HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 1429City of Palo Alto (ID # 1429)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 3/21/2011
March 21, 2011 Page 1 of 6
(ID # 1429)
Council Priority: Land Use and Transportation Planning
Summary Title: CUP for wireless facility at 488 University
Title: Approval of a Conditional Use Permit and a Record of Land Use Action
Amending an Existing Conditional Use Permit to Allow the Addition of Two
Wireless Fidelity (Wi-Fi) Antennas Mounted to the Front Façade of the Hotel
President at 488 University Avenue, Staff Recommends Setting a Public Hearing
for April 4, 2011.
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the item be scheduled for public hearing on April 4, 2011, given the
extent of concerns raised by the building’s residents and others. When the Council considers
the project, the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) and staff will recommend that
the City Council uphold the Director of Planning and Community Environment’s decision, with
the additional approval conditions suggested by the PTC, to approve Conditional Use Permit
10PLN-00285, amending the existing use permit based upon the Findings and Conditions of
Approval in the ROLUA (Attachment A).
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AT&T requests approval of an amendment to their existing Conditional Use Permit to allow the
expansion of the existing wireless antenna facility at the Hotel President. Currently there are
wireless antennas and equipment cabinets located on the rooftop of the building. This project
will add two Wi-Fi antennas to the interior side of the railing of the balcony facing University
Avenue. A tentative Director’s Decision to approve the project was issued, and residents of the
Hotel President requested a public hearing on the project by the Planning and Transportation
Commission (PTC). The residents’ objections focused on potential radiofrequency (RF)
emissions and access through the residents’ apartment units. Following this testimony and
considerable discussion, the PTC recommended that Council uphold the Director’s decision to
approve the project, adding two approval conditions requiring additional emissions testing and
restricting all maintenance-related access through the apartments.
BACKGROUND
March 21, 2011 Page 2 of 6
(ID # 1429)
Conditional Use Permit Process
Section 18.77.060 of the Zoning Ordinance outlines the process for conditional use permit
review. Upon tentative action by the Planning Director, any person may request a hearing
before the PTC not later than 14 days after the decision. The Commission’s action is then placed
on a Council Consent Calendar.
The Council has three options for reviewing this project. First, it may simply approve it as a
consent calendar item. Second, it may pull it from the consent calendar, discuss it and take
action based on the evidence presented at the PTC hearing. Or third, it may pull it from the
consent calendar and set another public hearing before the Council. Pulling the item for
options 2 or 3 requires the vote of at least 3 Councilmembers. Staff recommends the third
option, as there are many residents of the building and others who are likely to want to be
heard and a separate hearing would allow for a better discussion of the issues.
Process History
On January 20, 2011, the Director of Planning and Community Environment tentatively
approved the request for an amendment to the existing Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 99-CUP-
53 to allow the expansion of the existing AT&T wireless communications facility with the
addition of two Wi-Fi antennas placed within the balcony facing University Avenue (see
Attachment C for the approval letter). Within the prescribed 14 calendar day timeframe, three
requests for a public hearing were received for the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) application.
The requests are included as Attachment G to this report.
As prescribed in Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.42.110(b)(5), an existing wireless
communication facility that is modified from the original CUP approval (e.g. size, location,
capacity, landscaping, etc.), is subject to Architectural Review and requires an amendment to
the existing use permit. In addition to the CUP amendment and Architectural Review, the
proposed project requires Historic Review because the project site, Hotel President, is
designated as a Category II Historic Resource on the City’s Historic Inventory. The Architectural
and Historic Review was conducted at staff level and was not forwarded to the review boards
due to the minor scope of the project. The request for public hearing did not include a request
for hearing by the Architectural Review Board or Historic Resources Board.
Project Description
The Hotel President is a seven story building with retail on the ground floor and 75 residential
apartments above. AT&T currently has a wireless communications facility (antennas and
equipment cabinets) located on the rooftop of the Hotel President. The project is the addition
of two Wi-Fi antennas (12” x 7.25” x 6” deep) to the interior side of the existing balcony railing,
one positioned at each end. The antennas and related wiring would be painted to match the
existing paint colors of the building. The placement of the antennas behind the balcony railing,
approximately 60’ above grade, was determined by staff to be an acceptable location to
provide the needed screening from public views and to not impact the historic character of the
balcony. For additional information please refer to the applicant’s project description
(Attachment C) and the project plans.
March 21, 2011 Page 3 of 6
(ID # 1429)
DISCUSSION
Federal Communications Commission Regulations and Ruling
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 the decisions are in writing and
supported by substantial evidence; and: (a) do not unreasonably discriminate among providers
of functionally equivalent services; (b) do not 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 (FCC)’s regulations concerning such emissions. (47 U.S.C. §
332(c)(7)).
In addition, a recent FCC ruling recognized service carriers’ need to rapidly develop and site
wireless telecommunications infrastructure and established that “reasonable period of time”
under the Telecommunications act requires action within 150 days following agency
determination that an application for a new tower is complete, or 90 days for a collocation (the
addition of a facility on a structure already hosting one or more wireless facilities). These time
periods are commonly referred to as the “shot clock” and must be followed unless extended by
mutual consent.
Staff has determined that the timelines will be met if the council takes action at the March 21
meeting. However, if the Council were to decide to schedule a new public hearing on this item,
such hearing must be held on or prior to the April 11, 2011 council meeting (unless AT&T
consents to a later date).
Conditional Use Permit Approval
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 shall 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
of this project are described in detail in Attachment A, the Record of Land Use Action.
A common issue raised by concerned citizens regarding telecommunications projects, as is the
case for this project, is the unknown or potential health risks associated with the wireless
technology. However, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 prohibits the City from denying 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 FCC regulations. Attachment D provides the project’s radio frequency (RF)
emissions analysis.
March 21, 2011 Page 4 of 6
(ID # 1429)
In an effort to keep the building’s residents informed, staff included a condition to the project
that requires AT&T to conduct annual RF emissions monitoring for three years following
installation (see Attachment A, Section 6, #4). AT&T is willing to provide this information for
the residents and the City may require it as part of the CUP approval.
Project Notification
Documentation of notifications provided for this project is attached to this report (Attachment
F). It is the City’s policy and practice to use the City’s GIST database to create mailing lists for all
public meetings. The information that is on the GIST system is based on Santa Clara County
records for the property owner information, which is updated a few times per year, and the
Utility’s customer database for the individual unit information. Notification for Council review
of the project on Consent was provided to property owners and tenants using the updated
contact list used for notification of the Planning and Transportation Commission hearing.
BOARD/COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Planning and Transportation Commission
On February 23, 2011 the PTC recommended approval (4-1) of the project in the location as
approved by the Director, with two additional approval conditions:
1.Prior to the installation of the project, applicant shall complete and provide to the
City an off-site live study for the proposed Wi-Fi antenna equipment to measure RF
emissions in all directions immediately adjacent to the device and up to two feet away, to
certify that the maximum power density does not exceed the FCC limits for exposure to the
public.
2.The applicant shall attempt, if feasible, to conduct the initial installation of the antennas
without requiring access to the residential units. For the on-going maintenance of the
equipment, the required access to that equipment shall not be accomplished through the
residential units.
Commissioner Keller cast the dissenting vote stating he believed the applicant failed to comply
with RF emission requirements and noting his concern regarding the location of the wireless
installation directly adjacent to and accessible from residential units as unique and
differentiated from previous installations within Palo Alto that do not share in these specific
circumstances. Commissioner Keller had crafted the first of the PTC’s two additional approval
conditions, which was then incorporated into the motion for approval.
There were 12 public speakers for this item at the meeting. The majority (10) of the speakers
were not in support of the project and cited concerns regarding the potential health issues the
project may cause to the residents. Residents requested that additional time be given before
any final decision is made on the project so the tenants can further research the specific
equipment that is proposed for installation. However, the applicant’s RF consultant reiterated
March 21, 2011 Page 5 of 6
(ID # 1429)
throughout the meeting that the equipment’s RF emissions fall well below the FCC limits and
residents offered no specific evidence controverting applicant’s emissions data.
Minutes from the PTC public hearing are provided as Attachment E to this report, and the PTC
staff report is available on the City’s website at:
(http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=26370).
RESOURCE IMPACT
The proposed project is not expected to have significant impacts on City revenue or expenses.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The proposed project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and staff believes there are no
other substantive policy implications. 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.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
This project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act per
Section 15301 and 15331.
COURTESY COPIES
Randy Okamura, AT&T
Owner, 488 University Avenue
Attachments:
·Attachment A: Draft Record of Land Use Action(PDF)
·Attachment B: Location Map (PDF)
·Attachment C: Project Description and Supplemental Information (PDF)
·Attachment D: Radio Frequency (RF) Report (PDF)
·Attachment E: February 23, 2011 P&TC Staff Report and Minutes (PDF)
·Attachment F: Project Notification (PDF)
·Attachment G: Correspondence including Request for CUP Hearing (PDF)
·Attachment H: Responses to Questions from Commissioner Keller (PDF)
·Attachment I: Project Plan Sets (hardcopies to Councilmembers and Libraries only)(TXT)
Prepared By:Clare Campbell, Planner
March 21, 2011 Page 6 of 6
(ID # 1429)
Department Head:Curtis Williams, Director
City Manager Approval: James Keene, City Manager
1
DRAFT
ACTION NO. 2011-xx
RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO LAND USE ACTION
FOR 488 UNIVERSITY AVENUE: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 10PLN-00285
(AT&T, APPLICANT)
On March 21, 2011, the Council upheld the Director of
Planning and Community Environment’s January 20, 2011 decision to
approve a Conditional Use Permit amendment to allow the addition of
two building-mounted wireless fidelity (Wi-Fi) antennas expanding
the existing wireless communications facility making the following
findings, determination and declarations:
SECTION 1. Background.The City Council of the City of
Palo Alto (“City Council”) finds, determines, and declares as
follows:
A.On August 12, 2010, AT&T, on behalf of University
President Associates LLC, applied for an amendment to an existing
Conditional Use Permit (99-CUP-53) and staff level Architectural
and Historic Review for the addition of two wireless fidelity (Wi-
Fi) antennas mounted to the front façade of the Hotel President
(“The Project”).Zone District: CD-C(GF)(P). Historic Designation:
Category II.
B.Following staff review, the Planning and
Transportation Commission reviewed the project on February 23, 2011
and voted [4-0]to recommend that Council uphold the Director of
Planning and Community Environment’s decision to approve the
project. The Commission’s action is contained in the CMR: xxx:11.
SECTION 2.Environmental Review. This project is
exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality
Act per Section 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines.
SECTION 3.Conditional Use Permit Findings.
1.The proposed use, at the proposed location, will not
be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the
vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety,
general welfare, or convenience, in that:
The proposed addition of two Wi-FI antennas to the existing
wireless communications facility at the Hotel President use will
not negatively impact the project site or the surrounding
properties. The project is designed and located to minimize visual
impacts from off-site views. The Federal Communications Commission
(FCC) regulations require transmitting facilities to comply with
2
Radio Frequency exposure guidelines; the limits established in the
guidelines are designed to protect the public health and safety.
The proposed use shall be conducted in accordance with all the
City’s regulations (Planning, Building, Fire, etc.) and FCC
regulations and, therefore, will not be detrimental to public
health, safety, and welfare.
2.The proposed use will be located and conducted in a
manner in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and the
purposes of Title 18 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code in that:
The proposed telecommunications use is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan Policy B-13. This policy supports the
development of technologically advanced communications
infrastructure and other improvements that will facilitate the
growth of emerging telecommunications industries. The proposed use
does not conflict with the promotion and protection of public
health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, convenience, and general
welfare.
SECTION 4.Conditional Use Permit Granted. Conditional
Use Permit No. 10PLN-00285 is granted to allow the installation of
two Wi-Fi antennas (12” x 7.25” x 6” deep) on the interior side of
the existing balcony, one positioned at each end, and one
associated equipment cabinet located on the roof.
SECTION 5.Plan Approval.
The plans submitted for Building Permit shall be in
substantial conformance with those plans prepared by HMH Design
Group titled AT&T Site Number: CNU0770, consisting of seven pages,
revision date November 30, 2010 and received December 13, 2010,
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 second page of the plans submitted for building
permit.
2.The use shall be conducted in substantial conformance with the
project plans received on December 13, 2010 and related
documents on file with the City of Palo Alto Planning Division,
except as modified by these conditions of approval.
3
3.The Conditions of Approval from the original Conditional Use
Permit (99-UP-53) remain in effect for the life of this project.
4.Prior to the installation of the project, applicant shall
complete and provide to the City an off-site live study for the
proposed WiFi antenna equipment to measure RF emissions in all
directions immediately adjacent to the device and up to two feet
away, to certify that the maximum power density does not exceed
the FCC limits for exposure to the public.
5.The applicant shall attempt, if feasible, to do the initial
installation of the antennas without requiring access to the
residential units. For the on-going maintenance of the
equipment, the required access to that equipment shall not be
accomplished through the residential units.
6.AT&T shall provide to all the building residents and City annual
RF emissions monitoring, beginning when the installation goes
“live” and every year after that for three years. This report
shall clearly state what the RF emissions are for AT&T’s
facility on the building and its compliance with the FCC
regulations.
7.The installation of the project shall in no way disturb the
existing roof tiles on the building. No wires or equipment are
allowed to run on top of the tiles and the tiles are not to be
removed to accommodate the project installation.
8.The beams and railings on the balcony shall be minimally
impacted by the installation; great care shall be taken by the
workers and equipment to avoid any unnecessary contact with this
historic character defining element of the building.
9.All elements of the project that are exposed on the University
façade shall be painted to match the existing background color.
10.An amendment to this Conditional Use Permit is required if the
facility expands in size and/or capacity.
11.Revocation or Modification of Use Permit Approval: The
director may issue a notice of noncompliance for any failure to
comply with any condition of this permit approval, or when a use
conducted pursuant to a conditional use permit is being
conducted in a manner detrimental to the public health, safety
and welfare. After due process, the Director may revoke or
modify the original conditions of approval (PAMC 18.77.110).
SECTION 7.Indemnity.
4
To the extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall indemnify
and hold harmless the City, its City Council, its officers,
employees and agents (the “indemnified parties”)from and against
any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against
the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside or
void, any permit or approval authorized hereby for the Project,
including (without limitation) reimbursing the City its actual
attorneys fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation.
The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such
action with attorneys of its own choice.
SECTION 8.Term of Approval.If the Conditional Use
Permit granted is not used within one year of the date of council
approval, it shall become null and void, pursuant to by Palo Alto
Municipal Code Section 18.77.100.
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:APPROVED:
_____________________________________________________
City Clerk Director of Planning and
Community Environment
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
___________________________
Senior Asst. City Attorney
PLANS AND DRAWINGS REFERENCED:
Those plans prepared by HMH Design Group titled AT&T Site Number:
CNU0770, consisting of seven pages, revision date November 30, 2010
and received December 13, 2010.
