sort of
thing. Pretty much all the trees around that site are deciduous trees so it doesn't seem to
make any difference to me as far aesthetics in that regard that it would be at any
advantage on Los Robles as opposed to in the parking lot in front.
Mr. Stevens: I wouldn't take issue with that. We are trying to accommodate what we are
hearing from the City's Arborist and Staff Planner in looking at ways to minimize any
visual impact. Part of the reason that the site is located on that side of the building is that
it diminishes its visual impact certainly on El Camino and the building itself offers visual
mitigation on Los Robles. I will let Mr. Hammett if you choose address the diminishing
aspect of the signal at 150 feet or even at 50 feet. It is negligible at 150 feet but there are
also concerns by the landlord and by the ongoing commercial business how it would
Page 4
1 know I am speaking hypothetically here but it is often the case where we have to go
2 outside of an area to cover that area and not be right in it for a variety of reasons.
3
4 Now, T-Mobile I will point out even though T-Mobile is taking quite a number of these
5 Cingular sites the coverage requirement is not quite the same because the interference
6 issues are not the s~e because we are not operating against Cingular per say. Cingular
7 did not tum over all oftheir sites to T-Mobile only selected ones. As you know, Cingular
8 in its former and new entity is an SBC Corporation they are an entity of SBC. So they
9 have a lot of facilities all over the place but particularly in the Bay Area that they will
10 retain and that T -Mobile will never have a shot at so there is a different coverage
11 requirement by T-Mobile than there was for Cingular. We do want to take the
12 opportunity because we are not constrained by the same things because we don't have
13 that many existing sites so we can go on a site like this and cover not only the San
14 Antonio but the arterials that we need as well because we don't have any coverage there
15 at all. Sorry to be so lengthy but it was a good question.
16
17 Chair Cassel: Bonnie.
18
19 Vice Chair Packer: I have to ask a question. I have to determine whether or not I have a
20 conflict of interest because I do own SBC stock. The letter that you passed around
21 referred to Pacific Bell Wireless d/b/a T-Mobile. Even though I own the stock I don't
22 really follow all their ownership interests. I don't keep track.
23
24 Mr. Stevens: We are not an SBC entity~
25
26 Vice Chair Packer: So Pacific Bell Wireless is totally separate from Pacific Bell, which
27 is part of it.
28
29 Mr. Stevens: That's right. SBC is Southwest Bell.
30
31 Vice Chair Packer: SBC owns Pacific Bell as well. Ijust don't know what the corporate
32 configuration is.
33
34 Mr. Stevens: I will admit to you at that level I don't either but I can tell you with
35 absolute certainly that T-Mobile is not an SBC entity.
36
37 Vice Chair Packer: Just for the sake ofthe public I do own some SBC stock. I don't
38 know whether my disclosure is sufficient. It gets very confusing for me and I just want to
39 be open about this. Can the attorney help me?
40
41 Mr. Larkin: Based on that understanding I don't believe there is a conflict.
42
43 Chair Cassel: Do we have any other questions of the applicant? Pat.
44
45 Commissioner Burt: The depiction of the fake tree that we have here is that hypothetical
46 or is that pretty close to the actual design and appearance?
Page 6
1
2 Mr. Stevens: I would defer to Staff except to make the general comment that we have
3 gone to a great deal of effort to produce that simulation after some refinements from
4 other types of trees and a different shape of broad leaf deciduous. I believe that there will
5 be additional considerations and comments through this process as we move forward.
6 Staffhas indicated their desire to see certain fine-tuning of that so we will make every
7 attempt to accommodate that
8
9 Chair Cassel: Lee.
10
11 Commissioner Lippert: Why not just simply mount the unit on a building as part of the
12 equipment?
13
14 Mr. Stevens: Part of that is the height of the building. We wouldn't be able to get over
15 even that center and back to the question of the apartments we would be lower there even
16 though they are not in direct line of sight their spread of the spectrum if we get lower it
17 would have a tendency to be blocked by more things because there are more things at a
18 lower height We have tried to refine that to the best we can and keep it to a minimum.
19 Just to get out on the street past some of those buildings we have to be at a certain height
20 to get over them.
21
22 Commissioner Lippert: I have seen on other buildings though where the antennas have
23 been broken up into segments and placed around the mechanical screens of a building
24 and our code does permit for projections above the roofheight of the building. It allows
25 for mechanical screening to go upwards of 15 feet beyond that
26
27 Ms. Campbell: If! could possibly interrupt.
28
29 Commissioner Lippert: Yes, Clare.
30
31 Ms. Campbell: I was told by the original applicant because that was one of the questions
32 that was raised in the very beginning when this was submitted and I was told that the
33 property owner doesn't wish to locate antennas on this building.
34
35 Commissioner Lippert: Fair enough.
36
37 Chair Cassel: Do we have any other questions of the applicant at this time? Thank you
38 very much.
39
40 Mr. Stevens: Did you want to discuss the coverage map at all?
41
42 Chair Cassel: Yes, please.
43
44 Commissioner Lippert: If you could explain it that would be great.
45
Page 7
1 Mr. Stevens: What you see here, and I believe these are in your packet, this is the
2 existing coverage for T -Mobile. The red is very poor coverage, the yellow is very
3 marginal and the green is acceptable. You can there are sort of trident shapes with
4 numbers next to them those are existing sites. We have left these existing sites that are
5 from the Cingular network for your reference so that no questions come up as to which
6 sites belong to whorp..We are not going down that road right now. It doesn't really
7 matter for purposes here. We are assuming that you want to see this as it was originally
8 applied for inside of the Cingular network. So we are showing you these with the
9 existing Cingular sites and with that reference through the center of this diagram where
10 the proposed location is the center trident is the proposed location. There is virtually no
11 satisfactory coverage either walking on the street or in your car.
12
13 Using the same legend and the same centrally located trident there that is the proposed
14 site it becomes very satisfactory at height from that structure. To lower it to block it by
15 other buildings diminishes all of that.
16
17 Chair Cassel: Thank you.
18
19 Mr. Stevens: You are very welcome.
20
21 Chair Cassel: I have two cards from people who wish to speak. You may each have five
22 minutes for yourpresentation. The first person to speak is Ellen Gold to be followed by
23 Ed Jones. Ed Jones to be followed by Ellen Gold.
24
25 Mr. Ed Jones, 543 Military Way, Palo Alto: The reason I am hereis because I received
26 notification that a broadcast tower is being placed within 600 feet of my house and that
.27 there was a very short time to have any effect on that process. So I requested that a
28 hearing be made. In the meantime besides my work an9 family lifeI have tried to
29 investigate what this means to me. Some of the things that I will mention relate to the
30 health effects and I will try to minimize that but just so that they are in my presentation. I
31 have to adjust the size a little bit.
32
33 You all know what is being proposed here it is a 400-watt transmitter that is going to
34 transmit 24 hours a day. When I bought my house in 1987 there were no transmitters or
35 anything like that that I was aware of. It is not like I bought a house in the flight path of a
36 runway so this is something that is being imposed on me.
37
38 I will try to focus on what I think is a liability to Palo Alto. I have no question that Palo
39 Alto can build any kind of thing under a good controlled process and it will be safe but
40 the thing that I don't know is how the regulations are structured for cell towers for the
41 components and that is what I looked into. What I discovered was that there really, well
42 this is just a picture showing where the antenna will be and in Kelly Pepper's letter she
43 mentioned that the nearest house is 45 feet away not 150 feet away. The plans do show it
44 aiming right into someone's bedroom window. When I looked into the FCC they don't
45 really inspect or monitor anything related to cellular networks. Just before coming here I
46 did discover that there is some registration process for antennas but it doesn't say how the
Page 8
1 antennas will be used. So there is a blanket ruling that the cellular operators can
2 essentially do what they want as long as they follow their spectrum license from the FCC.
