Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 229-05A 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 atthe . building permit phase. The complete list of the conditions of approval is in Attachment A, Section 6. ,A common issue raised pYconcerned citizens regarding telecommunications sites is that they are a potential health risk. As mandated by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (see page 2 of Att~chment I for more details) the City cannot deny a project based on potential environmental . or h~alth 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. The City's codes and regulations are in compliance with the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and any subsequent cases that have been decided pursuant to that Act. An informational report updating the City Council regarding a City telecotnmunications policy will be provided in early May. 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-ll (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 the Commission's 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 con.ditions 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 approval. . 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 (Attachments I and J). ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW This project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act per Section 15303. CMR:229:05 Page 2 of3 . . , 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 arid 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 Comprehensive 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 SECTION 5. 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 April 19, 2005, except as modified to incorporate the conditions of approval in Section 6. A copy of these plans is on file in the Department of Planning and Community Development. SECTION 6. Conditions of Approval. Planning Division 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'Avenida Avenue Mountain View CA SF610 SanAntonioHwy1 2700 Garcia Ave. Mountain View CA SF613 Pole -Parking Lot B Lot 13, Charleston & N. St 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 Congregational 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 L~ague Field -La Cresta Water Tan 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 Site Description Based upon the drawings provided by the design engineer, three proposed panel antennas will be mounted behind a FRP radome on a new monopole. The antennas' will be mounted approximately 34' -0'" (to bottom of antennas) above ground level. The antennas will be oriented such that the main lobes are oriented toward the horizon. Normal public and occupational access to the front of the antennas is not expected due to the mounting location and method utilized. RF Field Strength Calculation Methodology A generally accepted method is used to calculate the expected RF field strength. The method uses the FCC's recommended equation2 whichpredicts·field strength on a worst case basis by doubling the predicted field strength. The following equation is used to predict maximum RF field strength: Equation 1 S -(2/ PG _ PG _EIRP -------4rr R2 rr R2 rr R2 Where: S = power density P = power input to the antenna G = power gain of the antenna in the direction of interest relative to· an isotropic radiator R = distance to the center of radiation of the antenna Using a maximum effective radiated power of 400 watts, and a down tilt of 5°, the maximum calculated field strength for this site at 6'-6" above ground level in front of an antenna is 0.0058 mW/crrt. Using this result, the maximum calculated field strength at ground level is 0.58% of the applicable public limit for uncontrolled exposure . . See Table 1 for the FCC's guidelines on Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE). Note that the RF range referenced for this analysis is the range of 1500 -100,000 Mhz shown in Table 1, which is included in Appendix A. . 2 Reference Federal Communication Commission Office of Engineering Technology Bulletin 65 Cingular Site No. SF 971-01 Page 3 of7 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 nonunifonn over the body. Fields that are nonunifonn 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/uncontrolled exposure. 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 eniployment-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 hannful 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 ex.posure 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 Occup~tional/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 4.891[ (9001f)* 30-300 61.4 0.163 1.0 300-1500 fi'300 1500-100,000 5 (B) Limits for General PopulationlUncontrolled 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 fi'1500 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 ofthe 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 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COMPLIANCE 3990 EI Camino Real Attachment F The proposed telecommunications facility is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Policy B- 12 states that the City supports the development of technologically advanced communications infrastructure and other improvements that will facilitate the growth of emerging telecommunications industries. CitY of Palo Alto 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 allow 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 ofthe update. City of Palo Alto Page 6 consideration for the aesthetic goals of the proj ect. 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 espaliertraining 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 proj ect 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 D. Applicant Submittal Infonnation E. Radio Frequency Analysis for Proposed Project (submitted by applicant) F. Comprehensive Plan Compliance G. Zoning Table H. BackgroundIProject Description I. Conditional Use.Permit Approval Letter, dated December 21,2004 J. Architectural Review Approval Letter, dated December 21,2004 K. Correspondence L. Project Plans (Commissioner's Only) COURTESY COPIES: William Stephens, Applicant Toufic & Eva Jisser, Property Owners Edward Jones, Requestor of Public Hearing Prepared by: Clare Campbell, Project Planner Reviewed by: Amy French, AICP, Manager of Current Planning DepartmentlDivision Head APproval:_~:t&..e:.