Page 1
Planning and Transportation Commission 1
Verbatim Minutes 2
February 23, 2011 3
4
Draft Excerpt 5
6
7
Chair Tuma: We will move onto 488 University Avenue, which is a request on behalf of 8
University President Associates, LLC and AT&T for an amendment to an existing Conditional 9
Use Permit. 10
11
Procedurally, how we will function on this item tonight is we will start with a presentation from 12
Staff. The applicant will then have up to 15 minutes to make a presentation. We will then go to 13
the public, and each member of the public will have up to three minutes to speak. Just as a 14
reminder for members of the public I will call the person who is to speak and then the person 15
who is to follow them. If the person following them could come up to the front and be prepared 16
to approach when their name is called that would be great. Also, in front of you as you are 17
standing at the podium you will have three minutes, when the yellow light goes on in front of 18
you that means that there is one minute left in your time. When the buzzer goes off if you are 19
not quite done I would ask that you wrap up the sentence that you are on so that everybody has 20
an opportunity to speak this evening. 21
22
NEW BUSINESS. 23
Public Hearing: 24
25
1. 488 University Avenue: Request by Christopher Fowler, on behalf of University 26
President Associates LLC and AT&T, for an amendment to an existing Conditional Use 27
Permit [99-CUP-53] and staff level Architectural and Historic Review for the addition of 28
two wireless fidelity (Wi-Fi) antennas mounted to the front façade of the Hotel President. 29
Zone District: CD-C(GF)(P). Historic Designation: Category II. Environmental 30
Assessment: Exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act per 31
Section 15301 and 15331. 32
33
Chair Tuma: Before we go to Staff there have been questions raised by some Commissioners as 34
to whether by being a shareholder in AT&T or by being a subscriber to AT&T whether that 35
presents any conflict of interest for any of the Commissioners. I have been informed that being a 36
subscriber certainly does not. Being a shareholder, if you were such a shareholder and you hold 37
in excess of $25,000 worth of AT&T stock then you would be required to make that disclosure. 38
So with those parameters in mind are there any Commissioners who have any disclosures that 39
they would like to make? So none on those conflicts of interest. 40
41
Additionally, if there are any members of the Commission who had contact with either the 42
public, or the applicant prior to this evening’s proceedings and wish to make disclosures to that 43
effect now would be the time to do that. I see a light from Commissioner Keller. 44
45
Page 2
Commissioner Keller: I had a brief conversation with one of the appellants, Michelle Kraus. 1
Before this came to us I was curious what the sign was outside the building she lives in, and then 2
we had a brief conversation about that. I also had a brief conversation yesterday I believe it was 3
with Randy Nakamaura of AT&T where I mentioned to him some questions that I had that were 4
going to go through Staff. 5
6
Chair Tuma: Commissioner Garber. 7
8
Commissioner Garber: Yes, I had received a call on Wednesday, February 16 from Shiyama 9
Clunie with AT&T’s Division of External Affairs regarding a project at 488 University Avenue 10
to install the Wi-Fi antenna to deliver voice and data. She stated that two tenants in the building 11
had health concerns regarding the MF transmission, that they were leasing the space from the 12
Meridian Properties and that the antenna is going to be installed on the apartment’s balcony and 13
hidden, and they intend to produce an annual report to the City and the antenna’s EMF 14
transmission intensity. I had mentioned to her that I had not received the packet yet and I did not 15
have any other comments other than those that I have reported, or I did not make any other 16
comments other than those that I reported. 17
18
Chair Tuma: Commissioner Martinez. 19
20
Commissioner Martinez: Yes. I received a voicemail from one of the two people that were 21
mentioned. I am sorry that I didn’t pay attention to the name. I returned a voicemail basically 22
leaving the same message that Commissioner Garber said, that I had not looked at the packet, 23
and I would be happy to speak with them but that never happened. So I have really nothing to 24
disclose. 25
26
Chair Tuma: Commissioner Tanaka, go ahead and ask that question of the attorney. 27
28
Commissioner Tanaka: In terms of the $25,000 limit is that directly or is that like index funds 29
and mutual funds? What if you are not sure because you have a lot of index funds? 30
31
Ms. Melissa Tronquet, Senior Deputy City Attorney: If it is something within a mutual fund that 32
does not fall within the FPPC Guidelines. It is just if it is owned individually. 33
34
Commissioner Tanaka: Great, thank you. 35
36
Chair Tuma: Finally, I received a voicemail several days ago from a member of the AT&T staff. 37
I don’t recall who it was, but I was on travel and simply did not have an opportunity to return 38
that call. They had just left a message saying that they wanted to have a conversation regarding 39
this topic but that was it. 40
41
Okay, with that Staff I believe you have a presentation for us. Before we do that I have a light 42
from Commissioner Tanaka again. 43
44
Commissioner Tanaka: I think a reporter called me. I didn’t catch the name. He called me 45
when I was driving and asked me a few questions, more procedural and why did this come to the 46
Page 3
Commission. I just mentioned that it was because someone of the public requested the meeting. 1
That was the substance of my conversation. Thank you. 2
3
Chair Tuma: Okay. Staff. 4
5
Ms. Tronquet: You have seen these sorts of projects before but we thought it would be helpful to 6
start with a legal review because this area is regulated primarily by federal law and it limits our 7
ability to really regulate at either the state or local level. 8
9
The Telecommunications Act governs your review of this particular project. Really, it imposes 10
restrictions in sort of three main areas. We have reviewed them before. They are listed in your 11
Staff Report but just briefly the Commission cannot deny a wireless telecommunications facility 12
based on concerns about RF emissions as long as the project complies with the RF emission 13
standards set by the FCC. 14
15
The second item is that local agencies do have the ability to deny these types of applications 16
based on concerns about aesthetics but any decision to deny has be based on substantial 17
evidence. Really what that means is what a reasonable person would consider adequate to 18
support a conclusion to deny. This can’t be based on generalized concerns. It really has to be 19
specific to the facts of the case. 20
21
The third main issue is that local decisions that prevent closing a significant gap in coverage also 22
violate the Telecommunications Act. Really what that means is that the Commission must 23
approve if the applicant shows that there is a significant gap in coverage. Then finally, if they 24
are filling a significant gap the project must be the least intrusive means to fill that gap. 25
26
So those are kind of the three main areas that the Commission would consider tonight in 27
determining whether to make a recommendation to approve or deny this particular application. 28
Really, you are prohibited from considering issues outside of those three areas. So I think that 29
Staff as well as the applicant are going to cover it in a little bit more detail, but we thought it 30
would just be helpful to start with those three main things. 31
32
Ms. Clare Campbell, Planner: Good evening. The project before you tonight is for an 33
amendment to an existing Conditional Use Permit to allow the expansion of the existing AT&T 34
wireless facility at the Hotel President. The project proposes to add two Wi-Fi antennas to the 35
existing balcony facing University Avenue. These two antennas, which are 12 inches by seven 36
and one-quarter inches, and six inches deep would be mounted on the inside of the balcony 37
railing and painted to match the building. In addition to the Conditional Use Permit the project 38
was also subject to Staff level architectural review and historic review. Because the building is a 39
Category II resource the project was reviewed for compliance with the Secretary of the Interior’s 40
Standards for rehabilitation and was found to meet these standards. 41
42
After the issuance of the Tentative Approval for the project Staff received several 43
communications from the Hotel President tenants who requested a public hearing. The issue that 44
was raised was concern regarding the potential health hazards the installation may have on the 45
tenants. 46
Page 4
1
Staff received questions on this item from Commissioner Keller yesterday and the applicable 2
ones are forwarded to the applicant for responses. Staff has assembled AT&T’s responses and 3
put those at places for you tonight. 4
5
This concludes Staff’s presentation. Tonight we have AT&T representatives and their radio 6
frequency consultant here to provide a detailed presentation for you. Thank you. 7
8
Chair Tuma: Before we go to the applicant I think Commissioner Keller had a question on the 9
legal standard. 10
11
Commissioner Keller: So I have two questions. First of all, I think you mentioned one of the 12
things in terms of closing the gaps in coverage. When you were referring to a significant gap in 13
coverage are you referring to a significant gap in terms of the same radio frequency band, or if a 14
different service is provided is that considered filling a gap in coverage? 15
16
Ms. Tronquet: It is any gap in the providers own coverage. 17
18
Commissioner Keller: So for example, the question that is germane to this I believe is that the 19
typical coverage is of cellular telephone coverage is usually what we are talking about. In this 20
particular case I understand that what is being put in is Wi-Fi facility, which I am not sure if 21
there is a gap in Wi-Fi coverage that is being filled or Wi-Fi coverage is new, and what I am 22
trying to understand is the distinction between what the significant gap in coverage is of. 23
24
Ms. Tronquet: I think that the applicant will explain that more. There really is a relationship 25
here between the gap in cellular coverage in terms of talking on your telephone and kind of the 26
data Wi-Fi that would cover it. I think probably the applicant is really the best person to answer 27
that question, but they are related. 28
29
Commissioner Keller: They are related, thank you. Also I assume that gap in coverage not only 30
refers to signal strength but capacity, is that true? 31
32
Ms. Tronquet: Yes. 33
34
Commissioner Keller: Thank you. The second part of that is what is the definition of “least 35
intrusive?” You used that language. 36
37
Ms. Tronquet: Basically, that is really related to the alternative sites that they have examined 38
and whether there are less, intrusive is the only word that comes to mind, but whether alternative 39
sites are available really. 40
41
Commissioner Keller: Well, what I mean is intrusive to whom? Intrusive to the public? 42
Intrusive to…? In other words, if something is very intrusive to a small number of people and 43
less intrusive to lots of people who do you weigh that as being least intrusive? I am not sure. 44
45
Page 5
Ms. Tronquet: I think we are talking about intrusive to the public. So the impact if it is an 1
historic building for example, in this case whether it affects the building, how it affects the 2
public, how it affects the service. All of those are factors that would be considered. 3
4
Commissioner Keller: Thank you. 5
6
Chair Tuma: With that we will go to the applicant. I have what appear to be two cards from the 7
applicant. Between you you will have 15 minutes. Welcome. 8
9
Ms. Shiyama Clunie, AT&T: Good evening members of the Planning Commission. Thank you 10
for having me here tonight. You did a good job of pronouncing the name. 11
12
I want to start off by thanking Staff for communicating very professionally with us over the past 13
few days and weeks, and providing a lot of procedural information, responding to phone calls, 14
etc., etc. 15
16
I am here to talk to you tonight about what we call the wireless revolution. It is something that is 17
happening clearly here in Silicon Valley but really across the United States. AT&T in seeking to 18
erect sites like the one that is before you for your consideration tonight is simply responding to 19
an indisputable demand on the part of consumers for a better wireless experience. That means 20
one with fewer dropped calls, faster data speeds, and reliability. 21
22
So why do Palo Altoans, why do all of us need more wireless infrastructure. Wireless 23
subscribership has increased dramatically over the past decade from 97.0 million subscribers in 24
June 2000 to 293 million subscribers in June 2010. In fact, more consumers adopted wireless 25
broadband between 2005 and 2008 than DSL and cable combined, and we all know how popular 26
DSL and cable have been. By 2014 worldwide mobile downloads are expected to reach the 27
equivalent of ten downloads per day for every man, woman, and child on the face of the planet. 28
So essentially consumers want broadband to the person and to the home, they want it when they 29
want, wherever they want it. More and more people are telecommuting and using their smart 30
phones to do so. They are taking conference calls while on route in their cars, of course using 31
hands free devices. They are sharing files with their coworkers and their friends, whether they 32
be pictures or video or just word documents on the go, all day long, every day. 33
34
Palo Alto as you know, and as I am sure you are very proud of, is the epicenter of technology 35
and innovation. For full disclosure reasons I should tell you that I am a produce of Palo Alto 36
whether you want to claim me or not is up to you. I grew up here. I lived here from the age of 37
six to 18, went to Gunn High School, Juana Briones, and went to preschool at Escondido in 38
Escondido Village, and until I went off to college and then came back after grad school and lived 39
here in Palo Alto as well. So I hold the city near and dear to my heart. One of the things that I 40
am proudest of is that people who live in Palo Alto tend to be very intellectually curious. They 41
tend to conduct themselves in a very forward thinking, driven manner at work. They essentially 42
want access to data and to information all of the time. So that is one of the reasons that we are 43
here tonight is to try and meet that very clear demand. 44
45
Page 6
Seven thousand of the world’s leading technology companies are headquartered in Palo Alto, 1
employing more than 95,000 people. Stanford as you know is home to more than 16,000 2
students, and I can guarantee you that less and less or fewer and fewer of those students are 3
dependent on a landline phone. Many of them simply have a wireless phone and that is how they 4
communicate with one another. Palo Altoans demand the latest in mobile broadband service and 5
wireless technology essentially and we want to meet that demand by providing a state-of-the-art 6
wireless network. Palo Alto has historically and certainly up until this point been known as a 7
very innovative city. In order to continue to have that reputation and to earn that reputation you 8
really must have a state-of-the-art wireless network. 9
10
We have identified areas in Palo Alto that could benefit from capacity improvements. We don’t 11
do this on a willy-nilly basis. Each site is chosen scientifically and carefully by engineers. It is 12
an investment on our part, and consideration is given to issues like aesthetics, existing network 13
capacity, and resident and user demand. I want to keep emphasizing the fact that resident and 14
user demand is a key part of our analysis. 15
16
Our plan for improving service in Palo Alto includes macrocells, microcells, and Wi-Fi creating 17
hot zones, what we call them, in high traffic outdoor areas like University. I actually drove along 18
University, as I do a very regular basis, to get here tonight. You just can’t pass any stretch of 19
University without seeing people on their smart phones all day long coming in and out of 20
restaurants, etc. The hot zone that you are considering approving tonight will offload data traffic 21
from our regular 3G network. That will allow more reliable mobile broadband use and voice 22
access for AT&T’s wireless customers. So the customers who would be using their wireless 23
phones for data would normally be using our 3G network, this Wi-Fi site will help reduce the 24
demand on our 36 network and offload some of that traffic, giving people a better experience 25
both using voice and data services wirelessly. 26
27
Don’t take my word for it that Palo Altoans demand this technology. In just a few days of 28
talking with visitors to our Palo Alto store on El Camino we got over 160 people who expressed 29
their support for our efforts in the city. We look forward to collaborating with you and 30
improving resident’s quality of life, access to information, and public safety. Anyone who has 31
witnessed 9/11 or the San Bruno incident, or the earthquakes around the world, or their own day-32
to-day incidents know that people rely, depend on access to first responders through cell phones 33
when they are in the middle of a crisis. We would like to allow Palo Alto to continue to further 34
and improve its image as a technology leader. Here to talk to you more specifically about our 35
application at 488 University is Paul Albritton, outside counsel for AT&T. Thank you. 36
37
Mr. Paul Albritton, AT&T Outside Counsel: Thank you Shiyama. I have four major areas I 38
want to go over with you tonight, quickly. One, you asked questions about earlier, a gap and 39
how do you identify a gap. I want to go over the alternatives that AT&T looked at, 12 40
alternatives for this particular location and why it is the least intrusive means and what that 41
means under federal law. I want to go over the details of our particular proposal that is going on 42
this facility. Then I do want to cover federal law, but your City Attorney did a good job of that, 43
and I may fill in the blanks perhaps. I understand I have a few minutes after the public speaks 44
and I may save that for that time. So let’s jump right in. 45
46
Page 7
As Shiyama just said, we have had this explosive of wireless use across the United States. You 1
probably know this it is the marriage of the cell phone and the internet that have created this 2
tremendous growth of use and all of us having our iPhones and so forth. In talking about a gap I 3
have provided some additional information for you this evening. This is a different gap than you 4
are usually used to. This is a capacity gap. Capacity gaps have been recognized under federal 5
law as equivalent to a gap in coverage in terms of a carrier’s ability to provide service. I cited a 6
case in my letter, which I hope you received. It is Sprint versus Mt. Vernon, a 2005 case that 7
confirmed this capacity gap. Then I myself have had litigation against the City of Berkeley with 8
respect to capacity gaps. It is a known situation. Because what happens of course is each cell 9
site, the miracle of cellular technology is that we used to have mobile phones back in the early 10
1980s but there were only 85 of them in the Bay Area and you had to be a really important guy 11
to have one. The miracle was that we were able to separate the frequencies, reuse the same 12
frequencies, this expensive real estate that the federal government sells, over and over again by 13
creating these cells. Then a call transfers from cell to cell. 14
15
When the cell reaches capacity a couple of things start to happen. It looks to the phones that are 16
closest to it and so it begins to shrink, and the coverage area of the cell will actually shrink and 17
will lead to dropped calls between cells. You are familiar with dropped calls. It will also limit 18
accessibility that is the ability to actually get on the network. So you get a fast busy you don’t 19
get onto the network. In addition it leads to slow data speeds. So capacity gaps are a real 20
problem obviously. As people use their phones more and more the cell sites have gotten smaller 21
and smaller. The normal thing you would do in this situation with a capacity gap is you would 22
split the cell. You would put in a new cell. This is a unique situation in that the capacity gap 23
here is being experienced on the north sectors of the existing facility at 488 University. Our 24
engineers have determined that the real demand is coming right off of University Avenue right 25
there. It is not really affecting the northern sites in Menlo Park that are a mile away and looking 26
south, but really this particular facility. So they came up with a unique idea of how to offload 27
this capacity, and it is to use Wi-Fi, simple Wi-Fi antennas and actually simple Wi-Fi nodes. We 28
actually have the node that would go up on the hotel with us tonight. Chris can bring it up. The 29
node itself, this is it. That’s it. This is actually not an antenna. They are actually little four or 30
five inch antennas within the box itself. Otherwise it is the same kind of Wi-Fi access node that 31
you might see or might have in Starbuck’s or an Apple Computer Store. It is a three-watt unit. 32
If you are familiar with cellular technology you know that a major cell site, Americo cell site is 33
quite a bit more in terms of frequency. 34
35
So I provided to you a handout as I mentioned. This handout this evening shows the capacity of 36
or the minutes of use, or the usage of this particular cell site at 488 University over the last year 37
from January 2010 up to January 2011. You can see that the capacity, the minutes of use, are 38
increasing by about 300 percent a year. The AT&T engineers figure that somewhere in the 39
middle of 2012 this site will reach its capacity. For an engineer for a site to reach its capacity is 40
the death star. That means that the network is not working for all those reasons I just told you. 41
One way of offloading the capacity, as I mentioned, is to use a Wi-Fi. Any of these phones, if 42
you are using them, you can be using data or voice on the 3G network, on the regular cellular 43
network. If you go into a Wi-Fi area the phone switches over to Wi-Fi and it starts running the 44
data capacity on the Wi-Fi network. So by alleviating the data drain on University Avenue this 45
allows the 488 University site to continue to cover the square mile that it covers with voice and 46
Page 8
data in the capacity that it is supposed to. This is how the two technologies are related. This is 1
2.4, 5.8 Wi-Fi, the same sort of thing you have in your house, as I mentioned. 2
3
So the AT&T engineers decided this would be a very low impact way of solving the capacity 4
problem without building a new site. They looked, where can we put these antennas that would 5
make the most sense. If you have been to University Avenue and looked up at the expanse that 6
we are trying to cover, and there is a graphic in my letter, which shows you the area that we are 7
trying to cover along University Avenue. If you look up there is one place that has a beautiful 8
panoramic view of University Avenue and it is this balcony on 488 University Avenue. It is high 9
enough and it looks north and south, and provides the adequate coverage. It also happens to 10
have the AT&T cell site there and the high-speed fiber optic network going to that location. 11
AT&T did look around, provided you an alternatives analysis with 12 different locations. I will 12
summarize by saying most of them are too far off of University Avenue, or are not high enough, 13
or do not have the architectural feature that allows us to hide the antennas as we are doing in this 14
particular location so that they are absolutely invisible. I am happy to go through all 12 of the 15
alternatives with you if you wish, but that was the conclusion of the review that was done. 16
17
On the building itself they looked at putting the antennas on the roof where the antennas are 18
currently located. If you have been on the roof, which I have, you look down at University 19
Avenue and there is this beautiful Spanish tile awning, which will block the signal. This is line 20
of sight technology because these are very low wattage and it is like a flashlight, you have to 21
have direct line of sight technology in order to reach the cell phone. So it would block the 22
signal. So we couldn’t put the antennas on the roof. The original proposal was to put the 23
antennas underneath the balcony in order to reach the street. The Planning Department working 24
with us thought that that was too much of a visual effect on this historic structure, so 25