3
4 A comment that I received is that if the cell towers didn't follow this regulation the whole
5 system wouldn't work. Well that is not a very good way to explain it to me or the rest of
6 the pUblic. The cell\1lar licensee can exceed the federal levels if they decide to and what
7 they need to do is make that decision and then they need to file a report. That is not a
8 very good regulation structure to me. They could do the same thing without requesting
9 the report. The actual antenna and equipment on the ground can be controlled remotely
10 and the angle of the beam can be tilted up and down and the power can be regulated. So
11 there is no way for you to really tell exactly are they meeting the specifications that they
12 setout today. That is kind of redundant.
13
14 There is no real federal regulation on RF exposure standards. What there is, is the license
15 to purchase the RF spectrum and there are conditions in that license that say you have to
16 have a certain signal level.
17
18 Chair Cassel: Thank you. The next person to speak is Ellen Gold. I have two more
19 people who have asked to speak. Ms. Gold will be followed by Janet Rulifson. Please
20 give us your name and your address, thank you.
21
22 Ms. Ellen Gold, 3980 EI Camino Real, Palo Alto: Hi I live in the mobile home park at
23 3980 EI Camino, unit number 105. Staff sent me two notices about this meeting but they
24 sent the first one to 3990, which is the Blockbuster building, unit 27. I don't kriow why.
25 When Icorrected them they sent it again to 27.
26
27 The point I am trying to make is the people in the mobile home park most of whom do
28 not speak English are Spanish speaking and have many children will be living right
29 underneath this tower. They are not represented here that I noticed. I think I might be
30 because they didn't receive notices about this even though I asked Staff to notify all the
31 people in the park. Whatever. So they won't have any say in this. Also the site itself is
32 highly utilized by families with children. You can go by anytime and see them eating at
33 the Baja Fresh and the Jamba Juice sitting outside they will be right underneath the tower.
34 There is a kids store right there, the Right Start, pregnant women go in there all the time
35 to buy things for their soon to be arriving babies. Not very healthy.
36
37 Mybig issue here, I agree with everything that Mr. Johns presented, I am not for this
38 tower. It is a terrible location. The problem with Mr. Jisser who owns the site is that he
39 does not follow through on his agreements. He agreed when he replaced the fence on the
40 Los Robles side of the mobile home park that he would provide irrigation and
41 landscaping. Drive by and take a look. There is a deeply rutted dirt path anything that
42 was planted there died. He provided no irrigation. The pictures that I gave to the Staff to
43 pass around to you, you can keep them, I took them. They are of the building. There are
44 no plantihgs where there are supposed to be plantings. Any plantings that were there that
45 he was required to put in the planning process for converting the building from what it
46 was, the supermarket, to what it is now, the Blockbuster and the other tenants there are
Page 9
· '
1 trellises with planter boxes underneath they are all dead and empty planter boxes. All
2 dead stuff on the trellises. Never irrigated. All the planter boxes at the poles, almost all
3 of them, are completely empty. There is graffiti on some ofthe' support poles. There is a
4 picture ofa planter box in the parking lot completely empty full of weeds and dirt. There
5 are planter boxes surrounding the seating in front of the restaurants for the patrons those
6 ,are completely emp~y. There are maybe like three pieces of green leaves left in there.
7 Mr. Jisser I talked to the person in charge Blockbuster, he has the lease with Jisser. He
8 said Jisser is in charge and he is the one who is responsible for maintaining the
9 landscaping. It is not maintained at all. When the change over was made we lost the sign
10 'Welcome to Barron Park' that was at the corner and that has never been replaced. So I
11 notice on Attachment H the second page talks about landscaping. They are going to have
12 carpet rows, ground cover and all this good stuff you can read it. Whq is going to
13 maintain that? Is T-Mobile going to come out and maintain it? Because if they are
14 leaving it to Jisser to maintain it it will be brown carpet rows, dead carpet rows. So you
15 cannot trust him to live up to his agreements. There is also one picture in there that
16 shows you the mobile home park and area next to the cottages, which the City regulates
17 because they are not mobile homes they are actual buildings on the land. They are rental
18 cottages and there are dumpsters at the end of the rental cottages and you can take a look,
19 it is the last picture in there. It is 3980 not 3990. This is an example of Mr. Jisser as a
20 property owner. It is full of junk and it is always like that. So the man does not live up to
21 his agreements, he operates as a slum lord which is I don't live there, I don't have to look
22 at it, it doesn't matter to me so let it go to you-know-what. Thanks.
23
24 Commissioner Lippert: I have a question for the speaker.
25
26 Chair Cassel: Go ahead.
27
28 Commissioner Lippert: Have you ever filed a complaint regarding his conditions of
29 approval that went before the Architectural Review Board?
30
31 Ms. Gold: No.
32
33 Commissioner Lippert: Why not?
34,
35 Ms. Gold: Regarding this or the fence or which?
36
37 Commissioner Lippert: Regarding what you have submitted here., Have you ever filed a
38 complaint with Code Enforcement?
39
40 Ms. Gold: Many times. Many times I have talked to Code Enforcement and they don't
41 come out.
42
43 Commissioner Lippert: Steve, are you aware of any complaints on this property?
44
Page 10
1 Mr. Steve Emslie, Planning Director: Firstly I don't have direct awareness of that but we
2 certainly would take the complaint from tonight's meeting and have our Code
3 Enforcement Officers make an inspection there as soon as possible.
4
5 Commissioner Lippert: Okay, I'll tum this over to you.
6
7 Ms. Gold: Whenever I talk to Code Enforcement I have been told we don't regulate the
8 mobile home park that is the state's responsibility. So we are on another planet in the
9 mobile home park. I have called up about noise issues.
10
11 Chair Cassel: Okay, we will take that into consideration and I think the business is in a
12 different code. So Steve will follow up on that and get back to you. Did you have a
13 question for her too?
14
15 Commissioner Griffin: Yes. I wanted to ask a question of Mr. Jones because I didn't
16 have access to your report until just this evening and I am interested in maybe a page or
17 two after you left off where you talk about FCC exposure guidelines are not nationally or
18 internationally accepted and you are talking about how other nations recommend much
19 lower exposure levels. Can you elaborate on that all on this non-thermal effects?
20
21 Mr. Jones: The FDA and the EPA have been in a battle with the FCC for a while over
22 the standards .. I am not an expert in that so I don't know where they are today. I know
23 that the FCC wasn't allowed to go from the 1982 IEEE standard to the 1991 IEEE
24 standard because they relaxed the signal level requirements in several areas. I did look at
25 a lot of stuff on the Internet and many countries have much lower levels of exposure
26 levels. Russia, Poland, New Zealand they all have lower levels. A lot of the countries
27 like the UK they tend to follow the American guidelines. The IEEE is bearing the brunt
28 of the responsibility here for saying what is safe and what is not safe and they revisit the
29 issue every five years. They still won't look at the non-thermal effects ofRF radiation.
30 Their last review, I have seen different things in the web from 1997 and just last night I
31 saw some stuff from 2004. There is a list of studies there in my report where they have
32 much lower levels than the federal guidelines saying that there could be damage. There
33 actually are cases of people with leukemia or other things living near cell towers. Now.
34 the IEEE and the European agency or collection also is doing a lot of studies right now to
35 try to show better science for each one of these issues. I am not an expert.
36
37 Chair Cassel: Thank you for your contribution. Janet Rulifson to be followed by Harold
38 Stephenson. You have five minutes to speak. Would you please give your name and
39 your address? Thank you.
40
41 Ms. Janet Rulifson, 3785 El Centro, Palo Alto: I live in the Barron Park area. I came
42 because I have been addressing and allied problem and I was told about this hearing. I
43 guess my plea is that I really wish the City would take a broader look at the
44 c9mmunication needs of our community in Barron Park. Several of my neighbors
45 starting from Chimalus over to La Para Avenue and ending on El Centro have been
46 virtually without telephone services for at least the last month. It is intermittent. It is
Page 11
1 unpredictable. Since the takeover of AT&T lines by Cellular we have lost our cell phone
2 connections and our 1andline has been out. We have email contact with the outside world
3 through our DSL line. I think this needs not to just focus on a tower but on the
4 communication needs of the citizens of Palo Alto to be able to talk on the telephone, to
5 do business on the telephone. I guess just anecdotally I have been in this community
6 long enough to remember other issues addressing the threat of microwaves from Varian
7 and the other industries that surround Barron Park and it seems to me that there needs to
8 be an assessment of all of that equipment. Perhaps there is a way to put in towers that
9 would site them near some of these other things away from where people live but this is
10 not a new issue. This has been a longstanding issue. I don't want to diminish the health
11 threats but communication is also an issue. Most of us work where there are towers
12 nearby as well as live where there are towers.