---f--J ..... {)d:at"-"',=· =","",<:...fu~:;::-i -=-G..:....!J::..::,," ~ ________ _ Lisa Grote, Chief Planning Official City of Palo Alto 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 46 NEW BUSINESS: Public Hearings. Planning and Transportation Commission March 9, 2005 Verbatim Minutes Excerpt Attachment J Chair Cassel: Item number one is a public hearing and it is a request by Cingular, I think the Staffwill correct that, on behalf of Toufic Jisser for a Conditional Use Permit 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. Would the Staff like to give us a report? 1. 3990 El Camino Real*: [04-CUP-ll] Request by Cingular Wireless on behalf of Toufic Jisser for a Conditional Use Permit 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. Zone District: CN. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act per section 1530l. SR Weblink: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/cityagenda/publish/planning- transportation-meetings/1 09 .pdf Ms. Clare Campbell, Planner: Thank you. Good evening Commissioners. The Use Permit before you tonight is for a telecommunications facility comprised of one 40-foot tall faux tree-pole and equipment cabinets. There will be additional landscape . improvements to the site overall as well as a new fence in the project area. At places is a photo simulation of the project for you to take a look at. The final details ofthe landscaping, fence layout and tree form will be reviewed prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. The original application was filed by Cingular Wireless and for this site there has been a recent change in ownership and it is now T-Mobile who is representing this site and they are the future carriers or service provider for the site. The applicant will explain this a little bit more in his presentation. The tree-pole will be located within the 20-foot street side setback fronting Los Robles Avenue. A design enhancement exception application requesting a setback encroachment is now under review. Staff supports the design enhancement exception to enhance the appearance of the site. The proposed tree will be integrated into the existing landscaping. With the proposed placement the tree-pole would fit better with the context of the site and would draw less attention than being a standalone tree-pole. The placement of the faux tree equipment and the new fence has been reviewed by the Transportation Division who determined that there are no safety issues. Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission recommend to the City Council to uphold the Director's Decision to approve the Conditional Use Page 1 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 Telecommunications 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 ex:ception 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 of the plans it would look as if the orientation of the 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 from the 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 operation. The ones that are in process such as this application will continue as it is. I 2 want to give this to your clerk as well, this is a letter of authorization from Cingu1ar 3 indicating the transfer of that authority to T-Mobi1e and we will set that in the record. 4 5 With that I will conclude and open this open this up for questions either of myself or Mr. 6 Hammett is there is .something I haven't addressed. 7 8 Chair Cassel: Lee, you had a question. 9 10 Commissioner Lippert: Why was this particular site selected? Why not a different 11 location? 12 13 Mr. Stevens: Well, as you know better probably than I there are limitations on any 14 candidate that can be considered within the parameters that the City sets forth within the 15 compliance of your zoning ordinance. So we are limited at looking at commercial· 16 parcels or institutional parcels but we are also driven by where there is a lack of wireless 17 coverage for the carrier. There is no coverage for this carrier at this location up and down 18 E1 Camino. I would be happy to show you a coverage map. I think there is a copy of that 19 in your package but I can certainly put it up on the display. 20 21 Commissioner Lippert: Why don't you put it up on the display and I have a follow up for 22 the City Attorney. 23 24 Chair Cassel: Can we ask him the questions? Do you want to ask it right now? 25 26 Commissioner Lippert: Okay. 27 28 Chair Cassel: Are there any other questions for Mr. Stevens? Did you have a question? 29 Go ahead, Karen. 30 31 Commissioner Holman: I was wondering why the location of this on the Los Robles site 32 as opposed to in the parking lot. The reason I question that is because that would get it 33 further away from residential. It is actually two questions. It is that we get it further 34 away from residential so the impact might be less as far as sight lines and that sqrt of 35 thing. Pretty much all the trees around that site are deciduous trees so it doesn't seem to 36 make any difference to me as far aesthetics in that regard that it would be at any 37 advantage on Los Robles as opposed to in the parking lot in front. 38 39 Mr. Stevens: I wouldn't take issue with that. We are trying to accommodate what we are 40 hearing from the City's Arborist and Staff Planner in looking at ways to minimize any 41 visual impact. Part of the reason that the site is located on that side of the building is that 42 it diminishes its visual impact certainly on EI Camino and the building itself offers visual 43 mitigation on Los Robles. I will let Mr. Hammett if you choose address the diminishing 44 aspect of the signal at 150 feet or even at 50 feet. It is negligible at 150 feet but there are 45 also concerns by the landlord and by the ongoing commercial business how it would Page 4 1 impact removal of parking spaces or other features for the other businesses as well as the 2 Blockbuster in that area. 3 4 Commissioner Holman: So if the tree itself were moved into the parking lot the 5 equipment would have to be moved with it. 6 7 Mr. Stevens: Not necessarily but there are a number of concerns there .. It requires its 8 own power sources and its own source for telecommunications. There isa T -1 line that 9. gets brought to that facility. All of that has to be considered. Where is that coming from, 10 it is coming from existing power source and phone. How far can you trench? What are 11 the other easement considerations of trying to trench utilities into that area? There are a 12 number of things that take place here. So this was looked at with the landlord as well as 13 the engineers and City Staff to find what we felt was the minimal impact site and that is 14 how we ended up on that side ofthe building. 