recommended that the antennas go right inside the railing. If you look at the plans there is a 26
small strut that is going from the inside corner of the railing, this will be mounted onto that, and 27
then this to give you an idea of how low the wattage is on this. It is fed by an Ethernet cable, a 28
CAT 5 cable. The CAT 5 cable goes up through the railing and up and underneath the roof, and 29
up to a radio on the – it is not really a radio it is an access point on the roof. It is just a small box 30
about the size of a footlocker that will run this equipment. So this is a very elegant, low 31
powered, small solution to the capacity problem that AT&T is suffering with this particular site. 32
Low impact to the community. We have covered the gap. We have covered the alternatives, and 33
I could go through those more individually if you wish. The details of the design I have 34
reviewed with you. 35
36
So I will quickly go onto the federal law with the few minutes remaining to me, and tell you as 37
you know that you cannot regulate based on the effects of radio frequency emissions. Is that the 38
end of my time or do I have 30 seconds? 39
40
Chair Tuma: You will have three minutes, as you indicated, at the end. If you have a thought or 41
two you want to wrap up now that is fine, but you will have three minutes after the public 42
speaks. 43
44
Mr. Albritton: I just want to quickly answer that question of what least intrusive means. Least 45
intrusive means based on the values expressed in your code and general plan. We found the least 46
Page 9
intrusive site based on the requirements, the preference for collocation, the preferences for 1
antennas located on existing structures, but it is based on the values expressed in your code. So 2
it doesn’t relate to some of the other generic concepts of least intrusive. I can touch on that in 3
my follow up. Thank you very much, be happy to answer any questions you have subsequently. 4
5
Chair Tuma: Thank you. Commissioner Keller has one question for our last speaker. 6
7
Commissioner Keller: I understood from your discussion that there is a cell site at 488 8
University Avenue that sort of covers an area around it as far away as Menlo Park. 9
10
Mr. Albritton: Yes. Each cell site covers about half a mile. The sites in Menlo Park would also 11
cover half a mile, and then you have a crossover in between. 12
13
Commissioner Keller: So what I am wondering is how define the coverage gap as being from 14
Waverley to Webster versus the coverage gap being from say High to Cowper. How do you 15
define where the coverage gap is? I would assume that there is not a disproportional amount of 16
people using Wi-Fi east of Waverley in comparison to the people who are using it at the 17
University Coffee Café across from Waverley or any of the other restaurants on the other side of 18
Waverley. So I am wondering why Webster, because I don’t know of too many restaurants in 19
that area. So perhaps you can elucidate this. 20
21
Mr. Albritton: Sure. Capacity gaps are different than coverage gaps. Capacity gaps we 22
generally show by the, as I mentioned, problems with accessibility and dropped calls, and we 23
have had customer complaints with respect to the service. We have 160 cards of people who say 24
they want better service. Then what we are trying to do is show a significant gap that we are 25
going to fill. 26
27
So the AT&T engineers looking at the north sector felt that offloading the phones that are closest 28
to this site in the north sector is going to have their biggest bang for their buck for the capacity 29
issue. Then we projected what we would be able to cover with the Wi-Fi and that essentially is 30
where we are getting the marriage of the gap that we want to fill with the gap that we identify as 31
our coverage gap. 32
33
The problem with showing it graphically is that coverage gaps just don’t show up graphically. 34
You have a cell site that has calls and data coming from all sorts of sources but they are not 35
identified – the switch can’t identify exactly where they are in terms of where your capacity gap 36
is. 37
38
Commissioner Keller: I understand. 39
40
Mr. Albritton: So this is the best thinking of the AT&T RF engineers in trying to resolve this 41
capacity problem. That is where we came up with the location, and that came from the 42
engineers, the actual location. So your point is well taken. The actually propagation from the 43
Wi-Fi is not going to end in those nice little lines. 44
45
Page 10
Commissioner Keller: So just quickly, if you picked the tall building at the corner of Ramona 1
and University for example. 2
3
Mr. Albritton: Is that 428 University? Is that right? 4
5
Commissioner Keller: No, I am talking about Ramona and University where there is a Spanish 6
style building further that is outside of this region, but it still covers a significant part of 7
University Avenue probably with more foot traffic than the part that is east of Waverley. To 8
what extent would that off load your network or not? I am sort of trying to understand what is 9
special about east of Waverley versus west of Waverley. 10
11
Mr. Albritton: Well, other than what I have described to you regarding the location of the north-12
facing sectors that AT&T based its information on, and the fact that they need to have adequate 13
height. Do you know the address of what we are talking about? I don’t know the exact height of 14
the building that you are talking about, but something that provides the appropriate height. The 15
other thing that we have noted in our alternatives analysis is there is high-speed fiber optic 16
coming, there is quite a bit of fiber optic coming into the location where the current AT&T 17
facility is located and that was a factor that also encouraged them to use this particular facility. I 18
apologize, I don’ know exactly the building you are talking about. 19
20
Commissioner Keller: Well, I appreciate that but perhaps some of the public may wish to weigh 21
in, but the building I am identifying is actually a few doors down from the Palo Alto Internet 22
Exchange, which at one point in time, 15 years ago, had a quarter of the world’s internet traffic 23
running through it. So I am sure there is plenty of fiber optic running to there. 24
25
Mr. Albritton: Fair enough. There is an AT&T site at the Westin across the train tracks. There 26
are the other two sites to the northeast and northwest in Menlo Park. So the proximity to the 27
Westin may be a reason. They did look at potentially putting – we have a reference to the 28
antennas in Westin here but those are too far away in order to provide the line of sight 29
technology of where we want to go. 30
31
Commissioner Keller: I appreciate that. I think I understand your description and maybe we 32
should go on. Thank you. 33
34
Mr. Albritton: Okay, appreciate your input. The last point on least intrusive means I have to say 35
is that the federal court says that you don’t have to show that this is the only site where 36
something can go, but that it is no less intrusive – less intrusive based on the values expressed in 37
the code than any other location that would be selected. Their example was that you don’t have 38
to go to every telephone pole and explain why each pole wouldn’t work if one pole is going to be 39
no less intrusive than any other. I hope that partly answers your question. 40
41
Commissioner Keller: Thank you. 42
43
Chair Tuma: I have a question for you before you leave, which is a procedural one. I was given 44
an additional card that was marked ‘applicant’ that has the name Bill Hammett on it. Is that 45
someone who is with your group, and is that person going to speak? 46
Page 11
1
Mr. Albritton: He is, and Bill Hammett is the Radio Frequency Engineer who prepared the RF 2
Emission Reports, and supplement report that you have in your packet. Bill has written the book 3
on this topic and is extremely well experienced in the area. As I mentioned, he is the one who 4
explains that the EMF on the balcony will be 200 times below the federal standard. He can tell 5
you all about how the standard was created and everything there is about the safety of the 6
facility. I don’t know if he is speaking. I think he put his card in there in case you have 7
questions for him. 8
9
Chair Tuma: Thanks. We will now go to the public. Just to remind members of the public you 10
have three minutes. When the yellow light comes on that means you are down to one. Our first 11
speaker will be TJ Loebbaka followed Farah Ansari. 12
13
Mr. TJ Loebbaka, Palo Alto: Just to address the committee, I actually came to speak about the 14
medical condition that my wife has. She has a medical neurostimulator implanted in her brain, 15
and she is going to potentially be getting about four more of those. So I have a keen interest in 16
finding out what type of electromagnetic interference is in my building. I actually live at 488 17
University. That is the original reason why I came to speak with you tonight. 18
19
But in lieu of their presentation it gave me a couple of additional talking points, which I think I 20
would like to address. In the documents included in the letters sent to the Planning Commission 21
one of the things the folks here at AT&T said that the new AT&T antenna would not be 22
accessible to the general public, and so no mitigation measures are necessary to comply with the 23
FCC Public Exposure Guidelines, which I think were the guidelines that were established in 24
1996. Correct me if I am wrong. So it says that they don’t have to comply with those guidelines 25
because it isn’t in the public spectrum, if I am not mistaken. So doesn’t that throw out the 1996 26
guidelines? So to me it doesn’t make sense that they could stand behind that and say well, we 27
have to comply with these guidelines and City of Palo Alto you have to allow us to do this 28
because of the 1996 guidelines. It says that they are far above and beyond, that they are in a 29
spectrum that isn’t monitored, isn’t controlled by the FCC. Interesting. 30
31
One of the other things that I also noted about this particular installation is they say it is supposed 32
to somehow solve all the future problems of the data connectivity here in Palo Alto. It is the end 33
all, be all. It is the savior of all data here in Palo Alto and beyond as they basically put it. It 34
seems that it would only really benefit their customers. I think this is to fix the iPhone 4 35
connectivity problems where you can use the camera to have a video conference with somebody 36
else on another iPhone 4. It seems to be that it doesn’t really solve any other gaps in 37
connectivity unless it is on their network. It seems to be an AT&T specific problem. 38
39
Additionally, I don’t think they care about the effects of the people living in that building like my 40
wife. If my wife comes in contact with any of that equipment she could actually have a seizure 41
or a brain hemorrhage based upon the stimulator that is implanted in her head. She can’t even 42
use a cell phone because it makes her have slurred speech. So I have a lot of concerns about the 43
health and well-being of my wife. I brought the guidelines and warnings from the Medtronic 44
website specifically about my wife’s condition and the thing that is implanted in her head if the 45
committee would like to take a look at it and see that there are true medical challenges with these 46
Page 12
types of installations and antennas, specifically at 488 University. We gravely have concerns 1
about this. 2
3
In addition to that, thank you. 4
5
Chair Tuma: You can go ahead and wrap up if you have one thought. 6
7
Mr. Loebbaka: I was going to say there are a lot of things I can say. There are a lot of roads we 8
can go down. It is interesting that they brought the RF technician or RF engineer when this 9
strictly a network issue. What does an RF guy who deals with antennas and installations and 10
stuff have to do with network? Why didn’t they bring us a network engineer to talk about the 11
capacity problems and how it would benefit their capacity? Why did they bring a guy 12
specifically dealing with RF technology and antennas? 13
14
Chair Tuma: Thank you. Farah Ansari followed by Michelle Kraus. 15
16
Ms. Farah Ansari, Palo Alto: Hi. Basically I am up here to speak about my health concerns as 17
well. I recently moved here from Los Angeles. I love the place. I love everything, the people, 18
everything. If I had known that there was a cell tower, and also if there were going to be 19
proposed Wi-Fi installations on my floor I probably would not have leased an apartment. 20
21
At the age of 13 I had a partially malignant tumor. At the age of 22 I also had cystic fluid in my 22
throat that had to be aspirated three times. So for me the health concern, whether or not anything 23
there is evidence, or anything that is a concern for me. That is basically it. Thanks. 24
25
Chair Tuma: Thank you. Michelle Kraus followed by Jeffrey Jones. 26
27
Ms. Michelle Kraus, Palo Alto: Hi. Thank you for taking the time. You know I came here for a 28
dream too that technology would make life better and not harm people. All of this is a bit 29
confusing because the future of Palo Alto is in-fill development. I look to the Council and the 30
Commission to be more of a leadership role going forward. We are going to have these 31
challenges but it is completely audacious that a commercial entity has been approved and 32
authorized. It is not the landlord’s problem. He is just in the business of making money. He is 33
operating under your guidelines. This may fall out of the purview of 1996 FCC Guidelines that 34
many of my buddies worked on. It is 15 years old. These technologies didn’t even exist. I have 35
a PhD from Carnegie Mellon. I am a long-term friend of Arthur Keller’s who is a PhD from 36
Stanford. It is completely audacious that when I go to Whole Foods I have to get into hand-to-37
hand combat to get a paper bag. Palo Alto has been a leader in clean technologies. Please come 38
forward be a leader for us here. 39
40
You know, least obtrusive is offensive. I will look out my window and I will see this unit. 41
Maybe the people from the street won’t see it, but I will. I live there. It is my sanctuary. I will 42
see this unit over and over and over again. 43
44
Now, one more time, we do not need to be a foil for the PR loss of AT&T’s lines and iPhone, 45
and smart phone arena. There is a little smelliness of the timing. One more time, it is not the 46
Page 13
building owner’s fault. His job is to make money. Frankly, if all the promises come true, 1
because there is more there that the others will talk about this could be a major notch in the 2
backbone of the new cellular intranet backbone for this area. He won’t have to deal with tenants, 3
they are pesky anyway. Please, stand up for rental residents. Do not make this class warfare. 4
This is the future of Palo Alto. I beg you to take a moment, step back, and think about how this 5
sounds and how this has been handled. It is not the Staff, but we need leadership. I ask you to 6
stand up and set standards and take a major role going forward. Otherwise, all is lost. Why am I 7
here? By the way, this is the second implementation. The first is in Times Square. Are we 8
Times Square? There are no residents that live in Times Square. Thank you. 9
10
Chair Tuma: Thank you. Jeffrey Jones followed by Mary Riordan. 11
12
Mr. Jeffrey Jones, Palo Alto: I want to thank the Planning Commission and Staff for their time 13
this evening. I currently live on the sixth floor. I currently live in Palo Alto. I currently live on 14
University Avenue. I am directly impacted by this project. I live right outside where it would 15
be. In order to install, upgrade, and more importantly maintain this project they are going to 16
have to use my apartment. So I am directly impacted by that. 17
18
I am stunned that this proposal seems to give permission to our friends at AT&T to enter our 19
homes three, five, eight, some unknown times per year to install, upgrade, maintain this device. 20
Additionally, I am further shocked that this entry into our apartments, and mine in particular, is 21
to support a commercial service that doesn’t benefit any of the residents in the building. 22
23
Other than their word that the equipment and service are reliable, AT&T has offered up no proof 24
of the reliability or maintenance, and this is after questioning Staff and looking at the project 25
requirements. As an iPhone user I have direct experience every day of AT&T’s lousy reliability. 26
So given this experience I would like to see a bit of proof. 27
28
Now, final words. Given the impact of this project on us, the residents of the President, and the 29
lack of consideration on the impact of us, I would like to ask the Commission for 90 days to at 30
our own cost have our experts look at, our own engineers review the plans and scope of this 31
project, especially around the capacity gap that was talked about, especially around the 32
reasonableness of entry and service and maintenance. I want to thank you all for your time this 33
evening. 34
35
Chair Tuma: Thank you. Mary Riordan followed by Haim Kedar. 36
37
Ms. Mary Riordan, Palo Alto: Hi, good evening. Commissioner Keller, I appreciate your 38
question regarding least intrusive means. I have lived in the President since 2004. It is my 39
home. I love it there. Where I live is on the end of that balcony. Like Michelle I am going to be 40
looking at this every day. To me least intrusive, it is hard when I hear from a lawyer that you 41
have federal guidelines and then there are more generic terms. Those generic terms are my life. 42
Those people are going to be outside my window installing this, maintaining this. We asked two 43
days ago what this would entail. We were told one to two days installation. Okay, do we know 44
about maintenance? We were told three days per year. The reality is there is only one device 45
that has been installed in the US in Times Square, and it was installed in November. So there is 46
Page 14
no meaningful history with this device to tell us yes, there is only going to be someone outside 1
your apartment three times a year to service this. 2
3
The other issue I have is I already have a wireless connection. Mr. Hammett, when I spoke with 4
him at the meeting the other night, informed me that it is quite possible that this antenna will 5
interrupt the wireless connection that I already use. So I am wondering how is it okay that a 6
corporation can come in, invade my privacy, and interrupt my own life and my own means that I 7
am using to get by at this point. I am just wondering how the means of a company are exceeding 8
those of regular individuals. I live in generic terms. Thank you. 9
10
Chair Tuma: Thank you. Haim Kedar followed by Iqbal Serang. 11
12
Mr. Haim Kedar, Palo Alto: Hi. I came to Palo Alto from Israel in 1995 and lived here ever 13
since. Before me, Mr. Rubenstein, an Israeli law professor, and later served as a Cabinet 14
Member for several Israeli Administrations visited here and extolled the virtues of Palo Alto, 15
crowning it the model city to the world. However today there are better cities in the union, cities 16
that serve and protect the residents by imposing common sense restrictions to the location of 17
controversial cell towers, and the associated harmful electromagnetic radiation, EMR. As of 18
today, this common sense is absent in the City of Palo Alto. To the tenants bewilderment this 19
tower turned into an encroaching project. Now we are asked to increase the injury by allowing 20
closer and more encompassing antennas radiating just outside of our windows. An added insult 21
to the greater injury is the fact that this antenna is to be mounted on our private and narrow 22
balcony, accessible only through our homes. Did I say homes? These studio units are mere 23
bedrooms, private to us. Now we are required to grant access to perfect strangers in no time or 24
right of refusal so that a corporation, which we have no part of, can make money selling its 25
services to the public at large. So what is next we ponder? What is the scope of this project? 26
We do not know. Why is it that Google provided free Wi-Fi to Mountain View and asked for 27
private host only, and only when public light posts were not available? All of Castro Avenue is 28
serviced by six lampposts. It is very similar to University Avenue. So before we even 29
contemplate moving forward we require more time to research this subject, especially alternative 30
and successful implementations. 31
32
I opened my piece on historical notes, so let me close this on an historical note from better times 33
when America had a can do attitude, not can do to you attitude. Houston, Tranquility Base here. 34
The Eagle has landed. So if we landed on the moon two scores ago then you must assuredly find 35
a better solution to this problem. Commission Members, make Palo Alto great again. Make us 36
proud. Thank you. 37
38
Chair Tuma: Thank you. Iqbal Serang followed by Christopher Fowler. 39
40
Mr. Iqbal Serang, Palo Alto: Good evening. I also live at 488 University. In fact, I conduct my 41
business, I am an architect, and I have an office on the roof of this building. Low and behold I 42
was not considered important enough to be notified by the applicant because I am not facing 43
University Avenue. I find that quite arbitrary and perhaps consequential as well. I live there 44
with my family and a seven-year-old girl on the fifth floor. I am concern. 45
46
Page 15
I am concerned with all sorts of bombardment of electronic waves and so on that we have. The 1
fact is that this is an amendment to an existing Conditional Permit, which we are not aware of 2
exactly what those conditions are. Being in that office at least twice a week there are 3
maintenance crews coming up there to fix things or to change things and replace things. Hardly 4
anybody knows what actually goes on in that respect, but easily twice a week there are people 5
coming up there to do things. Since this is an addendum to this existing Conditional Permit the 6
permit is a cell tower. The cell tower has a sign, which I borrowed from the roof that basically 7
says, notice: beyond this point you are entering an area where RF emissions may exceed the 8
FCC general population exposure limits. This is what we have to deal with every day because 9
the roof has a roof garden for our usage. Every individual living there has to think twice about 10
going up there and using this space. Again, this notification is only for half the building. I find 11
that as flaw. I find that a problem in how this has been approached. 12
13
I am looking to you the Commissioners again as mentioned earlier that we need leadership. I 14
don’t believe this type of product has been put on residential towers or residential homes ever 15
before. That is why the question comes up, how come the cell tower exists on a residential 16
building? There is a 15-story building kitty-corner from us. There are supposedly 12 different 17
locations they checked and this is supposedly the perfect place. If this is the perfect place 18
because of this height there are two other buildings across from us, which are commercial 19
buildings. We would appreciate if that would be followed through a little bit as well. We just 20
want more time to address this. Thank you very much. 21
22
Chair Tuma: Thank you. I noticed that Mr. Fowler is a member of the applicant’s team. So we 23
will continue and our next speaker is Stacey Lynne Harger followed by Sheldon Dean. 24
25
Ms. Stacey Lynne Harger, Palo Alto: Hi. Thank you for having this forum. I too live at 488 26
University Avenue. As far as the Wi-Fi you are speaking about two people. Three? I don’t 27
know the exact number, but still one individual is just as important as the group. Without an 28
individual you would not have a group. 29
30
These are areas of living that are relatively small compared to the average place that somebody 31
lives, hence, the feeling of invasion of privacy that will happen. Your bathroom is right next to 32
the front door. The square footage on one of those, and I know that others, is 325 square feet, as 33
large as 2,500 square feet. Again, our homes are a place of sanctuary and privacy intentionally 34
for us to be there so that we have refuge from the rest of the world to recoup, to rest, to 35
recuperate. To have something that symbolizes public access for one does affect you physically, 36
mentally, and if you don’t mind, spiritually. 37
38
We are not here to try and make AT&T fail. We want the best for their workers as well. 39
Everybody wants a job. We all have families to support. So this is not about trying to hurt other 40
people. So we wish that we would also be considered in that in our day-to-day living. We also 41
are not disputing that there is a huge use in cell phone use and technologies coming up. In the 42
first half we spent lots of time, or time on your speech. We don’t disagree with that. That is not 43