13
14 Chair Cassel: Thank you. Harold Stephenson.
15
16 Mr. Harold Stephenson, 4054 Villa Vista, Palo Alto: I am in Barron Park and I live close
17 to the potential tower. You know I love Palo Alto and I love the way they take care of
18 their children. I think one of the things that really concerns me the most about this is the
19 effect on children long term. It is unknown even with all the information and all I have
20 received and I have looked over everything and on the computer and there are figures.
21 There is no real honest answer to long-term potential problems and mainly for children.
22 In the mobile homes, which were mentioned earlier, there are a lot of children. I live in
23 Villa Homeowners Association we alone have about ten children in our area and they are
24 young and they are all going to be affected by this. There is no doubt in my mind that
25 down the road there may be liability issues too because of the unknown. This is really an
26 unknown issue. To me it seems logical that if you are going to put something up like this
27 let's put it where they are not going to have children and be affected definitely right
28 away. I am involved with the PANDA program too. I am a PANDA. I also am
29 concerned about earthquakes and also potential earthquakes might be an issue on this. It
30 may fall in the case of an earthquake. It may have other problems jf it fell. The key is
31 that everything I have read about this is just a lot of hard to tell variables in this. The key
32 is putting something like this ifthey have to do it put it where there are not a lot of people
33 that are going to be affected especially children. I would say as far as RF standards and
34 such as far as Mobile is concerned I know they have done a lot of work and I appreciate it
35 but again when we are talking about health issues I think it is really important that we
36 don't kill children. I guess again I overemphasize that issue so much because it means so
37 much to me. I think that there must be a better way. I hope to find a solution to this
38 problem. I am getting a little emotional because I really feel that so many children are
39 going to be hurt by this. Sometimes money and greed get into the picture too.
40 Sometimes overwhelming the fact that there are other ways for solving problems like
41 this. Sometimes I don't get very good reception on my cell phone but to get a cell phone
42 good reception I would rather not knock off too many neighbors. Anyway, I guess that is
43 all I have to really say. I hope you really seriously consider the long-term consequences
44 of this action. I know again all of you care about children and I sure many of you have
45 family and are going to indirectly affected. It will affect the prices also of the mobile
46 home park and the homes like my home, which is close to it. We didn't plan when I
Page 12
1 moved in to go into a situation where we were going to have a funny looking tree that
2 was going to be there. I hope another solution can be found. Thank you.
3
4 Chair Cassel: Thank you. That is the last of our speakers. Pat, you have a question of
5 someone?
6
7 Commissioner Burt: Yes. I would like to ask Mr. Jones a follow up question ifI could.
8 First thank you for your thorough research. Your pages aren't numbered but you have
9 one entitled 'The Signal Level' and it states that the FCC signal level limit is one
10 microwatt per centimeter squared. Is that correct?
11
12 Mr. Jones: Yes.
13
14 Commissioner Burt: Then the nearest exposure you stated was .58% of the FCC limit so
15 that is 1I200th of the FCC limit approximately. .
16
17 Mr. Jones: It is 58 microwatts instead ofmilliwatts.
18
19 Commissioner Burt: Yes, so ballpark about 1I200th of the FCC limit I guess.
20
21 Mr. Jones: Right.
22
23 Commissioner Burt: Then I was trying to correlate it to the studies that you had
24 referenced. This is on' 'Studies by Increasing Power Density' the one that cited the
25 lowest power density of having identified any impact was .1 microwatt per centimeter
26 square. So am I correct in that?
27
28 Mr. Jones: That is 580 times that study from .1 microwatt to 58 microwatts.
29
30 Commissioner Burt: That's right.
31
32 Chair Cassel: Could you help me with where you are, Pat?
33
34 Commissioner Burt: 'Studies by Increasing Power Density' page. The lowest power
35 density that was identified as having a prospective impact is .1 microwatt per centimeter
36 squared which is ten percent of the FCC limit and ifI understand Mr. Jones's.
37
38 Mr. Jones: That is not correct.
39
40 Commissioner Burt: No? It says .1 microwatt per centimeter squared.
41
42 Mr. Jones: So that is 10,000 times lower than the federal level of one milliwatt.
43
44 Commissioner Burt: I wasn't sure whether yours is one milliwatt and not a microwatt.
45
46 Mr. Jones: The FCC is milliwatt.
Page 13
1
2 Commissioner Burt: Okay, so we have the power density on your list is the 1,000t\ the
3 term used, the microwatt that is one one-thousandth of the milliwatt.
4
5 Mr. Jones: Yes. So all but the last three would apply towards the house right across the
6 street.
7
8 Commissioner Burt: Okay, thank you.
9
10 Chair Cassel: Mr. Stevens you have five minutes to respond. You may have your
11. consultant respond if you wish.
12
13 Mr. Stevens: Thank you that is exactly what I will do to address some of the FCC and
14 some ofthe calculation issues. Mr. Bill Hammett of Hamrnett Edison Consulting
15 Engineers.
16
17 Mr. Bill Hammett, Hammett & Edison Consulting Engineers: Good evening
18 Commissioners. I am a registered professional engineer in the State of California. I
19 manage a firm of seven engineers and a regular part of our practice is the calculation and
20 the measurement and the mitigation where it is appropriate ofRF exposure conditions.
21 We are hired for this work by radio and TV stations, by wireless carriers like T -Mobile,
22 by landlords, by cities and counties, by neighbors. As engineers our role is to establish
23 what are the actual levels and how do they compare to the standards. McGraw Hill
24 published a book that I authored on this topic, Radio Frequency Radiation Issues and
25 Standards.
26
27 We have done detailed calculations for this site. I can substantiate the information that is
28 in the packet in terms of what the maximum levels are that you were quoting Mr. Burt,
29 the maximum calculated levels are indeed 1I200th approximately of the standard. In ;most
30 cases is it going to be more than 1,000 times below the standard? Now when I say the
31 standard this is the FCC's standard that Congress said you will adopt a standard and so
32 the FCC did. There is no conflict between the FCC and the EPA. The FCC looked to the
33 EP A and said you are the expert agency what standard should we use?· The EPA we are
34 not even funding that issue any more it is not a concern of ours. So the FCC looked to
35 IEEE and adopted that standard. It is very similar to the standards in the UK, in the
36 European Union, in Australia, in Canada, around the world everybody is looking at the
37 same body of data, decades of research in this field. They are all coming up with very
38 similar standards. Those standards apply 24 hours a day, seven days a week. They are
39 intended to provide a prudent margin of safety for exposure to all persons old, young,
40 small, large, healthy, infirm, children. These are intended to provide a margin of safety.
41 Indeed it does look at non-thermal effects. This is the actual standard. It says no reliable
42 scientific data exists indicating that non-thermal affects of exposure may be meaningfully
43 related to human health. They are continuing to update these standards all the time. The
44 FCC does recognize OSHA, recognizes this IEEE 1999 standard. They are in the process
45 of modifying that standard now based on the most recent data. We follow what that body
46 is doing. There are no substantive changes. The scientific evidence is still pointing to the
Page 14
1 same facts. You can go online. You can get all kinds of studies on all sorts of things.
2 Those are individual studies until some researcher in some other institution replicates that
3 work then it doesn't really have a scientific basis. The standard setting bodies won't take
4 a single study because there are all sorts of variables in that study and they may find a
5 correlation that they think exists. You think of the cold fusion thing, one group came out
6 and said here is som,ething. Well, it has to be duplicated, replicated is the term, in some
7 other institution with some other set of researchers finding the same relationship with a
8 different set of unknowns. Until then these are nothing more than speculative often
9 unproven or subsequently disproven studies that come out. You can find lots and lots of
10 lists of those.