15 16 Chair Cassel: Michael. 17 18 Commissioner Griffin: Attachment D to the Staff Report this evening is a letter dated 19 April 14, 2'004 written by Kelly Pepper and on page two in about the middle ofthe page 20 there are about six different items. Number one talks about coverage maps and about a 21 little more than halfway into that number one paragraph it says, "The purpose ofthis site 22 is to provide coverage to the San Antonio Shopping Center and the surrounding roads." 23 So my question is really a follow on to others that my colleagues have asked which is that 24 if in fact the purpose is to provide increased coverage at the San Antonio Shopping 25 Center why doesn't Cingular or T -Mobile find a location in Mountain View that is closer 26 to the San Antonio Shopping Center instead of next door to a residential complex down 27 the road in Palo Alto? 28 29 Mr. Stevens: I certainly don't want to defer your question because it is on target. 30 Cingular's existing sites and the reason they would locate in a particular place is based on 31 the other existing sites or proposed sites that they might have and they would propose a . 32 new site to enhance that network coverage. How the would have gotten to San Antonio 33 Shopping Center would be obvious to them by this proposed site. I believe you have a 34 list of existing Cingular sites in your packet. In order to cover certain areas you actually 35 have to go outside ofthose areas sometimes and broadcast in so that two sites are not 36 positioned so close to one another that they interfere with each ot~er. 37 38 Perhaps a clearer way to describe this would be something we are all familiar with in the 39 Bay Area where we have topographical issues. A site that covers an area that may be sort 40 of a canyon or a draw or limited in scope by some topographical interference can't cover 41 even though it may be a quarter of a mile or a tenth of a mile from an area that needs to 42 be covered it can't get there from there either by interference from physical elements or 43 interference of its own network sites. So there are cases where you have to back off far 44 enough from existing sites and look into the area you want to cover even though 45 conceivably there is a site that is much closer. In the case of San Antonio and I don't . Page 5 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 same because we are not operating against Cingular per say. Cingular 7 did not tum oVer all of their 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 riot 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. I just 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 of the public I do own some SBC stock. I don't 38 know whether my disclosure is sufficient. It gets very confusing for me and Ijust 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 ofthat is the height ofthe 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 ofthe 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 pr(i)perty 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 wholp.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 your presentation. 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 here is 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 and family life I 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 butjt doesn't say how the Page 8 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 of the support poles. There is a 4 picture of a 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 comer 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 offwhere 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 inthe 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 EI 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 isthat I really wish the City would take a broader look at the 44 communication needs of our community in Barron Park. Several of my neighbors 45 starting from Chimalus over to La Para Avenue and ending on EI 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 landline 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 if 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 ofthis 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 2 Commissioner Burt: Okay, so we have the power density on your list is the 1,000th, 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 of the calculation issues. Mr. Bill Hammett of Hammett 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 maximllm levels are that you were quoting Mr. Burt, 29 the maximum calculated levels are indeed 1I200th approximately ofthe standard. In n10st 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 EPA 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 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 concern that was raised about 5 maintenance oflandscaping. This Conditional Use Permit is really a permit that is 6 granted on behalf of the owner of the 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 ofthis 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 my study of this. It is getting better and better however plastic fades and the green turns 2 to bluish and so we have those conditions in place that would require them to actually 3 replace the folIage. Now, if the Commission feels like you want more assuredness of 4 that, that that can be affected years down the road, I think Staff would be open to creative 5 conditions of approval to that end. 6 7 Chair Cassel: Wait a minute, Dave. Lee, you have a question? 8 9 Commissioner Lippert: Actually I have a question for the applicant again. 