the point. We are also at a cutting edge, now that technology has become more mainstream, of 44
now seeing where does that fit with the human being, and where do we cross the line on crossing 45
the line of having technology along with the human being of living. That is where Palo Alto is 46
Page 16
now making a cutting edge stand to the world. We are one of the most popular cities in the 1
world. How our decisions are based on the human being factor will also be looked at by many 2
other people. So I do hope at the very least that there is more time for this to be discussed not 3
just for the current residents but those in the future we are establishing something important for 4
them as well. Thank you. 5
6
Chair Tuma: Thank you. Sheldon Dean followed by Leon Branchman. 7
8
Mr. Sheldon Dean, Palo Alto: Good evening. I too thank you for this opportunity to attempt to 9
do something about what I just recently learned about in the little time that I have had since this 10
has come to my attention. I have learned a lot. I am a personal trainer, health professional. I 11
know a lot about the human body. I am not as tech savvy as the AT&T representatives here, but 12
in the course of the last two days what I have learned is fairly alarming. As soon as I learned that 13
of course that it was going to literally and immediately impact me and several people who live 14
on the sixth floor. 15
16
There are no degrees of separation at the Hotel President. These are shoebox apartments that we 17
paid premium prices for because we all love it there. It is an historical landmark. It is a beautiful 18
view. I lived at the Hotel President I think over ten years. I am not here to point fingers at Chris. 19
If I owned that building, and if I was not privy to what I have learned within the last two days, I 20
would take a check from AT&T too, gladly. If I genuinely believed that there was no harm to 21
come of it, and it didn’t alter in any way adulterate the aesthetic of the President, which we again 22
we love. I decided some time ago, before ten years, before I moved there, I said I am never 23
taking another apartment. I can ill afford a house, but I saw that President with its characteristic 24
and Spanish inflection and I just immediately fell in love with it now ten years. I would hate to 25
leave it as a result of this. These things are going directly out my window where I sit for hours a 26
day. I have a home office. Jeffrey does, several people do. Literally they are spending all day in 27
that building with nothing separating them from this device, which we really honestly know very 28
little about, other than a pane of glass, which during the summer months we open. They talk 29
about maybe four feet that’s fine. Let’s talk about degrees of separation and what is really 30
acceptable. Palo Alto being the hub. The radio was invented not too far away from here. I 31
could throw a stone where this historic landmark is. This is Wi-Fi technology that honestly we 32
really don’t know enough about. Every cell phone provider is trying to upstage each other with 33
amplification and coverage. Ms. Clunie paints an idyllic picture about this utopian society where 34
everybody has access children are born with cell phones now. What I have learned, and 35
unfortunately I don’t have the time to go into all the research that I have learned, now I can 36
provide that if any of you are interested in it, and this is not tin hat conspiracy theory. It was just 37
in the Los Angeles Times this week evidence, sound evidence, inducing sincere concerns about 38
just cell phones themselves and what comparatively less microwave energy emit from them and 39
excitotoxicity within the brain. She is with child. I invite here to really think honestly and hard 40
as to whether or not she would want to live in one of these apartments. Right? 41
42
I talked with one of these techs. I was in Japan on a meditation retreat. I came back, a crane had 43
installed heavy equipment directly above my building. Iqbal informed me, hey you missed the 44
scene. They just put huge machines atop your apartment building. I investigated that. I talked 45
with a tech. One says it is nothing more than a hairdryer. Then they augment it with additional 46
Page 17
equipment, right? I felt fairly comfortable that it was safe. I talked to another tech and he 1
confesses off the record he said, I was on one of these sites and the thing cycled, I got second-2
degree burns. I am looking for another job. Okay? So I beg you please, this woman induced 3
what I perceived as a gentle threat in that federal law applies here. I imagine that may concern 4
you all, but if there is any way with which – I don’t even want more time to assess this. The fact 5
remains that it does not belong on a residential structure. Thank you. 6
7
Chair Tuma: Thank you. Leon Branchman followed by Angela Rickford. 8
9
Mr. Leon Branchman, Joint Ventures Silicon Valley: My name is Leon Beachman, and I am 10
with Joint Ventures Silicon Valley. I am here to speak in favor of your Staff’s approval of the 11
application. Joint Ventures Silicon Valley is working with cities and communities, community 12
organizations to try to improve the infrastructure for wireless here in the region. In fact, about 13
five years ago Joint Venture along with some other community organizations took a look at the 14
infrastructure here in Silicon Valley, and the conclusion was that we did not have a world-class 15
infrastructure to support our wireless calls and use of the internet. So we have been working 16
with cities like Palo Alto and San Jose to come up with solutions to best implement wireless 17
technology here. There are a lot of regulations within the cities that we believe inhibit the 18
deployment of the technology. So we would like to work with the cities to see what we can 19
come up with to facilitate the deployment of the technology. 20
21
In addition to that what we would like to do is work with communities to come up with ways to 22
make sure the community understands what is going on with the deployment of the technology. 23
We believe that in working with the community if we spend more time explaining what the 24
technology is, having them understand up front what the technology is about, maybe that would 25
facilitate a lot of the deployment and allay some of their concerns. 26
27
Another thing we would like to do is to hopefully create a more balanced conversation about the 28
technology itself. Often what happens in meetings like this is you have a group of people who 29
will come out who legitimately express their concerns, but there are a lot of people who are not 30
here who also would like to have better coverage as far as their communications are concerned. 31
What we would like to do is to have that balanced conversation so the decisions that you make 32
really take advantage of everyone’s input around this particular issue. 33
34
In addition to that what we are letting people know, some of you may know that the President 35
was here last week. A lot of people were wondering why the President was here. I have it from 36
the source that he was here to figure out why isn’t wireless coverage better in Palo Alto than it is. 37
What that is really pointing towards I believe is the fact that the President has come out and said 38
that our country having a first class wireless infrastructure is key to the strategic competitiveness 39
of this country. What he knows for a fact is for instance there are 2.1 billion phones in Israel 40
alone, 2.1 billion. As more of those folks embrace the technology it will become a competitive 41
advantage for them. So what we are doing is working to make sure that this region along with 42
the rest of the country really does the right thing in building this infrastructure so we can 43
compete moving forward with other people in the rest of the world, as this kind of infrastructure 44
will be the infrastructure for the 21st century. Thank you very much. 45
46
Page 18
Chair Tuma: Thank you. Angela Rickford followed by our last member of the public that I have 1
a card for, Herb Borock. 2
3
Ms. Angela E. Rickford, Palo Alto: Good evening. Thank you for allowing me to voice my 4
opinion here this evening. I would like to make four points, please. My husband and I are long-5
standing residents of Palo Alto. We have lived here for decades, and like Commissioner Keller I 6
also hold a PhD from Stanford. I have a vested interest therefore in upholding the highest 7
standards in our environment in terms of health, property values, service to residents, aesthetics, 8
and so on. A significant number of Palo Alto residents and Stanford residents, faculty, staff, 9
students would benefit directly from the AT&T installation. The incidents of dropped calls on 10
University Avenue and around is absolutely untenable. The prospect of improvement in this 11
regard would be more than welcome by us all. Thirdly, cell phone communication that is quick, 12
effective, reliable, and sustainable is essential for the safety and well being of our residents in 13
general, but especially in times of emergencies such as earthquakes and other natural and 14
national disasters. Witness for example the effectiveness of cell phone use in saving lives in the 15
current New Zealand earthquake as trapped individuals are able to indicate their location and 16
condition, and communicate on an ongoing basis with people above ground who could actually 17
give hope to those who are trapped under buildings and so on. 18
19
So I would like to urge the Commission to separate fact from fiction in approaching this issue, 20
and to approach it scientifically. I urge you, the entire Commission, to allow the innovation that 21
AT&T has proposed. Not to do so would be a retrograde step I think in an otherwise 22
technologically advanced community. Thank you. 23
24
Chair Tuma: Thank you. Our last speaker, Herb Borock. 25
26
Mr. Herb Borock, Palo Alto: Good evening Chair Tuma and Commissioners. Commissioner 27
Keller was referring to a building at Ramona and University. I believe the address was 250 28
University. Like other commercial properties they might want to charge a higher rent for this 29
facility than the residential property of 488 University. That may be the real reason why AT&T 30
wants to use this building. However, under the law it is not how much expense is going to be 31
charged or incurred by the applicant but rather what is least intrusive. It seems to me that 32
placing this facility on a commercial property or in the public right-of-way would be least 33
intrusive in terms of the Comprehensive Plan. 34
35
There is also the issue of the Civil Code Sections 1953 and 1954 regarding entry to dwelling 36
units. That is there are certain rights that tenants have in dwelling units in terms of access to 37
property and the amount of notice to receive. In Section 1953 of the Civil Code declares it as a 38
matter of public policy that you cannot void those rights by signing a lease that says just the 39
opposite. So those are very strong, but that is just referring to dwelling units. You don’t have 40
that same kind of restriction for the landlord or AT&T entering a commercial property. For that 41
reason, and also because of the substantial evidence you have about those concerns about entry 42
on the last page attached to your Staff Report from 13 residents I believe that that provides the 43
substantial evidence required to indicate that this project is not exempt from the California 44
Environment Quality Act until that concern of entry into these dwelling units is appropriately 45
mitigated, because of that significant effect. Thank you. 46
Page 19
1
Chair Tuma: Thank you. With that we will close the public hearing. Sorry, the applicant has up 2
to three minutes for any closing comments that they wanted to make. 3
4
Mr. Albritton: Thank you very much. Again, appreciate the opportunity to appear before you 5
tonight. I do want to emphasize again that you are looking at the least intrusive means as they 6
apply to your code. So you are looking at the typical land use issues that you look at of noise, of 7
odor, of visual impact. I wish all the sites I had to deal with were like this one. This is 8
extremely low impact with this very small antenna being hidden inside of a balcony on either 9
side. 10
11
The access issue that has come up is really a landlord-tenant issue. It is not a zoning issue that 12
you would make a decision on, and is not affecting the general public welfare in terms of your 13
findings. 14
15
I want to emphasize that you have to have substantial evidence to deny a wireless facility. This 16
is different than your normal situation in that it can’t just be general objections it has to be 17
specific evidence regarding those issues I talked about like view, and that sort of thing. 18
19
I do have Bill Hammett here. I want leave him a few minutes to answer some of your questions 20
about RF. There is also something called the shot clock that the FCC came out with a year ago 21
that requires you to make a decision with 150 days of the application, and that is because of the 22
delays that have occurred in these applications. The leadership was mentioned, President Obama 23
and his desire to have wireless infrastructure. If you want to exercise leadership it is really to put 24
in this kind of infrastructure. There are always adjacent neighbors that have concerns about 25
infrastructure just like a streetlight that is in somebody’s bedroom window but benefits the entire 26
sidewalk or community. We encourage you to make a decision benefiting the entire community. 27
Bill will speak regarding RF and I think I have covered the issues that I was going to cover, and 28
we obviously would answer any further questions you have particularly about the specific 29
alternatives. If you have any questions about any of those particular buildings, we have put 30
answers in our alternatives analysis but would like to answer your questions regarding those. 31
Bill, did you want to say something about RF emissions? 32
33
Mr. Bill Hammett, AT&T: Yes, please. Good evening. I am the author of the several reports 34
you have in your packet. I wish I had a full three minutes to address some of the issues that have 35
been raised. Let me just say a couple of quick points. I am happy to talk about the medical 36
devices or the standards or any of those other factors. 37
38
We took measurements when we were onsite on Tuesday or Monday night with a number of the 39
neighbors. Went up to the roof, took the measurements, the notice sign that the fellow held up 40
that is for workers who are all the way up on top who might be painting in front of the antennas. 41
They need to be notified. The levels on the roof are hundreds of times below the limit. 42
43
This facility is like putting a wireless router like you have in your home on the edge of the 44
balcony. There is no question that it will comply with the federal standards. That is a 45
guaranteed fact. I am happy to answer any other questions. Thank you. 46
Page 20
1
Chair Tuma: Okay, with that we will close the public hearing and come back to the Commission 2
for questions and comments. Commissioner Keller. 3
4
Commissioner Keller: Thank you. I understand that there are several people who mentioned 5
that they live on the top floor of the building and have apartments adjacent to the balcony. I am 6
wondering if one of those persons would like to answers the questions on behalf of the rest of 7
you, because I don’t think it is necessary to ask all of you. 8
9
Chair Tuma: If you could identify yourselves for the record. 10
11
Ms. Kraus: I am Michelle Kraus, Dr. Kraus. 12
13
Mr. Jones: Hi, Jeffrey Jones. 14
15
Chair Tuma: Thank you. 16
17
Commissioner Keller: Thank you. For the record my PhD is in Computer Science not Electrical 18
Engineering. That is alright, thank you. My question is is the balcony that the AT&T 19
communications facility is proposed for is that accessible to – can any of you in that group or 20
some of you in that group of the apartments that are adjacent to that balcony can you enter that 21
balcony from your apartment? 22
23
Mr. Jones: Several of us can the balcony. 24
25
Commissioner Keller: Thank you. I was trying to go through Staff to see if I could actually visit 26
that balcony and place that, but I don’t think that was arranged through Staff. 27
28
Mr. Jones: Happy to have you over. 29
30
Commissioner Keller: I think part of the problem is there is a time delay in this involved. 31
32
Ms. Kraus: I also believe you have been in that apartment that I had originally that Jeffrey lives 33
in, and you have seen the access through the French doors, in full disclosure. 34
35
Commissioner Keller: Yes. I did that prior to this thing being an issue. What I am wondering is 36
in terms of the placement of this communications device with respect to that balcony. What I am 37
wondering is is it in such a place based on that balcony where you could place your hand near 38
that device. Is that device accessible from your hand? Could you place your hand around it? 39
Could you place your hand around the railing? 40
41
Mr. Jones: Absolutely. 42
43
Commissioner Keller: So what I am wondering is to the extent that this is placed on some sort of 44
beam in the corner I presume or a post. 45
46
Page 21
Mr. Jones: Yes. 1
2
Commissioner Keller: What I am wondering is to what extent could a part of your body, you, or 3
maybe some kid or whatever have access to this so that that kid or adult was placing a part of 4
their body within the exterior beam of the wireless signal where it is directed. 5
6
Ms. Kraus: Correct. 7
8
Mr. Jones: Easily. 9
10
Ms. Kraus: Easily. 11
12
Mr. Jones: My balcony is two feet deep. 13
14
Ms. Kraus: I had chairs out there when I first moved in. 15
16
Commissioner Keller: Well, what I am wondering is on the corner beam, there is a corner post 17
there where I assume this is being proposed for. What I am wondering is can you put your hand 18
around that corner post? 19
20
Ms. Kraus: Yes, it is open. 21
22
Mr. Jones: Absolutely, yes. 23
24
Commissioner Keller: So the issue is, and may I ask a question of the City Attorney? Are the 25
residents of these apartments considered members of the public for the purposes of the FCC 26
guidelines for access in terms of the radio frequency emissions limits? Are the apartments of 27
these residents considered members of the public or are they considered occupational? Which 28
limit are they under? 29
30
Ms. Tronquet: I think that is a better question for the engineer. I am not familiar with what your 31
question is. 32
33
Commissioner Keller: I am asking a legal…. 34
35
Ms. Tronquet: The FCC guidelines are set for the public. 36
37
Commissioner Keller: Yes, so I presume that or my interpretation is that they are employees of 38
AT&T, and therefore they would be under the public emission exposure limitations as opposed 39
to the occupational exposure limitation. Is that correct? 40
41
Ms. Tronquet: Sure. 42
43
Commissioner Keller: Sure, okay great. So I am not sure how much more time I have. So I 44
may ask you some more questions later but that is enough for now. Thank you. 45
46
Page 22
Let me say a couple of things. Firstly, it is certainly useful and important to have appropriate 1
wireless communication within Palo Alto. At least from my having seen the particular balcony 2
in question in prior instances and based on the information from the residences I am concerned 3
about whether the residences actually have exposure to radio frequency emissions from these 4
devices that are in excess of the legal limit in terms of their access to the balcony, and in terms of 5
their access to particularly being able to place their hands around that balcony. The application 6
does not provide any restrictions on the use of that balcony. To me that calls into question the 7
issue of whether the particular implementation is actually within radio frequency exclusions. 8
Thank you. 9
10
Chair Tuma: Commissioners? Commissioner Garber. 11
12
Commissioner Garber: First let me just ask Staff when the public notifications went out for this 13
item, and if those all fell within the legal parameters. I ask the question only because we heard 14
from the public there were a number of members of the public that felt they didn’t have enough 15
time. So how much time are they required to have and did we get the notifications out within 16
that time? 17
18
Ms. Campbell: So we have the different notification periods for this Conditional Use Permit. 19
When the project was initially submitted the building was notified. The unfortunate situation 20
with this site is that the GIS information that we have that we pull our address information from 21
only provides one street address for 488 University Avenue. It does not provide individual unit 22
addresses so none of the individual units were initially notified of this application. In due 23
process, going through the review process when I came to learn of that the tenants were then 24
notified by the applicant about the project. The applicant only notified I think the front tenants 25
or the tenants that are only on the fifth, sixth, and fourth floor or something like that. Then for 26
the Final Tentative Approval when we got to that point we had the applicant provide to the City 27
Staff all of the tenant addresses with their unit numbers so we could notify everyone that this 28
project was moving forward with the Tentative Approval and they could come forward to take a 29
look at the plans, and so forth. So we utilized that same mailing list to do the notification too for 30
this public hearing. 31
32
Commissioner Garber: Just so I understand, do you have a date by which you then notified the 33
entire building, and what is the duration between the amount of time that they had having 34
received that notification and tonight’s date? 35
36
Ms. Campbell: Let me check the dates. 37
38
Commissioner Garber: Okay. I have a couple of moments here while you are looking for that. 39
Is the landlord present here? May I ask a question of you, please? 40
41
Mr. Chris Dressel, Landlord, 488 University Avenue: Just for the record, my name is Chris 42
Dressel and I am the landlord of the building. 43
44
Page 23
Commissioner Garber: Thank you. A number of your tenants have expressed concern about the 1
use of their apartments as access to the project site here, which is on the balcony. I am assuming 2
that you have leases in place with all of these various… 3
4
Mr. Dressel: Yes we do. 5
6
Commissioner Garber: Although it is not specifically the auspice of the Planning Commission, 7
because we are just here to talk about use, I assume that your tenants do have rights that control 8
access through their apartments. Have you reviewed those with them? 9
10
Mr. Dressel: Not specifically, not directly. We did have a meeting on Monday to sort of address 11
their concerns with regard to access for the balcony. The balcony the way it is constructed is 12
only accessible through – there are seven apartments that front the balcony, two of which have 13
metal French doors that actually open up. You could climb through the window on some of the 14
other apartments to get out there, but two of them do actually have doors that open out to the 15
balcony. As far as safety concerns the easiest way to get out there clearly would be to access one 16
of the two apartments with the French doors. You know, enter the apartment and walk through 17
and get to the outside to the balcony. I am sure that a seven-story ladder could be utilized to get 18
someone out there, but I think yes, the easiest way would be through an apartment. 19
20
Commissioner Garber: I am not actually asking about ease here I am asking legally. 21
22
Mr. Dressel: About the lease, yes. I don’t specifically have the lease with me to review it to see 23
exactly what it says. It typically will have language for maintenance of the apartment and that 24
sort of thing. 25
26
Commissioner Garber: There are of course laws that govern notification of entry, etc. by 27
landlords into apartments, etc. I would simply advise some of those that have expressed 28
concerns about that to continue to meet with you. Let me ask you one other question about your 29
meeting that you had on Monday and then I will complete my thoughts here. Was AT&T also a 30
part of that meeting so that people could express and ask questions about some of the concerns 31
that they have raised here this evening about EMF transmissions, etc.? 32
33
Mr. Dressel: Yes there were. There were I believe four representatives from AT&T that 34
specialized in different areas of the field of wireless connectivity and different parts of their 35
process. 36
37
Commissioner Garber: Thank you. 38
39
Mr. Dressel: If you don’t mind, I would add that we did specifically discuss about notification as 40
far as entry. In fact, what I had requested of the tenants was to present to us whatever their 41
recommendation would be for the amount of notice and hours of entry and that sort thing. I did 42