11
12, Let me quickly go to one other point that was made and that is that the FCC does no
13 monitoring of this. In fact the monitoring is what you all have requested right here of the
14 applicant. That is that we certify, I certify, as professional engineer that this site will
15 comply with the FCC standards. That is the requirement that you are putting on the
16 applicant. Congress when they adopted that law, the Telecommunications Act of 1996,
17 they wanted to relive local jurisdictions of the burden of having to make a scientific
18 decision. Is this okay? Is that okay? Should it be at this level or maybe a little lower or
19 maybe a little higher? They relieved the 'local bodies and preempted local jurisdictions
20 from regulating the placement so long as it meets the FCC standard and that is what I am
21 before you today to say is that this one will meet the FCC standard by factors or 200 or
22 thousands of times.
23
24 Chair Cassel: I have a question. We receive radio frequency emissions from the sun.
25 What are they in relationship to the radiation the radio frequency would be receiving
26 froni this site?
27
28 Mr. Hammett: What we receive from the sun is a huge spectrum and part of that
29 spectrum does indeed include radio frequencies. It would be on the order of probably I
30 think it is about 500th of one microwatt. That is considered the ambient exposure of what
31 we get from the sun.
32
33 Chair Cassel: What is the relationship between that and what the exposure is from this
34 site? I can't do it in my head.
35
36 Mr. Hammett: What this site produces would be several orders of magnitude higher than
37 what you get from the sun. The FCC limits allow the equivalent of one milliwatt which
38 is 100,000 times or 10,000 times, something on that order more than what you get in the
39 absence of any infrastructure. What is perhaps more meaningful is the typica11eve1 that
40 you get in cities because we have taxi cabs, we have fire trucks, we have radio stations,
41 we have Y-FI sites, you go by Starbucks and there is a Y-FI site. All of these sources
42 that we have in our society for contributions from lots of different things will add up to a
43 certain floor level of exposure. This facility would add a virtually insignificant amount to
44 that existing floor.
45
Page 15
1 Chair Cassel: Thank you. Any other questions? Thank you. Then I will close the public
2 hearing. Do we have questions of Staff? Bonnie.
3
4 Vice Chair Packer: I just wanted to follow up on the conc.ern that was raised about
5 maintenance oflandscaping. This Conditional Use Permit is really a permit that is
6 granted on behalf of the owner ofthe property. The owner of the property is in essence
7 leasing or has some kind of contractual arrangement with the cellular company. So the
8 burden of whatever landscaping which is part of the Conditional Use Permit the burden is
9 on the underlying property owner. Is that correct? .
10
11 Ms. French: That is correct. Again, the maintenance of the landscaping under the
12 previous Architectural Review application is also the burden of the property owner. It
13 needs to be maintained in accordance with that previous ARB approval. In addition to
14 the CUP for this project that has a request for hearing there is an ARB component of this
15 application. That is related with the DEE, the Design Enhancement Exception, that again
16 is a responsibility of the property owner to maintain and is enforceable through our Code
17 Enforcement process.
18
19 Chair Cassel: Lee.
20
21 Commissioner Lippert: I have a question for the City Attorney with regard to our Public
22 Utilities, electrical, telephone, cable those are in the public right-of-way why isn't
23 something like this permitted in the public right-of-way?
24
25 Mr. Larkin: I don't know that it is not permitted in the public right-of-way except that we
26 are talking about a large pole essentially.
27
28 Commissioner Lippert: So there is nothing prohibiting something like this from being
29 located in the public right-of-way on public property and done in an appropriate manner
30 in conformance with what we do for utility poles.
31
32 Mr. Larkin: There is nothing that would prohibit location of utility facilities in the public
33 right-of-way.
34
35 Chair Cassel: Does anyone else have a question? Karen.
36
37 Commissioner Holman: I raised the question earlier about from an aesthetics perspective
38 . about putting this tree in the parking lot. I see Dave Dockter is sitting here with us so .
39 actually I would like his perspective if we could about how that would blend better or
40 worse with the existing vegetation. What goes on in my head is that perhaps if something
41 like this was in the parking lot that maybe some other tree might be in the parking lot to
42 balance this one. The other thing is it seems a little, it is not a big deal but it seems kind
43 of odd to me that we are mimicking a deciduous trees when deciduous trees shed their
44 leaves and this one obviously will not. I will just throw that out there.
45
46 Chair Cassel: Mr. Dockter.
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
Mr. Dave Dockter, City Arborist: Yes, we have evaluated the type of tree and it is
actually going to be replicating an evergreen broadleaftree. Along Los Robles there are
a few Blackwood Acacias they are not really broadleafbut they are evergreen. This site
along the pathway there would be relatively close to those Blackwood Acacias. The
option to put it in the parking lot where there are London Plains I believe those are
deciduous trees and this thing would really stand out quite significantly ifit were in the
parking lot area I would imagine. So its placement right now kind of at least it is in the
line of ordering acacia trees kind of makes sense even that it is not surrounded by
deciduous trees necessarily.
There is going to be one London plain in that little planter strip remaining and then we
are suggesting that the applicant plant another Evergreen Carrotwood or Magnolia tree.
They would assume this same shape as this broadleaf faux tree. We have asked for
samples of the leaves and the makeup of the tree. We have asked the applicant to keep
the door open for design of this thing because we want it to look right and be as real
looking as possible if that can be done.
Chair Cassel: . Thank you. Bonnie, do you have a question?
Vice Chair Packer: Dave, I have a question. I don't know if you have seen the photo
simulations. Does that show where the new London plain tree would be and the
landscaping that would be around the fence? Clare is saying it doesn't so what we are
looking at could be even greener because of the landscaping that you will be looking for?
Mr. Dockter: That is correct. There would be more greenery behind this tree. This tree
would be the first thing in the foreground that you would see from the El Camino
'intersection of Los Robles. I don't believe you can really see the fence there. It would be
a head higher or lower, the fence.
Chair Cassel: Pat, you had a question?
Commissioner Burt: Dave, the depiction that We have in this photo is that pretty close to
what you anticipate the tree will actually look like?
Mr. Dockter: It is close. We want the lower branches to be longer than the upper
branches and this kind of tapers too steep. I think it needs to be more custom made and
realistic. So we definitely would have this adjusted to be longer lower branches.
Commissioner Burt: I have seen some of the previous fake trees that are used for some
of these cell towers and they look pretty horrible. This doesn't look too bad. Is this a
second or third generation that is starting to evolve here?
44 Mr. Dockter: It actually is and we have a lot of conditions of approval to keep the quality
45 . control in the City's possession down the road for if these things start to fade or color
46 goes bad. I agree there are a lot of really bad ugly faux trees out there that I have seen in
Page 17
1
2 Chair Cassel: So that has been seconded by Pat Burt. Are there any other additions,
3 adjustments or friendly amendments being proposed at this time before we speak to it?
4 Go ahead and speak to it.
5
6 Vice Chair Packer: ,This project was approved at the Director level based on the
7 parameters that the City works with for approving such antennas. We do know that we
8 are preempted by the FCC from denying this project based on any perceived health
9 impacts due to the radio frequency emissions so that is not before us. I think the proposal
10 to have this as an evergreen broadleaf fake tree is the best we can do considering the
11 technical requirements of cell towers. We know we are becoming ever more dependent
12 on cell phone usage. It is becoming a way oflife and these antennas are just going to
13 become more a part of the landscape and we are doing the best we can to make them as
14 attractive as possible. I am very pleased that there is going to be some additional
15 landscaping in that area. It is kind of a sad looking corner. It is important it is kind of a
16 gateway to Barron Park. So this is an opportunity to enhance that corner in a heavily
17 used section of town. That is the reason I would support upholding the Director's
18 decision on this Conditional Use Permit.