10 11 Chair Cassel: Thank you, Dave. 12 13 Commissioner Lippert: I am looking at your diagram here and maybe I am naIve but 14 why not use a real tree and girdle the tree with a bracket that would hold the antenna 15 assembly and run a conduit down the tree? It would require a little more maintenance but 16 it looks as though it is feasible mechanically. 17 18 Mr. Stevens: In concept mechanically I wouldn't argue that but structurally it would 19 never hold up. It would also deflect. These antennas need to be in one place and they 20 can't be moving around in the wind. But just structurally they probably would be 21 crushed under their own weight, not the antennas they don't weigh that much, but the 22 coax that goes up inside them. But it is a great concept. 23 24 Commissioner Lippert: Thank you. 25 26 Chair Cassel: Do we have any other questions otherwise I will bring it back to us. Pat. 27 28 Commissioner Burt: I have a question for the City Attorney or perhaps Staff We heard 29 complaints about the potential that some of the existing conditions for approval of the . 30 Blockbuster site may not be getting met. Is it within our authority to condition the 31 approval of this on a compliance to the other conditions being met and conformed with? 32 33 Mr. Larkin: I believe that would be possible. 34 35 Chair Cassel: Are there any other questions? Karen. 36 37 Commissioner Holman: If Staff could just clarify something for me. Would Staffbe 38 amenable to changing the word deciduous to evergreen in the conditions of approval in 39 the description of the project? 40 41 Ms. French: I am sorry. 42 43 Commissioner Holman: It is condition of approval number two, it says, a tree shall be 44 constructed to resemble a deciduous broadleaf tree. 45 46 Ms. French: Yes it should say evergreen because of the magnolia. Page 18 1 2 Commissioner Holman: Okay, thank you. Then the other is I was a little confused by 3 something being condition number eight and condition number 11. Was the application 4 complete when it went to ARB? Itseems like these are maybe things that should have 5 been handled at ARB or maybe not but it seems like they could have been or should have 6 been as opposed to ~oming to Staff. 7 8 Ms. French: We have traditionally handled the ARB component of the cell towers as a 9 Stafflevel with the CUP being the higher level if you will. In past practice we had a 10 Director's Hearing now they are both being handled·at Staff with the option of hearings 11 at the ARB or your level for the CUP. 12 13 Commissioner Holman: Thank you for the clarification. 14 15 Chair Cassel: Bonnie. 16 17 MOTION 18 19 Vice Chair Packer: I would like to make a motion. That doesn't mean there couldn't be 20 more questions. I would move that we recommend that the City Council uphold the 21 Director of Planning and Community Environment's decision to approve the Conditional 22 Use Permit that is before us based on the findings and conditions in the Record of Land 23 . Use Action with the additional request that. Staff add another condition which would 24 require the owner of the property to ensure either through a report at a date certain over 25 the next lets say three years that the landscape requirements of this project as well as any 26 other projects associated with the property are being followed. 27 28 Chair Cassel: Do I hear a second? 29 30 Vice Chair Packer: Before it goes should I clarify that? I want to see ifmy wording is 31 correct or if Staff wants to enhance my wording. 32 33 Ms. French: One possible alternative to the wording you were working towards would be 34 to say that no building permit can be issued for the proposed proj ect in the CUP until the 35 prior approved landscaping is brought up to code. Now there may be some situations 36 associated with this application for the CUP they are replacing the landscaping that was 37 maybe dead with new landscaping. The goal though is to resolve the landscaping maybe 38 prior to completion or final. 39 40 Vice Chair Packer: Since you said it we will incorporate your words into my motion by 41 reference if there is a second. Then if we need to fine-tune it we can do that with friendly 42 amendments. 43 44 SECOND 45 46 Commissioner Burt: I will second it. Page 19 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 ~he 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 oftown. 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. Ijust think that in today's world the role of cellular phones in 26 emergency comrn.'unications 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 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 iUs more ofa .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. Staff hasn'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 roofheight 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 ofthe 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 2 Commissioner Holman: Well to move it to put it in the public right-of-way, the planter 3 strip along EI Camino as opposed to where it is currently sited along with other trees to 4 family it. 5 6 Mr. Emslie: Can I ~sk a 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 ofthe 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 of the City and that is under 17 the authority ofthe 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 c.ould 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 ifthey 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 project 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 ofthe 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 lObe 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 only 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 El Camino. We don'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 ifit 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 outofthe 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 comer 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 ofthis 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 feeiing 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 hut 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 soit 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 El 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 remind 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 