not get any specific response but I am sure that AT&T and the building ownership would be 43
more than willing to give as much access or notification regarding access. 44
45
Commissioner Garber: Thank you. Do we have an answer on the duration? 46
Page 24
1
Ms. Campbell: Yes. The tentative decision card was sent out on January 20, and there are 14 2
days for a request for a hearing to come in from that date. The meeting notice for tonight’s 3
meeting was sent out on February 8, and that was 15 days prior to this meeting. 4
5
Commissioner Garber: All of those times are within the City’s required timeframes? 6
7
Ms. Campbell: Yes, absolutely. 8
9
Commissioner Garber: Thank you. 10
11
Chair Tuma: Let me just follow up on that. You said that on January 20 the card was sent out 12
notifying people as to what the tentative decision had been as opposed to an opportunity to 13
participate in that process? 14
15
Ms. Campbell: That is correct. There was an initial card sent out when the application first 16
came in, and that card was sent out on August 18. When we send that out to the 600-foot radius 17
the system only created that one address for 488 University it didn’t create individual apartment 18
addresses. I do know that it was posted in the site because one of the tenants did come in to look 19
at the file, and he said he saw the card, or maybe he saw the white plastic notice board. So he 20
was aware that something was going on and he came in to inquire about the project. 21
22
Chair Tuma: Right, but our process requires us to notify each of the individuals? 23
24
Ms. Campbell: Our process requires that we notify the 600-foot radius and we rely on what the 25
GIS provides to us, and that is our due diligence. 26
27
Chair Tuma: Okay. Commissioner Tanaka. 28
29
Commissioner Tanaka: I have a few questions for the AT&T engineer if you could come to the 30
mike. One of the reasons for this upgrade is because of the maximum capacity that will run out 31
sometime in the mid 2012 timeframe. So I was wondering if you could speak a little bit about 32
how much extra capacity does this upgrade give you. 33
34
Mr. Hemmett: I am going to defer that to an employee of AT&T or an AT&T engineer. I am an 35
outside consultant that evaluates the safety aspects. 36
37
Mr. Albritton: I don’t have an immediate answer for you. I asked the RF engineers to actually 38
provide me with how many more years of growth would we get out of this and I did not get a 39
specific answer other than that they project three years out, and that this will provide adequate 40
capacity to meet those expectations three years out after the deployment. What the actual – we 41
have given you a slightly dumbed-down chart. You will see it is in percentages. It is actually in 42
kilobytes because for proprietary reasons we didn’t want to give the exact number of what we are 43
generating. That was the general three-year projection that I was given. The RF engineers 44
monitors the network and the usage of the network to make sure that they – and they project 45
three years out to make sure that the network will be able to meet its necessary requirements. 46
Page 25
This application was filed six months ago. They have to try and pre-plan in order to have that 1
available capacity. Does that answer your question? 2
3
Commissioner Tanaka: I think so, thank you. So about three years or something like that. 4
5
Mr. Albritton: Yes, in terms of capacity, yes and which obviously bets the question what 6
happens next. It is curious, if you will note the information that we gave you the line begins to 7
curve towards the end. There are a whole variety of factors that they include in those 8
calculations including adjacent sites, modifications of adjacent sites, and a number of other 9
factors that they include. I don’t know if they have calculated in the Verizon yet, I think they 10
did. 11
12
Commissioner Tanaka: So 2015 this…. 13
14
Mr. Albritton: Yes, but it is not necessarily an exacting science. As I said, I was somewhat 15
embarrassed to admit I have been doing this since 1984 when we started this network in the Bay 16
Area we though that the entire network would be built out with 28 sites. There has been this 17
phenomenal revolution and change. The iPhone was a change. The iPad is a change. The 18
internet is a change. So this technology continues to emerge. 19
20
Commissioner Tanaka: I understand the difficulty with forecasting. 21
22
Mr. Albritton: There may be other facilities that are added that begin to add to that demand or 23
could help offload that demand. 24
25
Commissioner Tanaka: Okay. I have another kind of technical question that maybe you or 26
someone else can answer. I saw the wattages and just to make this easier, you could go to Fry’s, 27
Costco, wherever and buy a Wi-Fi access point. Can you tell me relative to off the shelf retail 28
Wi-Fi how much more powerful is this system? 29
30
Mr. Albritton: I might defer that to Bill Hammett who is the expert on this. You probably know 31
you are bathed in Wi-Fi right now in this room, and that is usually one watt or less somewhere in 32
there. This is a three-watt facility. 33
34
I need to clarify one quick thing and that is you can hug this antenna and not exceed the FCC 35
MPE standards. So this issue of touching it is really irrelevant. I can let Bill speak to that 36
further. 37
38
Mr. Hammett: Yes, thank you. This unit would operate at a maximum of three watts. That is on 39
the front of the antenna. To really envision the situation, if that is the railing and the unit is on 40
the outside face of the railing. So Commissioner Keller, you were asking can somebody put their 41
hand in front of it. They certainly can. They can reach over and put their hand in front of it. 42
This is a directional…pardon me? Yes, you could reach over and put your hand in front of it. 43
The unit is focused out into the street not back toward the balcony. So the three watts is the 44
effective power going out to the front. The calculations that you have in your packet show that 45
behind the antenna you are hundreds of times below the standard. Even in front of the antenna 46
Page 26
you are complying with the standard. As he said, you could hug the antenna, just like you could 1
go to your wireless router in your house. 2
3
Commissioner Tanaka: So the standard wireless router in your house is one watt? 4
5
Mr. Hammett: It varies, but it is of a similar magnitude. The key isn’t necessarily the power of 6
the unit in watts. The key is the power density in milliwatts per square centimeter. That is how 7
much can someone experience, and that is where the standards are based. 8
9
Commissioner Tanaka: Okay. Can I just wrap up? So using that metric, using that area emitted, 10
the power density, how much different is the power density if you take what you are doing there 11
with what you could get at Costco or whatever retail store? How many times more is it? 12
13
Mr. Hammett: It is at most a couple of times more. 14
15
Commissioner Tanaka: So two times more? 16
17
Mr. Hammett: Sure. Say three watts in the focused area going out versus the one watt on an 18
omni-directional. 19
20
Commissioner Tanaka: Okay. Some of the residents mentioned that they have Wi-Fi units in 21
their apartments. So you are saying that this is about equivalent to standing next to two of them? 22
23
Mr. Hammett: If you were standing out in midair in front of the antenna where you cannot stand 24
without a tall ladder or repelling off of the roof, yes that might be equivalent to two of them. 25
26
27
Commissioner Tanaka: Okay. 28
29
Mr. Hammett: In fact most of the people are going to be inside their homes. The nearest 30
window I think is four feet away, so they are going to have less energy at that distance just as 31
you would from a wireless router in your home as you move away from it. 32
33
Commissioner Tanaka: Okay. How much less energy is that from the backside, relative to a 34
retail Wi-Fi, just to make it easier for everyone? 35
36
Mr. Hammett: It is not relevant. It is a 25-dB drop. So you are hundreds of times below behind 37
the antenna versus what it puts out in the front. 38
39
Commissioner Tanaka: so you are saying it is a hundred times less than a retail Wi-Fi? 40
41
Mr. Hammett: Yes. 42
43
Commissioner Tanaka: Okay, great. Thank you. 44
45
Page 27
Mr. Hammett: Yes, and I wanted to clarify. Commissioner Keller had asked the question that 1
maybe this does exceed the federal limit. I want to read half a sentence from my report that says 2
that this facility will comply with the prevailing standards for limiting public exposure to radio 3
frequency energy. That is the conclusion. That is the fact. Thank you. 4
5
Commissioner Tanaka: Thank you. 6
7
Chair Tuma: If you could remain at the mike for one second I think Commissioner Garber has a 8
follow up question. 9
10
Commissioner Garber: I have nowhere near the technical expertise of some of my fellow 11
Commissioners here, but I do have a question. Is the EMF that is produced by any machine, is it 12
cumulative? So if I have two of those, if I have three of those there is obviously EMF going that 13
is persistent, that exists within that space now be it inside, outside, etc. I am assuming the 14
equipment on the roof also generates stuff is this simply adding to that as well? 15
16
Mr. Hammett: Yes. There are two terms here. It is additive, no question. You get a little bit 17
from this one you get a little bit from that one. You have two little bit. It is not cumulative in 18
the sense that it adds over time. There is a very basic scientific reason for that, which if I had 19
about 30 seconds I could give you. I don’t know whether you are interested in that. But no, 20
there is no cumulative effect over time as opposed to x-rays or ultraviolet or those different types 21
of energy. Those are called ionizing electromagnetic energy. This is non-ionizing, the whole 22
radio band, light and below. 23
24
Commissioner Garber: Thank you. 25
26
Chair Tuma: I believe Commissioner Keller had a follow up as well on that same topic. 27
28
Commissioner Keller: Yes, thank you, sir. So in terms of Commissioner Tanaka’s interesting 29
comparison between a Wi-Fi and these, a Wi-Fi you said is one watt as opposed to three watts, is 30
that correct? 31
32
Mr. Hammett: They come in different power levels. We are using a typical – sure, one watt 33
might be a typical consumer one. This one because it is focused in a single direction rather than 34
sending it out in all directions might be three watts going out, but less behind. 35
36
Commissioner Keller: So let me see if I understand this correctly, and mind you bear with me 37
because I am a computer scientist and not an electrical engineer, but I know enough electrical 38
engineering to be dangerous, because I was required to take some of that. So my understanding 39
is this. In terms of a Wi-Fi bought off the shelf at Costco is the total power output one watt? 40
41
Mr. Hammett: That is my understanding. 42
43
Commissioner Keller: Okay. I am asking him at this time. 44
45
Page 28
Commissioner Garber: Commissioner, one moment. Let me just explain to the public that 1
unless you are recognized you may not speak. 2
3
Commissioner Keller: Okay, thank you Commissioner Garber for that comment. So let’s just 4
assume for the moment and there is maybe some dispute about this but with respect to a Wi-Fi 5
device that is the kind of thing I buy off the shelf at Fry’s if it is a one-watt total output power 6
that total output power is basically multi-directional. So in other words it is broadcast at one 7
watt, it is distributed over 360 degrees at least in one direction. Am I correct there? 8
9
Mr. Hammett: You are correct. Keep in mind that where we are headed is going to be a power 10
density not a power. 11
12
Commissioner Keller: I realize that. So the issue is that this one watt has a power density that is 13
disbursed around 360 degrees. 14
15
Mr. Hammett: Yes. 16
17
Commissioner Keller: And in contrast this three-watt antenna has a much greater than a factor of 18
three power density compared to the one watt Wi-Fi precisely because the radio frequency 19
emissions are distributed across a narrow angle. Therefore there is the factor of three simply in 20
power that we have identified in total output power, and there is a factor of much more than three 21
in the fact – can you tell me the angle of broadcast of this? Is it 30 degree, is it 20 degrees, is it 22
15 degrees? What is the angle at which this thing, the antenna, is directed? 23
24
Mr. Hammett: I would have to look that up to know what the angle is. We assume for the 25
calculations that it sends it energy out in all directions. So when we do the calculations we are 26
working with the maximum level. Whether it is tipped a little bit one way or the other to better 27
fill the street area we just assume it is three watts in all directions when we do that. 28
29
Commissioner Keller: So let me get this straight. If you are assuming that there are three watts 30
in all the directions, and considering – let me just do the math for the benefit of people here who 31
might be equally challenged. If it is three watts in all directions then that is three watts equally 32
distributed in 360 degrees. On the other hand, if the antenna is directional for 30 degrees for 33
discussion sake then that is one-twelfth and therefore you would actually have 12 times the 34
power density in that 30 degree angle. Isn’t that correct? 35
36
Mr. Hammett: No, that is not correct because the three watts is the peak power in the direction 37
of the orientation. You are not taking three watts input and one-watt input and in one case going 38
all directions, and in the other case starting with three times higher and focusing it as well. It is 39
three watts after focusing. 40
41
Commissioner Keller: So what you are saying, and let me see if I understand this. Earlier I 42
asked whether it was one-watt total power, and you agreed with me that it was one-watt total 43
power. Now you are saying that it is not one-watt total power it is one watt in any given 44
direction. I am totally confused. 45
46
Page 29
Mr. Hammett: That is why you need to be careful in the terminology. A lot of these units are 1
rated on their input power, how much power goes into it. A lot of them are rated in how much 2
focusing they do and what is the peak output power. For our calculations, and I would refer you 3
to Attachment E that has a wonderful diagram that shows the antenna, shows the calculations 4
behind the unit on the balcony, at the glass doors, at either of the two windows. This is an image 5
from the AT&T drawings and shows the results of these calculations. 6
7
Commissioner Keller: Which Attachment are you talking about? 8
9
Mr. Hammett: This is Attachment E. This was out on the table as part of the Staff Report. 10
11
Commissioner Keller: Let me take a look at that, hold on a second. I have this item one, which 12
has some things in it. It is a letter from Mackenzie & Albritton. 13
14
Mr. Hammett: I understand it is attached to that as well, but that has a copy. This should be 15
your packet that you received for this evening. 16
17
Commissioner Keller: Yes, I have the Attachment, sorry. I did read this thing. 18
19
Mr. Hammett: Good, so I don’t think it is useful to debate what the rating is of something off the 20
shelf at Fry’s. The issue is what are the exposure conditions that someone could be exposed to, 21
what are the power density levels? Those have been precisely calculated at all these different 22
locations. The point is that in no case does it ever exceed the federal limit. In most cases it is 23
hundreds of times below that. It is comparable to the energy coming off of a wireless router that 24
you might buy at Fry’s. 25
26
Commissioner Keller: So what I am trying to figure out is in terms of something that is 27
accessible from the balcony, okay? 28
29
Mr. Hammett: Yes. 30
31
Commissioner Keller: Within a few inches of the balcony. What I am trying to figure out is, 32
and I am looking at this document, the version of it that was sent in separately by your attorneys 33
that is dated October 26. That is the version of it that I am looking at. If that is incorrect let me 34
know. 35
36
Mr. Hammett: I don’t know. I am looking at the Attachment E in your Board packet. 37
38
Commissioner Keller: Yes, there is something here called RFR.calc methodology and things 39
like that. 40
41
Mr. Hammett: Okay. 42
43
Commissioner Keller: In this document. 44
45
Page 30
Chair Tuma: Commissioner Keller, I am going to have to ask you to wrap it up. This was going 1
to be a follow up question. We have other Commissioners who have not even had a chance to 2
ask questions yet. 3
4
Commissioner Keller: Okay. I will gather my questions together and ask this of the engineer in 5
a few minutes. Thank you. 6
7
Mr. Hammett: Thank you. 8
9
Chair Tuma: Commissioner Martinez. 10
11
Commissioner Martinez: I would like to bring our conversation back to earth. I would like to 12
ask the member of the public that had some comment whether they wanted to refute something 13
that was said, or not. 14
15
Mr. Loebbaka: It was me. I just wanted to talk about the intensity of the Wi-Fi and paint the 16
picture that it is not just something that you kind of buy off the shelf. It is something that is a lot 17
stronger. The guy who was talking is not an epidemiologist he can’t talk about dose and risk. 18
He can only say well, these are the FCC guidelines. I think the committee should look into 19
epidemiological studies. There are several out of Europe. I can tell you that several countries in 20
Europe don’t allow these types of installations in public buildings, in schools, because of the 21
output of these and electromagnetic fields and how it affects specifically children and their brain 22
development because they have a thinner skull. There are a lot of different things that I don’t 23
think they have told you as the committee as specifically in how it amounts to the risk of the 24
people that live in the building from the aspect of the electromagnetic fields, interference, and 25
also we have talked about access to these antennas will be a bit of an issue as well. 26
27
Commissioner Martinez: Okay, thank you. I also just want to say it seems like we only want to 28
hear from the applicant, and perhaps it is because the public was so eloquent in stating how they 29
feel about this application. So I am going to be guilty of asking the applicant a couple of 30
questions as well. 31
32
I read in our packet that there may be as many as two maintenance visits per month for these 33
antennas. Is that correct? 34
35
Mr. Albritton: No, that is not correct. 36
37
Commissioner Martinez: What is your judgment of what would be? 38
39
Mr. Albritton: Well there is the initial installation, which they presumably could do in one day 40
but we have said two days. Thereafter, there really is no serviceable part of this router. If it was 41
dislodged or something like that, vandalized, it might require some attention. After the first short 42
period of use it is possible but unlikely that they would need to adjust the angle of the antenna, 43
but because it is being very closely mounted within the slats of the railing there isn’t going to be 44
much play in that. The area that it is covering and the direction that it is facing it is frankly not 45
quite as refined as normal cell antenna in terms of how it is angled and so forth. So we have said 46
Page 31
I think three times a year, maybe, but frankly – I think we should probably stick with that 1
estimate. There is equipment on the roof and so there can be changes through the equipment on 2
the roof but not the antennas themselves. Again, I emphasize that the access is not – the 3
landlord/tenant issue is not a zoning issue to be addressed. 4
5
Commissioner Martinez: I understand your position. I also read there is an alarm on the system 6
in case there is a malfunction. Without being dramatic and saying three o’clock in the morning, 7
say nine-thirty in the evening, what happens. 8
9
Mr. Albritton: No, no the alarm doesn’t go off at the unit. 10
11
Commissioner Martinez: But what happens in….? 12
13
Mr. Albritton: The whole cell site is setup for a number of things power outage, fire, which 14
never happens, but that kind of thing. It is setup through the network operations center, which is 15
a 24/7. 16
17
Chair Tuma: Excuse me. If you could make an effort to speak a little bit more directly into the 18
microphone. Apparently the television is not picking it up and it is not getting recorded. Thank 19
you. 20
21
Mr. Albritton: Thank you. So that is the nature of the alarm. 22
23
Commissioner Martinez: My question was what do you need to do at that point? Do you need 24
to have access to these antennas? 25
26
Mr. Albritton: Well, the alarms are generally setup for the primary cellular network, and they 27
want to keep the cellular network up and running. This is obviously important for capacity. It 28
frankly is hard to imagine if the Wi-Fi aspect of the cell site went down that it would create the 29
level of emergency that you would have to go in the middle of the night and work on it. If the 30
entire cell site goes down, this is a very robust, high-capacity site they will be focused on that 31
site. The purpose of this, as we have mentioned, is to offload capacity and so I can’t readily 32
imagine a situation where we needed to go running through people’s bedrooms to get access to 33
these things in the middle of the night. What kind of circumstance would cause that? If there is 34
a power outage the overall cell site has a battery backup that kicks in that is obviously very 35
important in emergency circumstances. In that circumstance I would guess if the network is 36
suffering that there will be priority locations that are higher than these Wi-Fi nodes. So yes, the 37
network is alarmed but I guess I am trying to emphasize this is a very elegant way of addressing 38
a capacity situations with a very low impact, low wattage facility. The main actor in terms of the 39
network is the cell site. I hope that answers your question. 40
41
Commissioner Martinez: It does, thank you. You also mentioned that one of the alternatives 42
was to mount these antennas under the balcony. 43
44
Mr. Albritton: Yes. That was actually the initial preferred alternative. 45
46
Page 32
Commissioner Martinez: How would you have access to service these? 1
2
Mr. Albritton: That is a really good question. I believe they were below but towards the edge. I 3
frankly can’t tell you how they wash the windows in this building but I am sure that there is a 4
methodology that they could have used to access the antennas should they need servicing. But 5
you make a very good point, which is the intent is not to go out and access and service these 6
antennas very often. They are a standalone, no moving parts, solid piece of equipment that is not 7
intended to be accessed. It is plugged in and it runs. No more than you access the Wi-Fi 8
antennas that you have operating in this room. I am sorry, I am sure that they would have 9
figured out a way to get underneath the balcony because they proposed it, but I am not sure how 10
they would have done it whether it is something that pulled it up or something else. 11
12
Ms. Amy French, Current Planning Manager: Can Staff clarify? The original proposal was 13
affixed to the outside of the balcony railing not on the underside of the balcony. 14
15
Commissioner Martinez: He is saying on the underside? 16
17
Mr. Albritton: Underside of the railing, right? 18
19
Ms. Campbell: Just the original submittal that came in, the first version of this project the 20
antennas were placed on the exterior side of the railing, not under the balcony. Just on the 21
exterior side. 22
23
Commissioner Martinez: So is under the balcony acceptable or not? I am asking the applicant. 24
25
Mr. Albritton: In terms of a location? 26
27
Commissioner Martinez: Yes. 28
29
Mr. Albritton: Sure. I am not the construction person. We probably have a construction person, 30
but yes anywhere – obviously the only thing that is important is that this face is looking at the 31
street. 32
33
Commissioner Martinez: Okay. To Staff, is that an objectionable quality condition for an 34
historic building? 35
36
Ms. French: The balcony is a character defining feature of the building so that would have to be 37
evaluated as to – if it squeezes between those corbels I don’t know if it is narrow enough to do 38
that. This becomes an historic review question. 39
40
Ms. Campbell: My understanding when we did this evaluation initially with the first submittal 41
was that we encourage the applicant to remove the antenna from the outside because we didn’t 42
want to have any physical attachments placed on this feature because it was a very important 43
feature for this building. So that is why the direction went to place it on the inside so it is 44
screened from view. 45
46
Page 33