19
20 Chair Cassel: Pat.
21
22 Commissioner Burt: One small additional comment. Two speakers commented on
23 related issues one was concern over whether this thing might topple in an earthquake and
24 another resident concerned about lack of telephone cOmmunications that currently exist
25 in this neighborhood. I just think that in today's world the role of cellular phones in
26 emergency communications have become quite important. I think that the public safety
27 benefit of having that access would overwhelm the other consideration just in terms of
28 public safety issues.
29
30 Chair Cassel: Lee.
31
32 Commissioner Lippert: I am a little troubled by what I see here. I will try to enumerate
33 my concerns. First is regarding the site of Blockbuster Video. I am probably one of the
34 few people in this room that sat in on the ARB hearing for the Blockbuster site when it
35 was converted from All American to Blockbuster as well as a number of other shops, I
36 think maybe Amy French might have been involved at the time. This site has been
37 dogged with a number of design issues that have never been resolved to 100%
38 satisfaction. I think that that was quite evident in the landscaping issues. Although that
39 was addressed in your motion the ARB did numerous times condition the project and the
40 project came back to ARB and the conditions were not quite 100% met and always had to
41 be dealt with in almost a compromise type fashion. It has always troubled me and it
42 continues to trouble me today in looking at what is being proposed here. I have no doubt·
43 that what the members of the public have said about this site will be an ongoing issue
44 with the property because the property owners have never been able to 100% fulfill their
45 requirements.
46
Page 20
1 Number two is that the location of the tower in this case is located incredibly close to a
2 residential area. While we don't have the ability to regulate these towers from their
3 output level we can regulate and approve their placement. I don't think that the inside
4 comer there is necessarily an appropriate location for this cell site and perhaps should be
5 looked at in terms of a couple of other locations. Number one on a roof where it does not
6 need to be decorated or camouflaged or number two perhaps out in EI Camino Real
7 which if you are a new urbanist and you follow Andreas Duany it is sort ofthe place
8 where we allow things to sort of hang out. I am not offended by seeing utility poles go
9 down my street even though we do make an effort to underground those utilities but if
10 they are presented in an appropriate fashion and they are not disguised and they are what
11 they are which is utilitarian they are quite acceptable. I don~t think that locating it in a
12 residential area and disguising it is necessarily an appropriate solution ..
13
14 The third concern lhave is with regard to the screening of the cabinets. By doing what
15 they are doing here it makes it an object of how shall we say refuse collection. People
16 would be inclined to take bottles and wrappers and all sorts of stuff and ball it up and
17 throw it over the fence. They would collect in the screened area thereby this becoming a
18 giant waste receptacle. I think that these cabinets have to be done in an appropriate way.
19 The way we handle high voltage cabinets on properties with appropriate plant screenings
20 but not necessarily hard screenings or they need to be put into a vault underground.
21
22 Those are my concerns here and hopefully some other of my colleagues will come up
23 with other concerns that they have as well.
24
25 Chair Cassel: Well I wanted to add two things here. I think at the very beginning of the
26 meeting the Staff recommended that we make this conditional on DE Exception. I was
27 wondering if Bonnie and Pat would add that to their motion. This needs to be
28 conditioned on.approval of a DE Exception because this project is in the setback and
29 Design Enhancement Exception in order to be able to be constructed is my understanding
30 and they asked that it be conditioned on that.
31
32 Vice Chair Packer: If it that needs to be added to the approval I will certainly include
33 that in my motion that we also recommend the approval of the Design Enhancement
34. Exception as a part of this project. Is that sufficient wording?
35
36 Ms. French: Yes, you don't actually need to recommend approval of the DEE but the
37 project approval for the CUP is contingent upon receiving a Design Enhancement
38 Exception. That process will follow a different course.
39
40 Vice Chair Packer: Okay.
41
42 Commissioner Burt: That would be fine. I would also like to ask Staff their thoughts on
43 Commissioner Lippert's comments both on the placement, location and the boxes that are
44 associated withit and then this broader principle of whether we should be hiding these
45 things within fake trees or put them out in the middle as an accepted utility structure that
Page 21
1 would look like what it is. That third one goes even beyond this particular evening's
2 approval.
3
4 Ms. French: Yes, if I can answer this I will. I would say the third point in right-of-way is
5 definitely a policy question that is raised that I don't think we can answer right here. I
6 think it is more of a .City Council level question. As far as whether just straight landscape
7 screening of the cabinets is more appropriate than a fence that is something in the criteria
8 that we can look at. Often we have something that has both a fence and landscape
9 screening of vine or shrubs. There is effectiveness even with painting the cabinets a
10 green color. We call it the Palo Alto Green color and put vegetation and leave it at that or
11 you can use a fence. In this case I guess they proposed a fence with the landscaping and
12 we can take a look at that. What was the other one?
13
14 Commissioner Burt: The third one had to do with whether the location is best along the
15 side of the building where it is more adjacent to the residential property or more out front
16 along the or next to the right-of-way.
17
18 Ms. French: It is true that we have had other applications that have approved antennas on
19 the roof and as a part of mechanical screening. Staffhasn't analyzed that as far as how
20 high that tower would have to be. I assume from the applicant's statements that they did
21 do that analysis. Whether it would have to be higher than the 15 feet above the roof I
22 don't know the comparison between that and the tree that is being proposed.
23
24 Commissioner Burt: The roof height of this building is approximately what? It is single
25 story, right?
26
27 Ms. French: We don't have that number for you.
28
29 Chair Cassel: Actually I have another condition that I wanted to put on this. It was
30 mentioned by Dave Dockter that we might consider future control of colors as a condition
31 and I wondered if that would be agreeable with you.
32
33 Vice Chair Packer: I think that is already in the conditions. Conditions not limited to the
34 color of the foliage.
35
36 Chair Cassel: But the point was that they have to maintain that.
37
38 Vice Chair Packer: For the life of the project, yes that is condition number 14.
39
40 Chair Cassel: Okay, thank you.
41
42 Ms. French: We are ready to hazard a guess of 20 feet for the building so in order to get
43 the 40-foot height the antenna would be 20 feet.
44
45 Commissioner Burt: Thank you. So if it ends up not being desirable to mount it on the
46 building I think that there was some reference earlier that Staff had looked at different
Page 22
1 locations of this fake tree. I am assuming we have a tradeoff between I think Dave
2 Dockter maybe mentioned that aesthetically this may be a better location and we may
3 have a tradeoff between whether it is desirable to have it further away from the
4 residential area for other reasons.
5
6 Chair Cassel: Karel)., do you have a question?
7
8 Commissioner Holman: Yes, a couple.
9
10 Chair Cassel: I am sorry.
11
12 Commissioner Burt: I was asking for Staffs comment on that tradeoff and if they had·
13 evaluated them.
14
15 Chair Cassel: Then I would like to go on to Karen's questions.
16
17 Commissioner Holman: Okay, a couple of questions. One is I would be interested.
18
19 Chair Cassel: Wait a minute, Karen they are looking up a response. Do you want time to
20 do that?
21
22 Ms. Campbell: I am ready to respond to that. The site itself when you are looking at the
23 plans it doesn't represent a very good picture of what is out there. Along the opposite
24 side ofthe building is a driveway that goes into the mobile home park. So if we are
25 looking for other locations to put this pole and equipment it is really limited on the site.
26 If you were to place it within the actual planters on the parking lot or within the parking
27 lot it would really standout and be much worse aesthetically than where we are trying to
28 place it now. On the side first of all it is off to the side and it is also somewhat integrated
29 in with existing landscaping and we have a backdrop of tall trees so it works better in that
30 location. I don't think physically there are other physical locations that would
31 accommodate the project.
32
33 Chair Cassel: Karen.
34
35 Commissioner Holman: Along that line it carne up earlier about public right-of-way so it
36 is a question both for Staff at the table I guess and also for Mr. Dockter. What about the
37 public right-of-way? This isn't a real tree but there are the Trees for El Camino Project,
38 the El Camino guidelines and all of that and obviously additional trees could be required
39 as they are along the side. So I guess I would like Mr. Dockter's comment on what he
40 thought about the appropriateness of that and then also the Staff a clarification if you
41 could or maybe even a reiteration about public right-of-way in other words the planting
42 strip along El Camino.
