The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutStaff Report 3435 City of Palo Alto (ID # 3435) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 1/28/2013 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Appeal of AT&T DAS Phase 3 Title: Appeal of Director’s Architectural Review Approval of the Co-location by AT&T Mobility LLC of Pole-Mounted Wireless Communications Equipment and Associated Equipment Boxes on 20 Existing Utility Poles Within City Rights-of-Ways Near the Following Locations: 747 Loma Verde Ave; 3284 Cowper; 3412 Ross/ 3374 Ross Rd; 3132 David Ave; 3415 Greer Rd; 3539 Louis Rd; 2385 Waverley; 3094 Greer Road on Maddux; 390 El Dorado Ave; 452 Loma Verde; 3524 Waverly on E. Meadow; 3706 Carlson Circle; 3757 Corina Wy; 3915 Louis Rd; 631 E. Meadow; 3901 Middlefield Rd; 412 Ferne; 3945 Nelson Ave.; 1772 Hamilton Ave.; 109 Lois Lane - AT&T DAS Phase 3 Project From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation Staff recommends that Council: 1) uphold the Director of Planning and Community Environment’s decision to approve the Architectural Review application for the Phase 3 project based upon the findings and conditions of approval described in the Record of Land Use Action (Attachment A), excluding the proposed installation adjacent to 3706 Carlson Circle; and 2) direct staff to work with AT&T and residents to evaluate alternative locations/options for the 3706 Carlson Circle installation. Executive Summary AT&T’s application is for Architectural Review of 20 wireless communication facilities (WCFs) collocated on utility poles within City rights-of-way and jointly owned by the City and Pacific Bell Telephone Company dba AT&T of California, known as the Palo Alto Outdoor DAS (Distributed Antenna System) project Phase 3. The 20 installations propose one antenna placed on a pole extension at the top of each pole, and equipment cabinets placed lower down on the pole (between 10 feet and 20 feet above grade). The pole locations were reviewed regarding City of Palo Alto Page 2 their aesthetic impacts and consistency with the Phase 1 design approval by Council on January 23, 2012, and on December 18, 2012 the staff level Architectural Review approval was issued for the project. Staff received five appeals of this decision from residents who cited concerns regarding impacts to property values, aesthetics, noise, health, AT&T’s procedures for site selection, and the City’s review process. These are topics similar to those that have been raised in the Phase 1 and Phase 2 appeals that Council reviewed and approved in 2012. Staff believes the Director’s decision is appropriate for all of the sites, with the exception of the 3706 Carlson Circle site, which involves relocation of the utility pole from a public utility easement (PUE) to the street frontage. Staff recommends that this request be referred back to staff and AT&T to work with the residents to evaluate alternative sites. A subsequent decision on that particular site would then be issued and would again be appealable to Council. Background On March 29, 2012, AT&T submitted an application for Architectural Review for the Phase 3 DAS installations at 20 locations. The project was determined to be a collocation project and, according to Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Section 18.42.110, requires approval of an Architectural Review application, followed by the issuance of encroachment permits. The use itself is considered a permitted use, such that no Conditional Use Permit (CUP) is needed. In January 2012, the Council, on appeal, reviewed the Phase 1 DAS project for 20 installations and upheld the Director’s decision to approve the project sites (CMR #2393). At that time the issues that were raised by the appellants focused on the need for a wireless master plan for the entire city, and concerns for aesthetic impacts, potential health risks, noise, impacts on property value, type of technology proposed, and the safety and reliability of the actual installations. These issues were discussed in the associated CMR and can be viewed online for additional details. The Council approved all of the applications. On November 5, 2012, the Phase 2 DAS project approval was forwarded to Council on appeal to consider (on the Consent Calendar) at their meeting. An appeal was filed by Mr. Tony Kramer, a resident, citing concerns about the project’s compliance with the City’s Noise Ordinance. The City Council did not remove it from the Consent Calendar and voted to uphold the Director’s decision to approve the 15 project sites (CMR #3239). There are a total of four phases in AT&T’s citywide DAS project, including a total of 75 installations. The Phase 3 and 4 projects were both approved on December 18, 2012. Phase 1 is nearing completion of construction and Phase 2 installations are nearing construction. These four phases are a part of AT&T’s build-out to provide adequate coverage and/or additional capacity for wireless communications. AT&T is subject to a license agreement that allows AT&T to collocate the DAS antennas and equipment on the City’s portion of the utility poles. The Council approved the standard license agreement on July 25, 2011 (CMR #1756). City of Palo Alto Page 3 Following the Council’s decision on the Phase 1 application, subsequent Architectural Review (AR) applications for DAS