ofproperty 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 ifthis 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 pn?perty itself I went around the property and I could not locate 42 that tree. So if there 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 coniplain 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 The one in Midtown the placement was discussed with the Midtown Residents 2 Association. These sites are place frequently close to housing and we usually try to 3 attempt to make them so that you, can't see them. 4 5 Commissioner Burt: I would just like to support Phyllis's comments. I think that we 6 have reviewed a lot ofthese over the years. There is almost never a circumstance where 7 everyone is happy with the location or the design ofthese. I think this had some good 8 efforts, the long overall policy issues that have been raised tonight I think are interesting 9 ones to explore. I don't know where I would end up on them but I would be interested in 10 reviewing it in the future. I think by comparison that this is a reasonable proposal. It has 11 some compromises that Staffhas recommended that seem to have been well thought out 12 and as much as we may be looking for having a variety of different notions of what might 13 occur I think that is what we are left with here is a bunch of intimations that something 14 might be better and one alternative might be better one way another alternative might be 15 better another way but I don't think we have any consensus on what alternative would be 16 ideal. I think this is a reasonable proposal and a reasonable compromise and I hope that 17 the Commission go ahead and adopt this and then with the understanding that we are 18 going to review this, not only use this as feedback for us in the future on where we should 19 go but also in the future look at some of these other policy issues t~at were raised tonight. 20 21 Chair Cassel: Bonnie. 22 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 MOTION PASSED (4-2-0-1, Commissioners Lippert and Griffin voted no with 30 Commissioner Bialson absent) 31 32 Chair Cassel: I would like to call the vote. All those in favor please say aye. (ayes) All 33 those opposed say no. (nay) Then this motion passes Commissioners Burt, Packer, 34 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.fcc.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 public health, safety, and welfare. (2) The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the . ' Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of Title 18 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. The proposed teleco:inmunications use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Policy L-13. This policy supports the development oftechnologically advanced communications iDfrastructure 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 ill 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 pmposes 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 buildilig 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 ~ 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 acces,s 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. 13. The fence shall encircle the base of the tree-pole 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 fhe 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. 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 tree form 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 shall· 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 il;lterior 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 Architectural Review Page 300 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 ofthis letter. Should you have any questions regarding this ARB action, please do not hesitate to call me at (650) 617-3191. Sincerely, ~ cQ~ 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 of the site at 3980 EI Camino Real. The most appropriate location to place an object that mimics vegetation is within 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 grov,ping. (2) The granting of the application will enhance the appearance of the site or · structure, or improve the neighborhood character of the project andpreserve 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 ,(Zoning) Cl:nd the archiiectural review findings setforth in Section J8. 76. 020(d); and The strict application ofthe setback regulationswould.create an unsightlyproject. The faux tree would not integrate with the existing landscape 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 existing and proposed additional trees in this planter would provide an appropriate setting for the · proposed faux tree. (3) The exception is related to a minor architecturalfeature or, site improvement · that will not·be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be. detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience. The proposed 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 ¢letrimental to public health, safety, and welfare. CORRESPONDANCE 3990 EI Camino Real Attachment M There were several communications received on this proj ect. fucluding phone messages and emqils, staff received communications of support for the proj ect as well as non-support. The primary reason for support of the project was the improved cell phone reception that was anticipated. The primary issue raised by non-supporters was the potential health risks of the proj ect. The written communications follow this sheet. City of Palo Alto Campbell. Clare From: Sent: To: Subject: Janet Rlllifson 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 EI 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 morhing 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 of3, I understand your legal interpretation of the FCC ruling but that does not mean that I should not be allowed adequate 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 GSM 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:c1are.campbell@cityofpaloalto.org] Sent: Monday, January 03, 2005 12:44 PM To: Edward Jones Subject: FW: Notice of proposed Cell Tower at 3990 EI 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 (bttQ:/lwww.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 ' .. ~