43
44 Chair Cassel: Karen, let's start with a question about whether we have any control over
45 what goes in the right-of-way here. You are suggesting that we condition this to put trees
46 in the right-of-way as part of the project?
Page 23
1
2 Commissioner Holman: Well to move it to put it in the public right-of-way, the planter
3 strip along E1 Camino as opposed to where it is currently sited along with other trees to
4 family it'.
5
6 Mr. Emslie: Can I aska clarifying question? The suggestion is to or your request is to
7 relocate this the fake tree along with other street trees into the public right-of-way?
8
9 Commissioner Holman: Yes, along EI Camino in the planter strip, yes.
10
11 Mr. Emslie: Well certainly the City can locate street trees with Cal Trans approval, as
12 you know this is a state highway so it would require that. I don't believe and maybe we
13 can caucus with the City Attorney but I don't believe that the Commission has
14 jurisdiction over the right-of-way. That is going to fall under the Streets and Highway
15 Code of the City which utilities are allowed in the public right-of-way as stated earlier
16 but they would have to follow the Streets and Highway Code ofthe City and that is under
17 the authority of the Public Works Director. So I don't believe you would have the
18 authority to approve that location.
19
20 Commissioner Holman: Ifwe couldn't approve that location could we recommend that
21 location and have something come back to us to Staff whichever is ... this is outside my
22 knowledge base here as far as what that procedure would be as far as a recommendation
23 or an approval or not from the Public Works Staff.
24
25 Mr. Emslie: Well you could handle it a couple of ways. You could suggest to this
26 application that they do pursue that and make contact with the Public Works Department
27 to see if they were able to obtain the proper permits for that. You could continue this
28 matter. You could approve it with that suggestion. You could continue it and have it
29 come back with the applicant and Staffreporting back to you the findings of the issues of
30 locating it in the public right-of-way. I don't think you would be able to deny the
31 location based on the statements earlier by the City Attorney.
32
33 Commissioner Holman: Thank you. Then I had a question for Commissioner Lippert
34 too. You had mentioned or referenced other conditions of approval that really had quite
35 never been met. Could you give just an example of that? The reason I am going there is
36 because I am wondering if those could also be a condition of our approval for wherever
37 this ends up being.
38
39 Commissioner Lippert: They are actually not appropriate for this Board to be addressing
40 because they are architectural in nature and ours really has to do with the zoning and use.
41 Staff would have to go back into the records and look at what the conditions of approval
42 were from the Architectural Review Board and actually go through and see where the
43 findings were not met or are weak.
44
45 Chair Cassel: Karen, we currently have a friendly amendment to this motion that in order
46 to build this proj ect it must meet the current conditions.
Page 24
1
2 Commissioner Holman: In regards to landscaping.
3
4 Chair Cassel: It didn't say that. I thought it was broader than that.
5
6 Commissioner Lippert: It is more than landscaping it also goes to the architecture of the
7 building and the design and lighting of the building.
8
9 Mr. Emslie: We understood the condition to mean that the existing project would have to
10 be in compliance with all applicable conditions.
11
12 Commissioner Holman: Great, thank you for the clarification. So I guess I would be
13 interested in knowing 'and I guess the comments will come how other Commissioners feel
14 about continuing this to get a determination about the possibility of relocating this into
15 the public right-of-way.
16
17 Commissioner Lippert: Is that a substitute motion?
18
19 SUBSTITUTE MOTION
20
21 Commissioner Holman: I could do that. So I would make a motion to continue this item
22 for consideration of moving the site of the tower into the public right-of-way and also
23 including'the amendment that Commissioner Packer made and Commissioner Burt
24 seconded.
25
26 SECOND
27
28 Commissioner Lippert: I will second that.
29
30 Chair Cassel: All right we will have a discussion of the substitute motion. Is there
31 anyone who wishes to make a comment to that? Bonnie. Wait a minute you get to speak
32 first and Lee gets to speak next.
33
34 Commissioner Holman: Yes, the reason for this because I think aesthetically and we
35 didn't have Mr. Dockter address this but I think we do have EI Camino Guidelines, we do
36 have desire to have more green along EI Camino. This one would not be a real tree of
37 course but other trees could be planted along with if! am understanding correctly as we
38 could apply them to the side of the property. So I think aesthetically this would be a
39 more appropriate and a solution to the locating of this tower. '
40
41 Chair Cassel: Lee.
42
43 Commissioner Lippert: I agree with Commissioner Holman's comments and in addition
44 to that I just want to add that I think there are other opportunities locating it in the public
45 right-of-way. By doing that it reinforces the spines of our city. I know for a fact that the
46 Southern Pacific Railway uses the railroad right-of-way for instance not oniy for railroad
Page 25
1 but also the fiber optic cable goes right down the peninsula and that is where you have
2 the server farms located so they don't necessarily impact our neighborhoods. In this case
3 we are recommending location of a cell tower in the public right-of-way so it is not
4 necessarily impacting a residential neighborhood but it is more in a commercial district.
5 The other opportunity I see here is because it is public property perhaps the sharing of
6 these cell sites. So even though T -Mobile may erect and put up this because it is in the
7 public right-of-way just like our telephone lines many phone companies get to share in
8 those lines and perhaps there is an opportunity here to begin to combine those sites in the
9 public right-of-way.
10
11 Chair Cassel: Bonnie.
12
13 Vice Chair Packer: I think if we go this route we are getting into territory where we do
14 not have enough information and we are going into really muddy waters. We don't know
15 if there is any place available in the public right-of-way that would fit the needs of T-
16 Mobile for this area. We don't know that the Trees for El Camino folks would want to
17 have a fake tree along with what they are planting for the trees on E1 Camino. Wedon't
18 know whether there is room anywhere in the area for such a thing. Also if it is on a
19 street, a public right-of-way, that is not that much within our jurisdiction we may not
20 have the ability we have now to condition the landscaping, the height of the fence and the
21 other kinds of things we are able to do via the Conditional Use Permit conditions that we
22 can add on private property. So I think we are better off having this cellular antenna site
23 on private property where we can add as many reasonable conditions that we might not
24 be able to have if it is on Cal Trans property on El Camino.
25
26 Also when I went out to the site I was a little confused. At first I thought it was going to
27 be in the public right-of-way and I was concerned that it would block the access, I
28 thought it would be on Los Robles in the public right-of-way and I thought it would block
29 access for people existing and entering the driveway at Blockbusters and it would
30 interfere with pedestrian and bicycle access in that area. Then when I realized it was
31 back further against the fence I was more satisfied with the location. It is out of the way
32 of where people would move. So I think we have a lot more control with this on public
33 property than we would have in some median somewhere or some corner in the public
34 right-of-way. So I think it really would be an unreasonable denial of this particular
35 request to suggest that the applicant go somewhere else that may not be a somewhere else
36 that is feasible. So I would not support this substitute motion.
37
38 Chair Cassel: Pat you wanted to say something.
39
40 Commissioner Burt: Yes. I think I would be open in the future to consideration of the
41 broader policy and design issues that Commissioners Holman and Lippert have raised
42 here but I don't think that we are at the point in time to attempt to incorporate them as a
43 basis for a denial of this application. We have had an existing set of history and certain
44 standards and prerogatives on what we might do. The public right-of-way isn't one that
45 we currently have so I think it is incumbent on us to review this particular project based
46 upon the standards that we have used to date. Then I think the experience of this project
Page 26
1 with frankly this second or third generation fake tree I am going to be interested in how it
2 ends up looking on the ground. I think we have all experienced the evolution of gas
3 burning fireplaces from the tinsel of yore to what we have today. I think we will learn
4 from this and what our future aesthetic standards and the other considerations that have
5 been raised tonight. I think they are, valid I have no idea how I would end up feeling
6 about them once we,had a full airing of them but I think they are worth considering and I
7 would be interested in Stafflooking at that in maybe next year's work plan as something
8 to bring back at an appropriate time.