Mr. Albritton: I have to say there were photo simulations provided. Given the fact that it is six 1
stories in the air very hard to see, and AT&T would accommodate working with Staff to identify 2
a preferred location if that was something that was a condition of approval or something like 3
that. 4
5
Commissioner Martinez: If it prevented having to go through people’s apartments, to interrupt 6
their privacy, to have it mounted six stories above, boxes this size that could be painted, isn’t that 7
a reasonable alternative for Staff to consider? 8
9
Ms. Campbell: I think the access issue would still be the same if they need to access the 10
antennas, and if they are on the side or underneath I think the maintenance would be the same 11
issue. 12
13
Ms. French: We are not the experts on the maintenance, but a bucket truck could do both of 14
them equally the same I would think. However, I would say it is not Staff’s decision any longer. 15
This is the Council decision. By having this hearing you are now the recommending body to the 16
Council. We could certainly weigh in in a Staff Report. 17
18
Commissioner Martinez: I just want to understand the thinking behind this, Amy. There was 19
quite a bit of discussion about how this was going to be concealed and they did a good job of 20
doing that. But I heard nothing about the impact on the residents and it just seems that the report 21
is very incomplete. When there is another alternative that can be served by a bucket that doesn’t 22
require people going in through their apartments it seems like it is something we should have 23
heard about. That is all I am saying. 24
25
Ms. French: Yes, it is possible that the bucket could be used to go and maintain them where they 26
are proposed in front of you tonight too, is what I am trying to be clear about. 27
28
Mr. Albritton: I believe if it is mounted under the railing you are still going to have to have 29
some access to install it. It is six stories up so it is difficult to get to. It is limited access. I am 30
sorry I am repeating myself, but that is a landlord/tenant issue in terms of access. It is a lease 31
issue. If you granted our permit and in fact there is no legal access through these apartments 32
then we can’t build it. On the contrary if you deny the application but we have full access we 33
can’t build it. They are separate. One is a civil issue and the other is a zoning and permitting 34
issue that you are dealing with. The same thing with respect to the impacts. Individual impacts 35
are not what you look towards in terms of substantial evidence for approval or for general public 36
convenience, welfare, or detriment to public safety and health. 37
38
Commissioner Martinez: Thank you. 39
40
Mr. Albritton: We understand it and AT&T of course will be tremendously sensitive and will 41
agree to any rules that the landlord wishes to impose on access whether it is cotton booties to 42
walk through the apartments with or to have a chaperone paid for or something like that. This is 43
something that AT&T understands the tenants concerns but this is the way to get to this ideal 44
location in terms of least intrusive, providing the coverage that is necessary for the public 45
benefit. 46
Page 34
1
Chair Tuma: Thank you. I have a few questions. Staff, the applicant had mentioned something 2
about the 150-day shot clock. Where are we in that process? 3
4
Ms. French: Not sure. The applicant may know better than we do the shot clock concept. We 5
work with permit streamline clocks. That is our clock. They know more about this shot clock 6
than I can presume to know. 7
8
Chair Tuma: Then let me ask the question differently. Are we under a time constraint in terms 9
of this getting to Council and getting resolved? If so, when is that? 10
11
Ms. French: Typically, once the Planning Commission makes a recommendation we get it to the 12
Council within 30 days. Our job was to get it to you within 30 days of receiving the request for 13
hearing. 14
15
Chair Tuma: Okay. 16
17
Ms. Tronquet: Courts have ruled that these applications need to be ruled on within a reasonable 18
period of time. Cases have held that a reasonable period of time is anywhere between 90 and 19
150 days. So you are under time constraints and this needs to go to the Council. 20
21
Chair Tuma: Okay, so when does that 150 days run? 22
23
Ms. Tronquet: I don’t know the timeline for this project. You can find the approval where 24
already by the time it gets to the Council we are already 90 days into it. So I would say we are 25
very close. 26
27
Chair Tuma: I think we need to know before we make a decision, at least I do. 28
29
This is a question probably for the RF engineer. One of the members of the public had made a 30
comment or said that they were told specifically that this device would interfere with their Wi-Fi 31
in their unit. Is that accurate? 32
33
Mr. Hammett: I apologize if I have misspoken. No, the expectation is that it would not cause 34
interference. 35
36
Chair Tuma: It was not a comment that you had made. It was a comment that a member of the 37
public made that one of the AT&T employees had told them that that would happen. 38
39
Mr. Hammett: No, I think she mentioned my name because I was at the meeting on Monday. I 40
think she mentioned that I thought that it would cause interference. The expectation is that it 41
would not any more than a Wi-Fi at the AT&T Store versus one over at Borders books would 42
cause interference with each other. They use protocols so that they don’t interfere, and they are 43
located in such a way that they don’t create that type of interference. 44
45
Page 35
Chair Tuma: When you say they are located in such a way, these are right outside the window of 1
these residents. 2
3
Mr. Hammett: That is correct and they are located outside the widow aimed down the street. 4
5
Chair Tuma: Okay, okay. Thank you. Another question for the applicant, probably for the 6
attorney. How many occasions have you as an applicant met with the members of the public, 7
particularly the residents, to discuss this matter, and when did those meetings take place? 8
9
Mr. Albritton: On this application? 10
11
Chair Tuma: Yes. 12
13
Mr. Albritton: As the attorney I have not. They sometimes find me threatening. So the External 14
Affairs group of AT&T I know had a meeting last Monday and I don’t know, Chris, if there were 15
other meetings. One-on-one meetings? That is the one meeting that I know about. 16
17
Chair Tuma: Last Monday as in ten days ago, or two days ago? 18
19
Mr. Albritton: Two days ago. 20
21
Chair Tuma: So that was the first and only time AT&T has met with the residents on this? 22
23
Mr. Albritton: Yes. I don’t think that is for lack of trying. They were coordinating through the 24
building manager I believe. 25
26
Chair Tuma: That is fine, I just wanted to know how many and when the meetings had taken 27
place. 28
29
Mr. Albritton: They were certainly aware of the neighbor concerns through the manager, 30
through the landlord, and through the communications with the Staff. 31
32
Chair Tuma: Thank you. My other questions had already been addressed. Commissioners, 33
additional questions? Commissioner Keller. 34
35
Commissioner Keller: Thank you. The extra time allowed me to find my bearings through this 36
Attachment E to which I was referred earlier. So first let me mention a few things that are 37
identified here and then I will ask for some clarification from the consulting engineer. 38
39
So the first thing is on page one of the statement of Hammett and Edison Consulting Engineers. 40
That is the second page of Attachment E. It states that for Wi-Fi the public limit is 1 mW, which 41
I assume is milliwatt and that is a thousandth of a watt. Is that correct? 42
43
Mr. Hammett: That is correct. 44
45
Commissioner Keller: And it is per centimeter square which means per square centimeter. 46
Page 36
1
Mr. Hammett: Yes. 2
3
Commissioner Keller: Okay, great. A centimeter is one one-hundredth of a meter so would you 4
say it is about a quarter of an inch or half an inch, or something like that? 5
6
Mr. Hammett: Yes. 7
8
Commissioner Keller: Okay, great. So what I also note is that there is a sentence on page 3 of 3 9
of this document where it says No Recommended Mitigation Measures, it says due to their 10
mounting location, I am going to read the entire paragraph into the record. 11
12
“Due to their mounting location, the new AT&T antennas would not be accessible to the general 13
public and so no mitigation measures are necessary to comply with the FCC public exposure 14
guidelines. Power density levels exceeding the occupational guidelines,” which I understand are 15
parenthetically are five times the public exposure guidelines, “are calculated to extend no further 16
than 6 inches directly in front of the new AT&T antennas themselves, due to that short distance, 17
the new AT&T operation as proposed can be considered intrinsically compliant with FCC 18
guidelines, and so no additional mitigation measures are required.” Then it goes on to talk about 19
mitigation measures for existing cellular and others at 525 University Avenue have not been 20
determined as part of this study. I understand based on my knowledge of physics that essentially 21
the power density drops off with the square of the distance. Is that right? 22
23
Mr. Hammett: Yes, it is the inverse square law and the far field of an antenna that is correct. 24
25
Commissioner Keller: So if the power density for occupational guidelines is calculated no 26
further than six inches, and if the personal measure would be one milliwatt per square centimeter 27
as opposed to five milliwatt per square centimeter then I would presume that at four milliwatts 28
per square centimeter – excuse me, instead of five if you go down to one and quarter, which is 29
one-fourth of that that this would be a distance of a foot, no greater distance than a foot. Am I 30
doing the math wrong? 31
32
Mr. Hammett: I am not following the math, but why don’t you tell me where you are headed. 33
34
Commissioner Keller: So my understanding is this, correct me if I am wrong. If you have a 35
maximum of five milliwatts per square centimeter at six inches, at most six inches that at most 36
12 inches you would be a maximum power within that would be one and a quarter milliwatts per 37
square centimeter. Have I done the math right? 38
39
Mr. Hammett: I am not following your math but now I see where you are headed. Okay. 40
\ 41
Commissioner Keller: Okay. So since the exposure limit is one milliwatt per square centimeter 42
then the distance that you have defined here as being problematic is somewhere on the order of a 43
foot or so by your very words, or the words of your professional engineer. 44
45
Page 37
Mr. Hammett: They key word here is no further than. In fact, it is likely never to be reached, the 1
occupational limit, for this antenna. 2
3
Commissioner Keller: So have you actually calculated this amount and provided 4
demonstrations? I mean if you actually meant not further than then why do you say six inches? 5
I am wondering why you referred to occupational guidelines as if this was not accessible to 6
members of the public when in fact residents of these seven apartments actually have access to 7
this and can place their hand directly in front of it. 8
9
Mr. Hammett: Because the calculations that we were dealing with in the instance you are raising 10
was to answer the question of occupational exposure. The sentence before dealt with the 11
question of public exposure. It is our belief that nobody is going to stand in front of the antenna, 12
in midair, 60 feet up. That was the basis for that conclusion you have read. The subsequent 13
statement, the subsequent one that calculated very precisely at the request of the City Staff what 14
are the actual levels at all of these locations. These are the actual calculated levels based on the 15
antenna patter, based on all the information that we had reported in the earlier more generic 16
study. This is the specific one. This supports the conclusion, no question, this meets the federal 17
standard. For public there is no location where the public exposure will be exceeded for 18
anybody near this facility even if they were standing out in front of that antenna. 19
20
Commissioner Keller: So are you saying that the residents of these apartments are in fact not 21
members of the public? 22
23
Mr. Hammett: No I am not. 24
25
Commissioner Keller: Okay. Are you allowing for them to put their hand in front of the 26
antenna, not having to stand there, but certainly part of their hand in front of the antenna is 27
accessible from the balcony. Are you accepting that or denying that? 28
29
Mr. Hammett: I am accepting that as we had demonstrated earlier. 30
31
Commissioner Keller: Okay, great. So what I am trying to understand is have you made actual 32
calculations of this – what you are saying is it is a maximum of three watts, right, which is 3,000 33
times the maximum per centimeter squared. I am trying figure out at the point right in front of 34
the antenna what is the maximum power density. 35
36
Mr. Hammett: Okay, your statement is not correct. You are comparing watts to milliwatts per 37
square centimeter. So the watts are the power at the point source if you could consider the 38
antenna to be a point source, and it is spreading immediately. The standard is not based on 39
power from the antenna. It is based on power passing through a unit area. It is power density. It 40
is a common misconception of you see watts and you think it is the same in both cases. The key 41
is how much power there is passing through a unit area. That is what the standards are based on, 42
milliwatts per square centimeter. 43
44
Commissioner Keller: Have you actually calculated the maximum power density at the surface 45
of that device? 46
Page 38
1
Mr. Hammett: Yes, and it was not done as part of this study, because this study draws the exact 2
conclusion that is necessary, which is it complies with the standard. 3
4
Commissioner Keller: But you have not provided to us that calculation, have you? 5
6
Mr. Hammett: No I have not. 7
8
Commissioner Keller: So based on the evidence before me I don’t have that evidence submitted 9
before us. What I do have evidence is that you used the calculation of six inches, and 10
presumably you would have said something less than six inches if you meant it. So from my 11
point of view in some sense you have not met the burden, and I am not sure whose burden it is, 12
but you have not demonstrated that there is no problem here with an excess amount of power 13
from somebody sitting and putting their hand immediately adjacent to the device. That is what I 14
am failing to understand. 15
16
Mr. Hammett: I would be happy to explain why it is that I can make that statement so 17
conclusively that it will comply with the prevailing standards for public exposure. 18
19
Commissioner Keller: Is that a conclusory statement in the eyes of the law? I am not a lawyer, 20
but I serve as expert witness and I know what a conclusory statement is when I see it. 21
22
Mr. Hammett: That is one. 23
24
Commissioner Keller: That conclusory statement is not backed up by any evidence that you 25
have provided here. 26
27
Mr. Hammett: It is backed up by the information contained here including the very specific 28
findings for the different areas at which Staff had requested. If you go through the data and I am 29
happy to perform that calculation if you stipulate that as a condition. The data here on Figure 2 30
that you referred to, the methodology, when you get close to an antenna the inverse square law 31
doesn’t apply because you are no longer in the far field of antenna. Tell me, Chair, if you want 32
me to go through that explanation. In a near field of antenna the pattern is not yet fully formed. 33
The power is distributed over the elements of the antenna. Inside this box are small antenna 34
elements and it is only when you are some distance away that the pattern is formed and you 35
actually get the gain of the antenna. When you are very close to the antenna you do not get the 36
gain that gives you the three watts out. 37
38
Commissioner Keller: So let me understand this correctly because I am not an electrical 39
engineer, as I pointed out. In order to get three watts over here you have to have three watts 40
coming from here. The power doesn’t teleport itself except by going through that distance, 41
right? 42
43
Mr. Hammett: That is correct. 44
45
Page 39
Commissioner Keller: So therefore if you are getting three watts over here the three watts have 1
to come from somewhere in the antenna. If the power is not fully formed in a reasonable 2
framework then I would expect that there might be some hot spots located immediately adjacent 3
to the box. 4
5
Mr. Hammett: And that would not be correct. It is small amounts of power distributed over the 6
length of the antenna. 7
8
Commissioner Keller: So small amounts meaning 3,000 milliwatts? 9
10
Mr. Hammett: No. 11
12
Commissioner Keller: Total? 13
14
Mr. Hammett: No. The 3,000 milliwatts is due to the fact that the antenna has elements that are 15
organized in such a manner that if you feed them together they will create a patter with no energy 16
up, no energy down, no energy back, all the energy goes out toward the front. In order to get the 17
three watts you don’t put three watts in, you put a very small amount of power in, and the peak 18
will be three watts because of nature of the way you feed the antenna. 19
20
Chair Tuma: Excuse me Commissioner Keller. We need to move on. 21
22
Commissioner Keller: Then I will make a motion if I may. 23
24
Chair Tuma: You may. There are a few other Commissioners who wanted to speak but you may 25
make a motion. It is your prerogative. 26
27
MOTION 28
29
Commissioner Keller: I make a motion that this application be denied because it fails to conform 30
with the requirements of the lack of staying within radio frequency emission limits for members 31
of the public, in particular for those who live along the seven apartments adjacent to the balcony, 32
and can place their hand adjacent to this radio frequency device. That exposure point has not 33
been demonstrated to be within the limits and there is substantial evidence based on the 34
applicant’s statements in the document that it exceeds that limit. 35
36
Chair Tuma: Is there a second? Motion fails for lack of a second. Commissioner Garber. 37
38
Commissioner Garber: I am just curious, for the applicant, one of the members of the public 39
asked why – I don’t know if it was asked as a question, but I am posing it as a question. Why the 40
applicant didn’t consider a Castro Street solution for the placement of the antennas? As was 41
described on Castro Street there are many antennas that are placed on light poles up and down 42
the street as a way of distributing the signal. I am just curious as to why that was not entertained 43
as an alternative. 44
45
Mr. Albritton: Castro Street in Mountain View? 46
Page 40
1
Commissioner Garber: Yes. 2
3
Mr. Albritton: I hope you will indulge me for 15 seconds. What Bill is trying to describe is if 4
you have jets of water coming out in a stream, coming together it can then form into, we have all 5
seen this, form into a wave of water. 6
7
Commissioner Garber: Forgive me for interrupting. Are you answering the preceding question 8
or mine? 9
10
Mr. Albritton: I will. You were asking about the distributed antenna system. 11
12
Chair Tuma: Excuse me sir. The question before is coming from Commissioner Garber, and 13
that question was about whether there was a Castro Street-like. 14
15
Mr. Albritton: Yes, and I just mentioned a distributed antenna system. A distributed antenna 16
system or DAS network are usually a collection of antennas that are connected by fiber optic 17
cabling back to a cell site. They function to distribute cell site service through up to 24 different 18
nodes that are connected by fiber optic back to a local cellular location. The telephone 19
corporations are allowed access to the public right-of-way under California Public Utility Code 20
Section 7901, so are allowed into the com space of a telephone pole in order to provide telephone 21
service. That perhaps is what you are talking about in Mountain View. It is a replacement for a 22
full cell site. It is not what we are trying to achieve in this particular location, which is a 23
localized Wi-Fi service from a particular height. 24
25
I think the short answer is I don’t recall telephone poles tall enough or utility poles where this 26
solution might be considered, but you would have to get fiber optic to the pole, up the pole, and 27
into the nodes. It would have similar impacts but it was not explored to put those kinds of 28
antennas or facilities on University Avenue. 29
30
Commissioner Garber: So if I am understanding you correctly it sounds like there are two 31
reasons. One is it is a solution for a different problem, and then two there are issues of access or 32
ways of making that distribution. 33
34
Mr. Albritton: Yes, and you have to have the appropriate poles, and you have to have the 35
appropriate space on the poles. 36
37
Commissioner Garber: Thank you. 38
39
Chair Tuma: Commissioner Tanaka. 40
41
Commissioner Tanaka: So I have more questions for the RF engineer. Is that box you hold up 42
active? Is it basically power over Ethernet going into that so there is actually a router inside that 43
is broadcasting, or is it just a passive antenna that you feed the Wi-Fi signal through from the 44
roof equipment? 45
46
Page 41
Mr. Hammett: This is an active. This is fed with coaxial cables that are on the bottom of the 1
unit here. These are the coaxial cables that are fed. 2
3
Commissioner Tanaka: So I guess what I am wondering is there are some Wi-Fi points that are 4
power over Ethernet so they actually are routers as the attorney described, and then they sell a lot 5
of Wi-Fi antennas out there that are just passive. All they do is you feed power into them, you 6
feed the signal into them, and they broadcast it out. I was wondering is this truly an active? 7
Coaxial suggests to me that it is a passive antenna. 8
9
Mr. Hammett: Yes, it suggests that to me as well. We look at what the rating of the power into 10
and out of the unit is. 11
12
Commissioner Tanaka: Sure. 13
14
Mr. Hammett: Whether it is active and separately powered it does not appear to be so. It looks 15
like it is coaxial. 16
17
Commissioner Tanaka: It looks like a passive antenna. 18
19
Mr. Hammett: Correct. 20
21
Commissioner Tanaka: Okay, great. So since it is a passive antenna that means I guess right 22
now we are on 802.11N, 11G, A, B. So it looks like then if there is another standard perhaps you 23
could upgrade the antenna without having to upgrade the antenna without having to go through 24
people’s apartments because you could change the protocol on the roof. 25
26
Mr. Hammett: That is correct. The antenna doesn’t matter what is coming into it. It will 27
broadcast it out. 28
29
Commissioner Tanaka: So it is a little more future proof. 30
31
Mr. Hammett: Exactly. 32
33
Commissioner Tanaka: Okay, that sounds like a good plan. I am done? That’s it? 34
35
Commissioner Garber: I am sorry I did not have the full five minutes in there so you are not 36
done. 37
38
Commissioner Tanaka: So then perhaps this is more upgradeable than just five years. I am just 39
asking for your professional opinion. 40
41
Mr. Hammett: I don’t know that I have a professional opinion on the growth of the network. 42
My role is to establish the safety conditions. 43
44
Commissioner Tanaka: Do you think that having a passive antenna versus an active antenna 45
does that affect the amount of maintenance that might have to be done? So you don’t actually 46
Page 42
have to change routers that break or power that burns out or surges or stuff like that? Does that 1
affect the amount of maintenance you have to do? 2
3
Mr. Hammett: That is correct. They say three times a year. You see these facilities that I know 4
they don’t go to that often for the very reason you mention. I think they put that in as a 5
maximum. 6
7
Commissioner Tanaka: I realize that is a maximum. What do you think is realistic? 8
9
Mr. Hammett: I don’t have the background to speak to that. I don’t do maintenance. 10
11
Commissioner Tanaka: Do you have any idea if let’s say they didn’t do this Wi-Fi plan they 12
actually did it as a cell site, they just beefed up the cell site to 4G or LTE or whatever. What 13
kind of power boosting would have to happen on roof if they just took the existing cell site and 14
said okay, we are not going to do the Wi-Fi on the balcony, we are just going to boost the signal 15
up? What kind of power change would that be for the residents? 16
17
Mr. Hammett: Again, since I don’t do the network design I am not really in a position to know 18
the answer to that question. 19
20
Commissioner Tanaka: Okay. Does the applicant know? 21
22
Mr. Albritton: I truly apologize. I was consulting with one of the Wi-Fi people here and I didn’t 23