9
10 Chair Cassel: , I am going to vote against the motion. I think we are not moving this cell
11 tower any farther away from residential by moving it forward onto the street because we
12 just move it closer to another residential space across the street. I think that we have been
13 limiting how many public utility poles we put on public streets and we have been trying
14 to get rid of them. We are having problems with the boxes, they are'difficult to walk
15 around, they are quite ugly and unlike Lee's perspective that we should put it out there
16 and leave it all out there I would very much appreciate if we could have fewer boxes on
17 the street that we could move around. It is going to be difficult to landscape it in the'
18 limited space; Basically I agree with much of what Pat has been saying.
19
20 Commissioner Griffin: I would support this substitute motion. You can tell from the
21 questions that I raised earlier this evening that I have a distinct lack of enthusiasm for the
22 suggested site that is being proposed and I think it is well worth the time and effort to
23 investigate other more appropriate spots to put this tower. By more appropriate I mean
24 located further away from the residential area particUlarly this three-story structure that is
25 in such immediate proximity . .I think that Karen's thought of putting the tree in the
26 median is a good one and we are going to be putting trees there anyway and I am
27 comfortable with supporting this motion.
28
29 Chair Cassel: Is there any other discussion? Karen.
30
31 Commissioner Holman: Yes just a couple of things. One is a motion to continue is not a
32 motion to deny. That is one thing. Just a clarification, the public right-of-way to me does
33 not mean necessarily the medial although I am not ruling that out but it is not necessarily
34 the median. It could be along the street side as well. And, I understood from
35 Commissioner Lippert earlier that the equipment could be underground too so it doe,sn't
36 have to be out there. I agree with your comments Chair Cassel about not wanting to look
37 at it but I think it can be submerged too.
38
39 Chair Cassel: Go ahead, Lee.
40
41 Commissioner Lippert: I just want to follow up with that. I am not looking to deny this
42 application either. I think that we all want to find a solution that is appropriate. In this
43 case the suggestion of moving it out into the public right-of-way, out closer to EI Camino
44 Real was meant to locate it in an area that was a little bit more appropriate for the
45 busyness, you know when you are going by at 30 miles an hour you are less inclined to
46 focus in on an artificial something or a real something than turning down a side street,
Page 27
1 number one. Number two to also make it equitable. If it is going to be located in a
2 location in the proximity of residences it actually puts it equidistance from the trailer
3 park, some of the apartments, the hotels as well as the apartments across the street. So
4 everyone shares the radiation exposure here.
5
6 Chair Cassel: I remjnd you that we cannot make this denial based on the radiation
7 exposure or the continuation or the decisions that we make based on the radiation
8 exposure is my understanding. We can make it on other grounds.
9
10 Commissioner Lippert: That was meant to be a bit of levity here.
11
12 Chair Cassel: Bonnie.
13
14 Vice Chair Packer: I think there is some confusion here., We have before us a request
15 from a private property owner for a Conditional Use Permit to place an object on that
16 piece of property that requires a conditional use. We don't have a request before us
17 asking where should we put this antenna. If you are saying and if this motion is saying
18 that it shouldn't be on the private property but it should be in the public right-of-way that
19 is not a, continuation that is a denial. So I would like some clarification Karen as to how
20 you can say it is not a denial of the application when you are saying that the antenna
21 should not be on the private property but should be in the public right-of-way. Please
22 clarify for me what you are trying to do.
23
24 Commissioner Holman: I took that directly, at least my intention was, my understanding
25 was I took it directly from Staffs options that they listed for us that we could continue
26 this to explore that.
27
28 MOTION FAILED (3-3-0-1, Commissioners Holman, Lippert and Griffin voted yes with
29 Commissioner Bialson absent).
30
31 Chair Cassel: Any other comments? Then I will call a vote for the motion. All those in
32 favor please say aye. (ayes) That is three in favor. All those opposed? (nays) That
33 motion fails on a three to three vote with Commissioners Holman, Griffin and Lippert
34 voting yea and Commissioners Burt, Packer and Cassel voting no.
35
36 That brings us back to the main motion. Do we have more discussion on that?
37
38 I think I wanted to add a couple of more comments to the motion. The Staffhas
39 recommended that the best placement on the site is within the trees. They told us that
40 there was a faux tree over on Middlefield Road at the Keys School. I went over there to
41 find it. I didn't go on the pr<?perty itself! went around the property and I could not locate
42 that tree. So ifthere is one there is well in hiding and I have been there frequently. I
43 can't locate it there. These cell tower sites are located all over town. I have heard people
44 complain about them being in single-family residential neighborhoods and then moved
45 into multi-family neighborhoods. They exist relatively close to residential units as close
46 as this is in many sites throughout town. Some have had objections and some have not.
Page 28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
The one in Midtown the placement was discussed with the Midtown Residents
Association. These sites are place frequently close to housing and we usually try to
attempt to make them so that you can't see them.
Commissioner Burt: I would just like to support Phyllis's comments. I think that we
have reviewed a lot pfthese over the years. There is almost never a circumstance where
everyone is happy with the location or the design of these. I think this had some good
efforts, the long overall policy issues that have been raised tonight I think are interesting
ones to explore. I don't know where I would end up on them but I would be interested in
reviewing it in the future. I think by comparison that this is a reasonable proposal. It has
some compromises that Staff has recommended that seem to have been well thought out
and as much as we may be looking for having a variety of different notions of what might
occur I think that is what we are left with here is a bunch of intimations that something
might be better and one alternative might be better one way another alternative might be
better another way but I don't think we have any consensus on what alternative would be
ideal. I think this is a reasonable proposal and a reasonable compromise and I hope that
the Commission go ahead and adopt this and then with the understanding that we are
going to review this, not only use this as feedback for us in the future on where we should
go but also in the future look at some of these other policy issues that were raised tonight.
Chair Cassel: Bonnie.
23 Vice Chair Packer: In an attempt to see if we can get more than three votes in favor of
24 . my motion what I would like to say is look at some other positives that are going to come
25 out of this project. There will be some more landscaping on that neglected comer,
26 perhaps a real opportunity to enhance that particular area. Another evergreen broadleaf
27 tree is going to be planted so it is going to be nice. It is a good thing.
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
MOTION PASSED (4-2-0-1, Commissioners Lippert and Griffin voted no with
Commissioner Bialson absent)
Chair Cassel: I would like to call the vote. All those in favor please say aye. (ayes) All
those opposed say no. (nay) Then this motion passes Commissioners Burt, Packer,
Holman and Cassel voting yes and Commissioners Lippert and Griffin voting no.
Page 29
3990 El Camino Real
Conditional Use Permit
Page 2 of4 .
safety ag~ncies such as the Environmental Protection Agency and the Food and Drug
Administration (more detailed information is available on the web at
http://wireless.fc.c.gov/). The project shall be constructed to meet all the City's
development regulations (Planning, Building, Fire, etc.) and, therefore, will not be
detrimental to pub lib 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.
The proposed telecommunications use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan
PolicyL-I3. This policy supports the development of technologically advanced
communications iirfr/istructure 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 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 this title (Zoning). The
following conditions of approval apply in this case:
1. The project shall be constructed in substantial conformance with the plans
submitted and received on December 6, 2004 that are on file with the City
except as modified by these conditions of approval.
2. A copy of this approval letter shall be printed on the first page of the
blueprints submitted for building permit. The building permit will not be
approved without this letter printed on the plan set. .
3. The Conditional Use Permit is approval is contingent upon the approval of the
associated Architectural Review application 04-ARB-48.
4. The tree shail be constructed to resemble a deciduous broadleaftree, with a
decurrent and spreading form. Branches on the lower half of the tree shall be
wider than the top_half. The final tree form shall be reviewed with the building .
permit submittal. .
5. The density of the branch and foiliage placement shall be the highest density
3990 El Camino Real
Conditional Use Permit
Page 3 of4
that the structure can support.
6. All hardware ,arid materials shall be painted to match the tree ot screened.
7. The access hole at the base of the tree shall be covered.
8. The antennas shall be painted to mach the tree foliage, or there will be antenna
socks installed. 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 will be approved prior to
construction of the pole.
10. 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 approval.