hear the question. 24
25
Commissioner Tanaka: Sorry. My question is let’s say you didn’t do the Wi-Fi plan. Let’s say 26
you just said we are going to go 4G, we are going to go LTE, or Wi-Max, or whatever the case 27
might be. So you simply would just boost the signal on the roof instead of doing the directional 28
Wi-Fi. 29
30
Mr. Albritton: An LTE upgrade or something like that would entail installing new radio 31
cabinets, new radio equipment that would then be fed into new additional antennas that are added 32
to the roof. So you would be adding to the output of overall facility by the wattage coming off of 33
those radios and going into the LTE antennas and out. 34
35
Commissioner Tanaka: I see, so you are saying that instead of having a very directional Wi-Fi 36
away from the residents you would have to actually, if you were to upgrade this to LTE or 37
whatever the standard might be, you would actually have to place another piece of equipment up 38
there that would actually in a sense double the amount of power being emitted to the residents. 39
40
Mr. Albritton: That is an accurate statement, although I think you are talking about hundred to 41
thousands times more wattage. 42
43
Commissioner Tanaka: I see, so there would be a thousand more times more radiation versus… 44
45
Mr. Albritton: It depends on what radios they put up and what capacity they have. 46
Page 43
1
Commissioner Tanaka: Okay. 2
3
Mr. Albritton: I am not speaking out of school I don’t think when I say that a macrocell site can 4
be anywhere between 1,200 to 2,500 watts. 5
6
Commissioner Tanaka: Okay, so the Wi-Fi is… 7
8
Mr. Albritton: It all depends on, and I shouldn’t make that statement broadly because a 9
macrocell can have 800 megahertz antennas, 1,900 megahertz antennas, 700 megahertz antennas, 10
or for T-Mobile 2,100 megahertz antennas. Each frequency will have different wattages going 11
through the antennas, which have different gains. So that statement is very broad but it is 12
substantially more power by factors of hundreds. 13
14
Commissioner Tanaka: Okay. So by doing the Wi-Fi solution the residents are in fact getting 15
several orders of magnitude less radiation as a result. 16
17
Mr. Albritton: Yes. I began my statement by saying I wish all of my hearings like I had like this 18
were this kind of solution. It is extremely low wattage. It is extremely low impact. You can 19
touch the antennas. With a building permit in San Francisco we placed five-foot antennas on top 20
of apartment buildings that are a thousand times more powerful than this, and they are sitting on 21
top of residentials but they are still well within the FCC standards. 22
23
Commissioner Tanaka: I note Chair I am out of time. Can I ask one last quick question and this 24
will be it for me? 25
26
Chair Tuma: Sure. 27
28
Commissioner Tanaka: My last question is several of the residents mentioned there is some 29
commercial property across the street, nearby that are just as high, 15 stories high. Can you 30
explain a little bit why those were not good alternatives? 31
32
Mr. Albritton: Yes I can. As I mentioned we have an alternatives analysis that goes through all 33
12 of the proposed locations. We went and looked at the locations that were actually suggested 34
by the Staff and by the residents. There is 499 University directly across the street. It is only 35
about a two-story building, it doesn’t provide the height that we are looking for for the coverage, 36
and it doesn’t have any architectural feature where we could hide these antennas. So we would 37
have to mount this on the side of the building, try to paint it to match, and then have the cabling 38
coming off it. It is not clear that it has the fiber optic input that we would need, which might 39
require trenching University Avenue to get the fiber optic into the building. It was considered to 40
be a more intrusive solution to put that kind of thing, also it doesn’t provide the coverage that we 41
need. 42
43
There are photographs and a description of this in our alternatives analysis. There is a building 44
at 428 University Avenue, which is again sort of a flat, modern stone façade. It has a four foot 45
parapet at the top, probably about this height, which means in order to get the signal up we 46
Page 44
would have to mount these on tripods looking down off of the roofline, or we would have to 1
flush mount them on the front at the side of the building. Again, they would be entirely visible 2
and we don’t know again if it has the adequate fiber to serve the data requirements that we have. 3
4
There were also suggestions of using the Garden Court Hotel directly behind the Hotel President. 5
It is about a four-story building, which is behind the Hotel President, which is a six-story 6
building, so signals would be blocked from the Garden Court into University Avenue. Similarly, 7
the parking garage, Cowper Parking Garage I think it is called, is setback about half a block from 8
University Avenue with buildings in between and would not be able to see around the Hotel 9
President in order to get the signal to University Avenue. 10
11
So we are looking for a location that provides line of sight, very short distance because of the 12
low power of these, but the five-story height is just right to look up and down the street that has 13
an architectural feature that allows us to hide the equipment. In this case it is collocated with our 14
facility so in terms of the least intrusive means under your code it qualifies as a collocation. It is 15
structure mounted as opposed to having its own pole. 16
17
We also looked at AT&T Switch at 322 Hamilton Street because it had the fiber location. Again, 18
we didn’t have the direct line of sight without mounting some kind of antenna mount or pole in 19
order to put these high enough in the air so that they would reach the five stories and hit 20
University Avenue. As I mentioned we looked at 525 University Avenue, which is the 15-story 21
building. That is too high for these antennas to reach. There is a potential of putting a macrocell 22
there but it is too close to our current site and would cause interference. Then the Westin Hotel 23
where we have a macro site was also too far from University Avenue. There are other 24
alternatives I can mention but those were the – the last one that was mentioned was using the 25
Borders & Books façade and the sign and putting Wi-Fi antennas in the sign. That is too low for 26
the type of coverage that we want. In addition, it was we though much more historically 27
problematic to try and put these facilities in that sign and in that façade. I think I have covered 28
most of the proposed locations. 29
30
Commissioner Tanaka: You have answered my question, thank you, appreciate it. That’s it. 31
32
Chair Tuma: Thank you. Commissioner Martinez. 33
34
Mr. Albritton: Thank you for all of your time. We really do appreciate that. 35
36
Commissioner Martinez: I am going to cede my spot to Commissioner Garber. 37
38
Chair Tuma: Commissioner Garber. 39
40
MOTION 41
42
Commissioner Garber: I am going to make a motion. The motion is that the Commission 43
supports the Staff’s recommendation that the City Council uphold the Director of Planning and 44
Community Environment’s decision to approve Conditional Use Permit 10PLN-00285 amending 45
the existing use permit based on the findings and conditions in the Record of Land Use Action, 46
Page 45
with two conditions. I am going to need the support of two of my fellow Commissioners to 1
create those conditions. Commissioner Keller, would you provide wording for the first 2
condition? 3
4
Commissioner Keller: I am happy to provide wording independent of whether I support the 5
motion, but Commissioner Garber asked me to. 6
7
Commissioner Garber: Okay. 8
9
Commissioner Keller: The wording for that is that prior to the installation of these wireless 10
devices that an offsite engineering study be done with actual measurements of the comparable 11
device with distances that are from immediately adjacent to two feet away, and determine 12
whether there are any areas within that range, in any radius that exceed the maximum power 13
density allowed by FCC rules for members of the public. 14
15
Commissioner Garber: And the second condition, Commissioner Martinez, can you help me 16
with some wording there? 17
18
Commissioner Martinez: Yes. We would propose that for the location of the two antennas that 19
the applicant work with Staff to explore their location on the building directly beneath the 20
balcony so that the need for access through tenant apartments is not necessary. 21
22
Commissioner Garber: If that is found that that is pursued but if it is not that the project would 23
then be approved as submitted? That is a question for you. If there is some reason that that can’t 24
happen presumably it would revert to the proposed location. 25
26
Commissioner Martinez: No, I would propose that it would come back to the Commission at 27
that point with another alternative. 28
29
Commissioner Garber: In that case let me – Chair? 30
31
Chair Tuma: Let me try some language that may get us there. That is that the Staff work with 32
the applicant to explore alternative locations that obviate the need to go through the private 33
dwellings, but that we recognize that it may not be achievable. That is how I would word it and 34
the only thing I would say to that is, well we have to have a second on it before we start 35
commenting on it. 36
37
Commissioner Garber: Well, let me do this Commissioner Martinez, let me accept the Chair’s 38
wording and see if we can get a second. Then if necessary we will look for alternative friendly 39
or otherwise or some other action. 40
41
Commissioner Martinez: Okay. 42
43
Chair Tuma: Is there a second to the motion? 44
45
Page 46
Commissioner Tanaka: I think I will second it but I am a little bit confused by the protocol here. 1
You have made a motion to accept the recommendation with two conditions. 2
3
Commissioner Garber: Yes. 4
5
Commissioner Tanaka: So you need a second for both conditions. 6
7
Commissioner Garber: No I am looking for one second for all of those things. 8
9
Chair Tuma: Procedurally, there is currently one motion on the floor that has two conditions to it 10
and Commissioner Garber is looking for a second to that single motion that has both of those 11
conditions to it. 12
13
Commissioner Tanaka: I would like to second it but I think for Arthur’s wording I would like to 14
just tweak that. I don’t know if I can second it and tweak it or if someone else has to second it. 15
16
SECOND 17
18
Chair Tuma: I will go ahead and second the motion. 19
20
Commissioner Tanaka: Okay. 21
22
Chair Tuma: Would you like to speak to the motion? 23
24
Commissioner Garber: Yes, but only briefly. First, I believe that with the testing that 25
Commissioner Keller has proposed although not necessarily supported at the moment in terms of 26
the motion that the finding therefore can be made that the use will not be detrimental or injurious 27
to the property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, 28
safety, and general welfare, or convenience. I also believe the second finding can be made, 29
which is that use shall be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Palo Alto 30
Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of Title 18, which is the zoning. That is with the 31
condition that ideally we can find another location such that there is less impact to the applicants 32
relative to the ongoing maintenance of this particular device. 33
34
Relative to the device itself it does appear that it is a far better solution than any number of the 35
alternatives that have been both discussed this evening and that have been reported to in the 36
alternatives study that was presented to us. Let me leave that at that and let’s see where we go 37
with any modifications or amendments. 38
39
Chair Tuma: Okay. I am going to speak to the second. I am in agreement with Commissioner 40
Garber with respect to the necessary findings. The main trouble that I have, and obviously I 41
have supported the motion, but there are two issues that I think are unfortunate, and could have 42
made this evening’s proceedings significantly better. 43
44
The first of those deals with the notification. I understand that we have a process we rely on, and 45
we rely on those GIS system to give us these addresses, but we must have known with a 46
Page 47
landmark as prominent as this one that there were lots of people living there. So I think we could 1
have done a better job of noticing that. The consequence of that would likely have been that 2
much of the discussion and the types of issues that were raised tonight perhaps could have been 3
raised earlier on in the process and addressed in the alternatives analysis and the other things that 4
the applicant was doing. 5
6
The other thing I would say directly to the applicant is I am sure you guys do this all the time 7
you do it all over the place. But coming to the public two days before the meeting is a mistake. 8
You don’t do yourself a service by doing that, you don’t do the public a service by doing that. 9
There may be communities in which that is okay, but in Palo Alto this is a much more engaged 10
community. I would say that in the future, and there are birdies whispering about the future 11
about what may happen here, we typically see our applicants come to the public sometimes 12
months in advance of the hearings and begin to work with them, and explain to them in a process 13
that allows people to understand what is being done. That process informs not only the public 14
but often times the project itself. Many of these types of issues and concerns and things that 15
have been brought up tonight can be dealt with – you are never going to make everybody happy 16
all the time, but if you take that extra time and do it in advance you are going to wind up in a 17
better position, and certainly with a happier public. That is much of what we, as this body, are 18
concerned about. So I understand there are a lot of legal issues here. I have the background, I 19
used to work for a wireless company so I understand, but there are also real people issues here. I 20
would just say that I think the applicant could have done a better job in dealing with those issues. 21
I would say that it would behoove you in the future to do that. 22
23
Commissioner Keller. Commissioner Tanaka. 24
25
Commissioner Tanaka: I guess I would like to propose maybe it is not an amendment, maybe it 26
is just a clarification to the second condition in terms of the offsite testing. It looks like the 27
antenna that they are using is a pretty standard antenna in terms of it is not something custom 28
made for this project. It has probably been deployed before in other situations. So I am pretty 29
sure the manufacturer of that has the specifications. So rather than having to do a field test 30
perhaps the applicant could just refer to a preexisting engineering specification and use that to 31
satisfy that condition. If that is the case, then I don’t need an amendment. I just wanted to see if 32
you were requiring a live field test or just a clarification of the specifications from existing 33
engineering. 34
35
Chair Tuma: Commissioner Keller. 36
37
Commissioner Keller: I am actually requesting a live field test because I presume that these 38
devices are not expected to be placed in such a manner that people in normal use will be 39
immediately adjacent to them. 40
41
Chair Tuma: Let me interject something here. Does the applicant have any problem in running 42
this type of test? 43
44
Mr. Hammett: No, there is no problem running that test. 45
46
Page 48
Chair Tuma: Thank you. 1
2
3
Commissioner Tanaka: Okay, then I withdraw my amendment. 4
5
Chair Tuma: Commissioner Keller. 6
7
Commissioner Keller: Yes, a couple of things. Firstly, I do appreciate Commissioner Garber’s 8
interest in trying to resolve the issue of the emissions by actually doing a test to ensure that this 9
is within the legal limit. It would be ideal if we had that data before and there is some question 10
as to what the data might come out. To the extent that that data could be made public and 11
available which I think also should be made a condition of that, is to publicly release the data, if 12
that is okay? Is it a problem for the applicant to publicly release the data? No. Thank you. So I 13
think that would be important as a step. 14
15
I spent a few minutes trying to go through the Comprehensive Plan to see if there is any 16
particular rule about not building public facilities that require access through people’s apartments 17
and being a homeowner in Palo Alto I understand that I have a utilities easement in my backyard 18
that allows the various utility providers to have access to the pole that is adjacent to my 19
backyard. Most people don’t expect that that’s the case in their apartments. So I think that this 20
is in some sense unusual ground. 21
22
It seems to me that there are a couple of different factors going on. First of all, there is a lot of 23
internet use in Palo Alto. I expect that that will be growing and there is something particularly 24
unusual about this particular site in that people have access to being immediately adjacent to the 25
antennas. I am not familiar with any other cell phone site or hot zone in which people can be 26
immediately adjacent to the antenna or even place themselves within the face of where the 27
antenna is broadcasting. So this is unusual. This is not going to basically mean that I am 28
opposed to all cell sites, or opposed to all Wi-Fi sites. There is something particular about this 29
one that is unusual. 30
31
I do recognize that it is certainly convenient for AT&T to have this site where they already have 32
a cell site on top of the building because of various concerns like cabling and power and access 33
that has already been provided. But it seems to me that at the beginning of the presentation I 34
heard something about macrocells, microcells, and hot zones if I remember correctly. I 35
understand from the discussion that there is a cell site at, I guess it is a macro site or a micro site 36
I could not hear which, on top of this building. There is one on top of the Westin if I remember 37
correctly. So if you think about equidistant between that somewhere maybe it makes sense to 38
split the site and put a micro site somewhere in between. 39
40
In terms of 250 University Avenue, somebody provided the address of the building that is about 41
four stories tall at the corner of Ramona and University. It is a very attractive building. I am not 42
sure how easy it would be to put something there but the issue of the distance from Waverley to 43
Webster seems to be rather contrived considering the nature of what is being proposed. Putting a 44
microcell site or putting a hot zone adjacent to that building which is within a very small stone’s 45
throw of Palo Alto Internet Exchange, which has more fiber going to that site than you can throw 46
Page 49
a stick at, I think that should be seriously considered as a potential. That will not only provide 1
Wi-Fi access but could also offload some of the 3G and 4G access. I believe it is not a 2
residential location. So I would seriously suggest consideration of that. 3
4
Now I understand more about it. I am questioning the issue about whether the constraints were 5
designed in such a way to facilitate the reuse of this site. I realize there is a premium on reusing 6
sites because that is one of the conditions is that since there is a site there you can reuse it, but 7
you are not actually reusing the same antenna masts, you are actually creating separate antenna 8
masts effectively on the side of the building. So it is because of these reasons that I am actually 9
going to vote against it. I realize there are probably enough votes to support it, but I do indicate 10
that I think there are alternative and better solutions for this particular installation, and because of 11
the particular uniqueness of the approach being applied here. Thank you. 12
13
Chair Tuma: Okay. Any other discussion? Commissioner Martinez. 14
15
Commissioner Martinez: This is a messy land use issue. Regardless of how we cut it we have a 16
commercial use that is intruding upon a residential use. I am reluctant to support the 17
recommendation if it has built in it the option of going back to what has been proposed before us 18
tonight. 19
20
The applicant has already expressed a willingness and an interest in installing these antennas 21
below the balconies where access through tenant apartments is not required. I think we should 22
make that our strong message to Staff and the applicant that that is a better solution than what 23
has been proposed today. The small boxes mounted six stories high in the shadow of a balcony, 24
painted to match the color of the stucco, in my work is not an issue with historic resources. I am 25
sure there is a modest way we can make that work. 26
27
I would like to take a minute to cite from the Comprehensive Plan. Since Commissioner 28
Fineberg is not here with the big book tonight I am going to try to do this in her place. The first 29
Comprehensive Plan policy cited in the Staff Report was B-13, which supports this. This has to 30
do with research and development. We are not talking about research and development we are 31
talking about the application of a product that is available on the market. This is not an emerging 32
industry. This is AT&T, American Telephone & Telegraph, which is as old as anybody can 33
remember. So that is not a good supporting Comprehensive Plan policy. 34
35
I would like to read a few that I pulled out of the Comprehensive Plan this afternoon. Also from 36
the Business Element, Policy B-1. Use a variety of planning and regulatory tools including 37
growth limits, which doesn’t apply, to ensure that business change is compatible with the needs 38
of Palo Alto’s neighborhoods. This is a business change. It is not compatible with existing 39
residential uses, not as it has been proposed. 40
41
Program H-20. As part of the Zoning Ordinance Update process change the zoning code to 42
disallow use other than residential unless the project can demonstrate overwhelming benefit to 43
the public. I am not certain that this project really makes a compelling case for that. 44
45
Page 50
Land Use Policy L-11. Promote increased compatibility, interdependence between commercial 1
and mixed use centers. There is a problem with compatibility with the residences and this 2
proposed use. 3
4
Goal L-2. Safe, attractive mixed use centers. That has been called into question tonight. 5
6
Policy L-12. Preserve the character of residential neighborhoods by encouraging new or 7
remodeled structures to be compatible with the neighborhood and adjacent structures. When we 8
talk about character in the Comprehensive Plan I know there is a direct connection to the 9
physical character, the physical environment. But in Palo Alto in our Comprehensive Plan it 10
means more than that. It means the human environment. The character of human environment 11
here is substantially disruptive if these antennas are installed in a manner where the rights and 12
privacies of tenants are compromised. 13
14
I would like to add a friendly amendment that asks the applicant and Staff to explore the 15
installation of these antennas below the balconies, attached to the building, in a manner that is 16
consistent with our historic resources policies and programs, without giving the option to go 17
back to what was earlier proposed tonight. I am proposing that as a friendly amendment. 18
19
Chair Tuma: If I may, I have a question for a member of the public that may inform that. The 20
landlord if you could come forward, please. Do you periodically wash the windows on the 21
outside? 22
23
Mr. Dressel: No we do not wash the windows other than when the apartments are vacant they 24
are cleaned. 25
26
Chair Tuma: They are only cleaned on the inside. They are not cleaned on the outside? 27
28
Mr. Dressel: No. 29
30
Chair Tuma: So no windows are ever cleaned on the outside. 31
32
Mr. Dressel: There are no rigging devices for the building to repel down and clean the windows 33
or whatever. 34
35
Chair Tuma: In the time you have been there has there ever been any need to do any work on the 36
exterior of the building? 37
38
Mr. Dressel: Only when we first purchased the property we did an exterior weatherproofing and 39
paint job that required scaffolding. That is the only time. 40
41
Chair Tuma: Okay, thank you. Applicants, would you be amenable to a condition that required 42
these antennas to be installed in a location that did not require access for maintenance through 43
the individual residences? 44
45
Page 51
Mr. Albritton: I have to say I am just not qualified to answer that question. It is a construction 1
question. 2
3
Chair Tuma: There is no one from the team that is qualified to answer that question? 4
5
Mr. Albritton: Is there? 6