11. Submit an irrigation plan with the building permit.
12. The entire fence design shall be consistent with the fence detail on shown page
A3 of the plans.
l3. The fence shall encircle the base of the tree-pol,e on three sides.
14. Modifications, to the satisfaction of the planning staff, are required for the
fence layout. With the building permit submittal, a revised fence layout shall
be submitted for review and final approval.. If the fence segment on the
interior side of the tree is to be hinged for access purposes, provide a detail of
the hardware and its treatment.
15. All exposed equipment, including the cabinets, shall be painted dark green,
matching the City's standard green for utility cabinets.
16. 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 shall be
maintained consistent with the approval. Failure of any portion of the tree pole
or planting shall be repaired by the own~r/operator within 30 days of
discovery or contact by the City.
i
3990 El Camino Real
Architectural Review
Page 20f3
3. The tree shall be constructed to resemble a deciduous broadleaftree, with a
decurrent and spreading form. Branches on the lower half of the tree shall be
wider than the top half. The final treeform shall be reviewed with the building
permit submittal. -
4. The density ofthe 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 be painted to mach the tree foliage, or there will be antenna
socks installed. The antenna socks allow foliage to be attached that will cover
the antenna for further concealment. .
8. Samples of the bark and foliage texture and color will be approved prior to .
construction of the pole.
9. 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 approval.
10. Submit an irrigation plan with the building permit.
11. The entire fence design shall be consistent with the fence detail qn shown
page A3 of the plans.
12. The fence shalf encircle the base of the tree-pole on three sides.
13. Modifications, to the satisfaction of the planning staff, are required for the
fence layout. With the building permit submittal, a revised fence layout shall
be submitted for review and final approval. If the fence segment on the
mterior side of the tree is to be hinged for access purposes, provide a detail of
the hardware and its treatment. .
14. All exposed equipment, including the cabinets, shall be painted dark green,
matching the City'S standard green for utility cabinets.
15. 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
· . 3990 El Camino Real
1\rcbitecturalRevievv
Page 3 of3
attachment and density. Associated plantings, fencing and materials shall 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. .
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 Jourteenth 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 ARB action, please do not hesitate
to call me at (650) 617-3191. .
Sincerely, ~
c Q .
Clare Campbell
Associate Planner.
Owner: Toufic Jisser
3990 E1 Camino Real
Design Enhancement Exception .
Page 2 of3
spaces and is directly adjacent to the access thoroughfare for the mobile home park
located to the rear ofthe site at 3980 EI Camino Real.
The most appropriate location to place an object that mimics vegetation is withln
existing landscaped areas. Although there are landscape areas outside of the front
setback, the proposed side planter (approximately three feet from the street side
property line) would provide for a less conspicuous location. The faux tree would
integrate with the site because it would be set back and to the side of the property and
combined with other trees to achieve an appropriate grouping.
(2) The granting o/the application will enhance the appearance of the site or
. structure, or improve the neighborhood character of the project and preserve an
existing or proposed architectural style, in a manner which would not otherwise be
accomplished through strict application of the minimum requirements of this title
(Zonini) and the architectural review jindtngs setforth in Section 18.76. 020( d); and
The strict application of the setback regulations would create an unsightly project.
The faux tree would not integrate with the existinghmdscape planters that are located
in the parking lot because the planters are too small in size and proportion. The
proposed location provides sufficient room for the facility and the existIDg and
proposed additional trees· in this planter would provide an appropriate sett~g for the
. proposed faux tree.
(3) The exception is related to a minor architecturalfeature or site improvement
. that will notb.e detrimental or injurious .to property or improvements in the vicinity
and will not be detrimental to the Pl1blic.health, safety, general welfare or
convenience.
. . :..
The proposed siting of the telecommunications facility would not negatively impact
the property. This facility is ancillary to the primary commercial uses of the site. The
location has been revIewed and approved for a clear line-of-sight for pedestrian and
vehicle traffic. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) rules require
transmitting facilities 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 project shall be constructed to meet the FCC
regulations and all the City's development regulations (planning, Building, Fire, etc.)
and, therefore, will not be ~etrimental to public health, safety, and welfare.
Campbell. Clare
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Janet Rulifson Uanet@rulifson.org]
Monday, February 21,20052:54 PM
Campbell, Clare
Barron Park Cingular Cellular Tower
I would very much appreciate a status update on the cellular tower that is
being built in Barron Park. I use my cell phone for business and have been
without service since the turnover from AT&T. When I was with AT&T I had
reasonable service .. Now I cannot even pick up my messages without driving
six blocks from home. This is just awful.
Janet Rulifson
3785 El Centro
Palo Alto, CA 94306
H: 650-493 -1576
Mobile: 650-224-5402
Fax: 650-857-1046
E-mail: janet@rulifson.org
1
Campbell, Clare
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Hello Clare,
Jerry [gz7@comcast.net]
Thursday, January 06,20053:11 PM
Campbell, Clare
Cell Phone Tower
I spoke with you this mornlng and reviewed the plans for the proposed
Cingular cell phone tower on the Blockbuster property on Los Robles Ave.
off EI Camino. I own one of the townhouses across the street and I and
the other 37 townhouse families would be subjected to potential
interference with our television or home telephone reception, to the
microwave radiation emanating from these antennas, and to the eyesore of
this 40 foot pole with antennas in view and in a residential
neighborhood. This 40 ft. high structure is not in keeping with the
residential low-rise architecture of the neighborhood and worse yet, is
directly on the street and visible to anyone walking or driving in the
neighborhood. With all the commercial locations on Alma or other
locations in Palo Alto, a cell phone antenna farm is not necessary for a
residential neighborhood and does nothing to improve or enhance Barron
Park.
We request that the public hearing meeting delayed until March, but are
very concerned that this ill conceived project has reached a preliminary
approval. Clearly no consideration has been given for the neighbors that
would have to live with this nightmare, which is comparable to living
directly under an electric transmission tower.
The project is of no benefit to Palo Alto as a city nor to residential
households in particular and should be rejected altogether. Palo Alto
does not need another cell
phone tower.
Jerry Zakrzewski
4015 Villa Vista
Palo Alto, Ca
1
" , , .
Page 2:0£3
" '
I understand your legal interpretation of the FCC ruling but that does not mean that I should not be allowed adequat~ time
to understand the health effects of a 400Watt transmitter within 600 feet of my house where the transmitter will operate 24
hours a day for the rest of my life. I should also be allowed to have time to understand FCC rulings you have identified
and determine if I have any avenue of recourse with the federal government. Finally I would like time to understand the
report I read at lunch today. The engineer's report on RF Analysis had'some equations and limits I would like to verify and
understand. I was not allowed to make copied of the engineer's report. Can you send me a copy of the report? Until I can
have the time to finish these investigations I must stand with my request for a hearing related to this project.
The FCC only regulates based on what information is presented them, the regulations for the cell phone industry have
changed over time. What happens when 5 or 10 years from now people realize that there was a mistake and that all
these cellular transmitters have caused irreparable bodily harm to Palo Altans living near these transmitters? Once a
transmitter is in place, who monitors the emissions? Over time as the bandwidth of the tower must be increased will
additional antennas, power levels and frequencies be added?
If you had medical studies by the FCC or CDC on the effects on people within 600 feet of a 400 watt 1850MHz to
1990MHz G8M signal transmitter, that would help. If you had web links to the FCC pages where the physical
characteristics of RF transmissions are described and regulated that would also help. I had heard that there might be a
hearing being planned, please let me know when it will be.
Best regards,
Ed Jones
From: Campbell, Clare [mailto:clare.campbell@cityofpaloalto.org]
Sent: Monday, January 03, 2005 12:44 PM
To: Edward Jones
Subject: FW: Notice of proposed Cell Tower at 3990 El Camino Real
Hello Mr. Jones,
Thank you for your email and phone message. I understand, from your voice message, 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 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
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.
I understand that this is not the information that you want to hear, but it is the City's required position on this issue.
Based on the information that I have provided, do you still wish to have a public hearing on this project? '
3/3/2005