7
Mr. JR Henderson, AT&T: Hi. Traditionally we try not to use bucket trucks for accessing Wi-Fi 8
devices. Putting the devices underneath the balcony that could be done. I think I would have a 9
concern with blocking off the street and having vehicles having to get around, but if push comes 10
to shove and that is the way we have to go I think it is an option we can look at. I am not the 11
maintenance person but most of our installations are accessible. We really try to concern 12
ourselves about blocking traffic on a street and what that can cause in maintaining our 13
equipment. 14
15
Chair Tuma: Okay, but using a bucket truck, physically you could do it. 16
17
Mr. Henderson: We have done it before with bucket trucks. Just don’t know what the impact is 18
on University Avenue. 19
20
Chair Tuma: Okay. As I understand it from the attorney earlier the frequency with which this 21
maintenance would happen would be very, very infrequent. Is that? 22
23
Mr. Henderson: Correct. 24
25
Chair Tuma: Okay, thank you. So perhaps…Planning Director. 26
27
Mr. Williams: Thank you. I was just going to throw this out. Is it an option to include the 28
possibility that either they do it from underneath or that it would have to have the consent of the 29
tenant, not the property owner, but the tenant? Just an idea. 30
31
Chair Tuma: I hear what you are saying. I think that puts the tenant in a very difficult situation, 32
in a potentially combative situation. So I would much rather see this move forward where 33
essentially we are conditioning this on the …. 34
35
Commissioner Garber: Access to the site from ….. 36
37
Chair Tuma: Hang on one second because I want to split it. Let me try this. The initial 38
installation could possibly be done by accessing through the apartment or individual units if that 39
was absolutely necessary, but that ongoing the maintenance would be done without having to 40
access through. So whatever location would work on the building in terms of meeting the 41
aesthetic requirements, but at the same time so that it could be maintained, going forward from 42
the exterior. So I would offer that as a substitute friendly amendment. 43
44
Commissioner Garber: Let’s do it this way. I will not accept the initial friendly amendment. I 45
will accept the friendly amendment from the seconder. 46
Page 52
1
Chair Tuma: Okay. I will accept that as well as the seconder. Any additional discussion, 2
comments, questions? Are we ready to vote? Sure. 3
4
Commissioner Keller: So I am understanding your friendly amendment is that other through 5
initial construction that any further access in order to maintain it that that not require any access 6
through any of the apartments. 7
8
Chair Tuma: Yes, essentially the only access they have is in the first instance to install it. If they 9
need to maintain it, change it out, do other things that needs to happen without accessing through 10
the – that is the intent of my friendly amendment. 11
12
Commissioner Keller: Right, okay. Thank you. 13
14
Chair Tuma: Commissioner Tanaka. 15
16
Commissioner Tanaka: I have a question for the applicant. So you just heard the friendly 17
amendment. Would that be acceptable? 18
19
Mr. Albritton: I think AT&T wants to do everything they can to avoid affecting the tenants. The 20
only reason I hesitate is that you are treading on the rights between the landlord and the tenant. 21
You are dictating what rights he may or may not have. The best way to answer that…. 22
23
Commissioner Garber: Could we interrupt your deliberation there? Actually, I would state, and 24
I will let the attorney to the left of me weigh in here in a moment. I believe that we are not, and 25
in fact what we are doing is we are getting ourselves outside of that. We are making it more 26
clear that the City is standing outside of that. I am very concerned that we have no auspice to get 27
between the landlord, their tenants, and their commercial agreement that they have with you. 28
Our focus is primarily on the use here but we are being very sensitive to some of the things that 29
we have heard here, and are proposing conditions which essentially get around what we are 30
hearing is one of the primary issues. So there is nothing between us and the landlord and/or the 31
tenants in this particular, in the conditions that we set forth. 32
33
Mr. Albritton: All I can give you is a tentative yes. I am an outside counsel to AT&T. You can 34
probably imagine there is an army of lawyers that work for AT&T. It certainly suggests a 35
potential reasonable solution. I don’t know the logistics and the facts. I don’t know if a bucket 36
truck can reach it. I don’t know what the cost of the bucket truck is. I don’t know if there are 37
other improvements to the building that…. 38
39
Commissioner Tanaka: Your employee wants to say something. Can he speak? 40
41
Mr. Albritton: So it is a tentative. 42
43
Mr. Henderson: My concern with a bucket truck is it is six stories high so you have to make sure 44
you have a bucket truck large enough to be able to reach, like a fire truck to be able to reach up 45
that high. When you talk about intrusion for access there may be intrusion on the street, which 46
Page 53
may cause just as much heartache as it would for accessing a device on a balcony. If I have to 1
remove that device I can be in within 30 minutes to an hour to take it out. If I have to bring a 2
truck in that means I have to block off the street. It is a two-lane street on University, correct? 3
Right? There is limited parking. I know you have merchants out there. So basically what you 4
are going to have to do is you are more than likely going to have to close portions of the street 5
off to get a bucket truck in there that is going to be able to reach up to six feet. There is more 6
intrusion here as well. So I think it is possible. I am not the maintenance guy, the field 7
maintenance guy, the field services guy, but from my history of working with these devices you 8
are going to need a large truck to reach that high, which is going to essentially cutoff traffic 9
flowing up and down that street. That is my concern. That is a big concern. 10
11
Chair Tuma: Okay. 12
13
Commissioner Garber: Through the Chair here for a moment. Just for you to understand what 14
you are trying to do or what you are proposing is to provide benefits to not only your customers 15
but the public at large, etc. You are saying that there would be a burden obviously on the public 16
thoroughfare in order to maintain those things. At that point the burden is shared and the 17
benefits are shared by the public and we are not including any of the private property owners in 18
that equation. So there is some parody there. 19
20
The other issue of course is that it puts burden on you. Inevitably there will end up being, there 21
is the likelihood of temporary permits, trying to coordinate that through doing it early mornings 22
or late at night or whatever. I recognize all of that, but importantly it takes out of the equation 23
having to go through what is essentially private property here. 24
25
Mr. Henderson: I understand it is not the best situation to have to utilize private and commercial. 26
27
Chair Tuma: So I think the takeaway here to the applicant is let’s get creative and find if there is 28
a solution. You are going to have another hearing. It is going to be in front of the City Council. 29
If the motion that is on the floor passes our recommendation would be that this is the way that 30
this installation gets done. Do your homework, and try to figure out a way to do it between now 31
and then. I think if you can do it and it is feasible and it is reasonable it will make for smoother 32
sailing at the next step. So with that unless there are any other comments, Commissioners? 33
Commissioner Tanaka. 34
35
Commissioner Tanaka: So is the amendment? I guess I just actually want to make sure that 36
there is a truck that actually can go up six stories. 37
38
Chair Tuma: It is not a condition that they have to use a truck. The condition is that they install 39
it in such a way that they don’t have to go through the private homes of the residents of the 40
building to do maintenance, change it out, or anything other than after the initial. So however 41
they accomplish that if they have guys with parachutes, they are going to use a helicopter, 42
whatever they are going to do, repel off the building, guys do it for the Super Bowl all the time. 43
I don’t think any of us are in a position to say to these folks how they need to implement it. I 44
think what we are saying is this is what we would like to see implemented. 45
46
Page 54
Commissioner Tanaka: Okay. 1
2
MOTION PASSED (4-1-2-0, Commissioner Keller opposed, Commissioners Fineberg and 3
Lippert absent) 4
5
Chair Tuma: Okay. So with that all those in favor of the motion say aye. (ayes) Opposed? 6
(nay) That passes four to one, with Commissioner Keller opposing. 7
8
Attachment F
Project Notification
It is the City’s practice and policy to use the City’s GIST (Geographic Information System
T…) database to create mailing lists to satisfy notification requirements for public
hearings. The information that is on the GIST system is based on Santa Clara County
records for the property owner contact information, which is updated a few times per
year, and Palo Alto Utilities Department customer database for the tenants of individual
units’ contact information.
Within three business days of receiving a Conditional Use Permit application, staff sends
notice cards to property owners and residents within 600 feet of the project site to
inform them that a project has been submitted and is under review; staff utilizes the
City’s GIST system to obtain the mailing list information. The first notices for the project
were sent out August 16, 2010. In addition to the mailed notice cards, the project site
was posted with an 11” x 17” sign that notified the readers that the project had been
submitted to the City for review.
Staff also required the applicant to provide more detailed notification to the tenants
that are adjacent to the balcony feature. The applicant provided staff with a copy of the
notice and the distribution list (October distribution list); all the units facing University
Avenue were provided notice in late October.
When the tentative decision for approval was prepared, notice cards were sent January
16, 2011 to property owners and residents within a 600 foot radius, and to the October
tenant distribution list provided by the applicant.
On January 24, 2011 the first request for a public hearing was submitted. In
communications with the tenants that followed this request, it came to staff’s attention
that the residents in the building were not all individually noticed of the project; only
the tenants that were listed on the October distribution list were individually notified.
The City’s GIST system only provides resident address information for those who are
paying utility bills in Palo Alto; the tenants in the Hotel President do not pay separate
utility bills to the City, so therefore the City does not have the individual unit address
information available in the GIST system. For the August 2010 City notification, “488
University Avenue” received one notice card for the whole building; for the January
2011 City notification, one card was sent to 488 University and additional cards were
sent to the October distribution list. The property owner was included in the distribution
of all City notices, but according to the tenants, he did not notify them of the proposed
project.
The notification for the February 23, 2011 Planning and Transportation Commission
public hearing went to residents and property owners within the 600 foot radius, and to
all the individual residents in the Hotel President. This updated distribution list was
used for notifications associated with City Council review of this project.
Council Members Burt, Espinoza, Holman, Klein, Price, Scharff, Schmid, Shepherd, and Yeh:
There are five outstanding factors regarding AT&T's proposed antennae deployment that are of
significant concern to the residents of the President Hotel at 488 University Ave.
1. Access to rental residential homes by a third‐party corporate entity for commercial gain: AT&T
has proposed a solution that is in violation of existing California law. Entry and Inspection are governed
by Civil Code which specifically pertains to building maintenance, safety, and emergency issues, not to
entrance by a private third party for commercial enterprise that does not pertain to the specific
residential rental unit(s).
2. Disregard for the conditions requested by the Planning Commission: It appears that only after
prompting by the President’s residents, has AT&T begun to evaluate the conditions requested by the
Planning Commission in February. These conditions were 1) a request for additional field research on
the output of the proposed antennae and 2) a request to consider other alternatives for antennae
placement that do not impact building residents.
Since the Planning Commission meeting, it appears that little has been done, as was frankly represented
by employees of and consultants for AT&T. Specifically, On March 7th, a meeting was held with
representatives from the building’s tenants, an AT&T employee, an AT&T consultant and the building
owner. The residents initiated the discussion on alternative placements—the AT&T representatives
treated these suggestions as new information despite having heard these potential alternatives in our
earlier meeting with AT&T on February 21st (prior even to the Planning Commission meeting). We are
surprised that this item has gone to the Council’s Consent Calendar without these conditions having
been taken seriously.
3. Private corporate collusion with commercial property owners for commercial gain overriding the
concerns of rental residents: It appears that the private applicant is unable or unwilling to conduct
meaningful community outreach. Certainly AT&T, with its vast resources, can provide better notification
and community outreach going forward by bringing representatives, whether employees or consultants,
that can effectively answer questions presented and/or respond in a timely fashion to questions that
remain on the table. To date, communications have been less than stellar and those representing AT&T
less than forthcoming with the community.
Specifically, in the case of the antennae project at the President, we would have expected in Palo Alto
that community outreach would have been conducted much earlier than two days before the Planning
Commission public hearing, especially given the overall poor advance notice of the project. The
haphazard way this project has been handled (before and after the Planning Commission meeting) has
building residents very troubled.
4. Addendum or New Use Permit: The question remains as to why AT&T has been able to consider
the deployment of these devices as an addendum. If the applicant has not fully disclosed the planned
full extent of this deployment, it is recommended that they be compelled to resubmit a full and new use
permit with the City’s Planning Department. It appears to many involved that AT&T plans to use the
existing cell tower as the centerpiece of a much larger telecommunications project, not merely as a
“band‐aid” for their claims of data overload or of poor coverage in the 400 block of University.
If as stated the goal is to provide a meaningful service of real benefit to the residents of Palo Alto, it
would seem much more logical to place these powerful antennae at busier places on University Ave
(such as 300 University Ave or 250 University Ave) where they will benefit more members of the
community.
5. City policy concerning private telecommunications vendors: Going forward, how will the City
treat proposals from private telecom vendors? Does the City have a telecommunications plan with
overall objectives? And if not, how can the City escape claims of preferential treatment or monopoly by
certain vendors while excluding others? Does this not present huge legal liabilities to the City overall?
That is, if AT&T, the applicant at hand, gains control of a certain radius of University Avenue does this
shut out other commercial vendors; and if so what are the ramifications to the City and other
commercial applicants?
Thank you all for your time and attention in reviewing our comments.
The 6th Floor residents of the President Hotel, 488 University Ave
AT&T Applicant has prepared responses to Conlffiissioner Keller's questions:
1. Are residents of the apartments adj acent to the proposed antennas considered as
members of the public for the exposure limitations?
Yes, we routinely evaluate against the tightest limit: public, meaning any member of the
general public, 24/7
2. Are the balconies where the proposed antennas are to be placed accessible to the
residents of those apartments just as they are accessible to service personnel through
those apartments?
Two 6th floor apartments have doors that open to the balcony, while the others have
windows that face the balcony.
3. The Hammett & Edison document dated August 5, 2010 provides a measurement
regarding occupational guidelines (page 3, first full paragraph). At what radius would the
power density level not exceed *public* exposure guidelines for the requisite frequency
range? Please provide the calculations of this radius.
It would be a matter of inches, ifi! exceeds the public limit at all. And that's in FRONT
of the antenna, a position that would be close to impossible to attain, requiring one to be
suspended in the air, off of the balcony. For someone on the balcony, BEHIND the
antenna, the public limit would not be reached even touching the antenna.
4. Is periodic access of wireless carrier personnel through private apartments detrimental
to public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience?
Landlord access through an apartment at the Hotel President is a landlord/tenant issue
and not a zoning issue subject to regulation by the Planning Commission. Landlord
access to a tenant apartment does not affect Conditional Use findings related to the
3public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience2•
7. Have other locations in proximity to the coverage gap at an appropriate height been
considered? In particular, the City's Cowper-Webster garage, the Garden Court hotel,
499 University Avenue, Borders Bookstore fa9ade, 432 University Avenue.
See attached documents for response
8. Please provide a map of the coverage gap by signal strength.
A slide is attached for this information.
1
Supplemental Alternatives Analysis
(Response to Staff Inquiry 2/22111)
This document should be read in conjunction with the Alternatives Analysis submitted
2117/20 II. In total twelve alternatives were considered for placement of the approved
WiFi nodes.
I . Staff proposed locations
In an email dated February 22, 20 II, planning staff requested that AT&T evaluate
additional possible locations for the approved WiFi nodes. In general, these potential
locations are either too far from the desired coverage location, lack architectural features
that would allow disguising the approved WiFi nodes or may require trenching of
University Avenue to provide Fiber Optic Data service. A briefreview of these
supplemental alternatives, as requested by staff, is set forth below.
499 University Ave.
This low-rise commercial building does not provide adequate height to provide effective
service to more than a small portion of the coverage objective area. Additionally there
are no architectural features that would allow the wireless access points to be installed
without having them clearly visible from the street. Lastly, there is likely not a fiber optic
connection that would be sufficient for connections into the AT&T data network.
Installation of this capacity may require trenching of University Avenue.
428 University Ave. (aka 432 University Ave.)
This is a fOUI-stOry square commercial building witb a modern stone favade. To be
located on this building, the approved WiFi nodes would have to either be mounted on
approximately 5-foot tall rooftop tripods rising above the parapet, or be mounted to the
exterior fayade of the building both of which would be fully visible from the street below.
Lastly, there is likely not a fiber optic connection tbat would be sufficient for connections
into the AT&T data network. Installation of this capacity may require trenching of
University Avenue
Set back half a block from University Avenue, any signals from WiFi nodes on this fOUI-
story building would be blocked from the coverage objective area by the six-story
President Hotel and the other buildings between the Garden Court Hotel and University
Avenue.
Parking Garage -The City's Webster/Cowper parking garage is setback from
University Avenue and the signal from any WiFi nodes placed on this building would be
obstructed from the coverage area by the buildings which surround the parking structure.
Borders Bookstore Fa~ade -(456 University Ave.)
The iconic Borders fa<;:ade and signage does not provide adequate height for the signal
coverage necessary to fill the capacity gap identified by AT&T. In addition, locating the
approved WiFi nodes at this location would pose significant challenges to avoid
impacting the historic nature ofthis fa<;:ade. Lastly, there is likely not a fiber optic
connection that would be sufficient for connections into the AT&T data network.
Installation of this capacity may require trenching of University Avenue
II. Additional preliminary sites rejected by AT&T
The following additional locations were initially examined by AT&T as part of the site
selection process. Due to their distance from the coverage gap area, it was determined
early on that they would not meet the technical requirements to provide coverage along
University Ave. and as such they were not included in the Alternatives Analysis.
Westin Palo Alto (675 EI Camino Real) -this location did not provide coverage along
University Ave.
AT &T Innovation Center (260 Homer Ave) -did not provide coverage to the desired
outdoor area.
Alternatives Analysis
I. Summary
AT &T Mobility has identified a significant capacity gap in its wireless network at the
northeast end of University Avenue. This busy section of roadway along with the
neighborhood serving commercial'uses (restaurants and retail) in this area create a high
and rapidly growing demand for wireless voice and data service. AT&T Mobility
explored several nleans to provide additional wireless capacity to this area. Rather than
exclusively considering traditional wireless communication Facilities ("WCF"), AT&T
Mobility also explored installing WiFi nodes similar to those used in residences and
businesses to provide ihe local area with additional wireless capacity.
II. Preferred Locations
When considering facility locations AT&T Mobility seeks to identify the least intrusive
means to provide coverage to the subject area based upon the values expressed in
applicable local regulations. According to the Wireless Communication Facilities section
of the City of Palo Alto Municipal Code, Section 18.42.110 (a) "building mounted WCF
and co-location facilities are preferred and encouraged."
Further, Section 18.42.11 0 (b) (1) states that wireless facilities consisting of "Building-
mounted projects that do not exceed the existing building/roof-top screening height"
require only architectural review and not a conditional use permit and are therefore
preferred over locations which would require a CUP.
III. Methodology
AT &T Mobility reviewed both alternative siting location as well as alternative
technologies to identify the least intrusive mean to fill the identified capacity gap.
Through this analysis it immediately became apparent that a limited modification to the
existing facility would be less intrusive than installing a new WCF, whether collocated or
stand-alone. A review of the alternatives evaluated by AT&T Mobility follows.
V. List of Alternatives Considered
-345 Hamilton Avenue
AT &T owns a landline telephone switch in a building at 345 Hamilton Avenue. While
this was identified as the initial location for the approved facility, AT&T RF engineers
determined that this site would not provide adequate coverage for the heavily traveled
University Avenue corridor due to signal blockage from existing buildings. InstaIling an
antenna structure taIl enough to overcome this signal blockage would not be aestheticaIly
viable at this location.
-Wireless Facility at 525 University Avenne
There is an existing cellular co-location facility at 525 University Avenue about 170
feet away from the approved facility. This facility houses equipment for Clearwire,
Sprint Nextel, and Verizon Wireless. Due to its IS-story height and distance from
University Avenue, this building would require the installation of a full WCF rather than
the proposed WiFi nodes. The installation of an additional wireless facility at this
location would be aesthetically inferior to the proposed facility.
1550
Title only
Page 1