installations, following the same prototype design as the approved design, were to be reviewed at staff level and be subject to public notice and Council appeal, but ARB public hearings were not required, according to the Zoning Code. Neighbor notification is provided and public comments are reviewed by staff for each location. Actions by the Director of Community Environment on the applications are posted on the City’s website and courtesy notices of the actions are mailed to neighbors within 300 feet of each pole. The Director’s decisions on staff level AR applications are also noted on the next available ARB meeting agenda. Review Process The standard procedure for the review of an appealed Architectural Review application is for placement on the Council Consent Calendar within 30 days of the filing of an appeal. Section 18.76.020(b)(3)(D) of the Zoning Code specifies that wireless communication facilities are considered “minor projects” to be reviewed by staff. Section 18.77.070(b)(5) of the Zoning Code specifically requires consideration by the Council on appeal of a staff approval of such a facility, rather than hearing before the ARB. Council may decide to pull the item off Consent only if at least three Councilmembers concur, and then the project is scheduled for a future public hearing date (PAMC 18.77.070(f)). The Council meeting on March 4, 2013 has been targeted for this public hearing, if Council determines to set a hearing. Project Description The approved design for the DAS installations is shown in the attached plans (Attachment G). The existing utility poles range in height from 28 to 52 feet and the pole top extension, on average, is about 8.25 feet. The equipment proposed on the pole face is the same for all the poles and is comprised of (1) a power disconnect box located nine feet above grade; (2) a remote prism cabinet (52.4”H x 12.15”W x 10.125”D) located approximately 10’-5” above grade; (3) a back-up battery cabinet (27”H x 22”W x 18”D) located approximately 15’-9” above grade; (4) an optical network interface box (13”H x 13”W x 3.75”D) located approximately 19’ above grade; and (5) related wiring. At the top of the pole extension, one antenna radome (24”H x 16” Base Diameter) would be placed in-line with the pole. The Phase 3 DAS project includes two sites where the existing poles, which are within a PUE and located close (3-5 feet) to the existing residential buildings, are proposed to be relocated out to the sidewalk right-of-way. With this pole relocation, the DAS installation would be consistent with the other sites throughout the city. Discussion City of Palo Alto Page 4 There were five appeals filed for this project and these are included as Attachment C. With the exception of one (Kramer), the appellants all requested that another location for the DAS equipment be considered, other than the sites indicated in their appeal request. 1. The first appeal, submitted by Dorianne and Roy Moss, was directed at the proposed installation near 747 Loma Verde. This installation is over 150 feet away from the Moss’ rear property line, and is separated by a street and one single-family property. The concerns that were raised in the appeal were the potential impacts to property value and AT&T’s lack of consideration (in determining the equipment location) of the project’s impacts to their second-story master bedroom window view. 2. The second appeal was filed by Scott and Elaine Keller and focused on the installation adjacent to their home at 3945 Nelson Drive. This installation is at least 35 feet away from the rear of the house. The Kellers raised concerns about the project’s noise impacts and the design aesthetics. 3. The third appeal, submitted by Bala Ganesh and Albert Ovadia, was specific to the DAS installation on the pole adjacent to 631 E. Meadow Drive. The installation is approximately 18 feet away from Mr. Ganesh’s garage and 25 feet away from Mr. Ovadia’s home. The appeal stated their concern was about the potential health impacts from the installation and the possible reduction in property value due to aesthetics. 4. The fourth appeal, submitted by Tony Kramer, was directed at the entire project. Mr. Kramer stated that he is appealing the decision because “AT&T has not met all the conditions of the Planning Department’s Notice of Incomplete”, dated April 27, 2012, and therefore should not be approved. This is in regards to the City requiring AT&T to submit an updated noise study for the DAS equipment. There is no DAS installation proposed adjacent to Mr. Kramer’s home. 5. The fifth appeal, submitted by Roger Petersen, was specific to the installation near 3706 Carlson Circle. This DAS installation is one of the two proposed pole relocations in Phase 3 and would move the existing utility pole approximately 22 feet away from the current location (that is approximately four feet away from the garage at 3704 Carlson Circle) out toward the street. This site also has a condition of approval that requires the installation of a new street tree for future screening. The concern that Mr. Petersen cites in his appeal is that the relocation of the utility pole out onto the street would be unattractive, since there currently are no utility poles located along Carlson Circle. City of Palo Alto Page 5 Staff Responses to Appeal Issues Property Value and Health Impacts The Federal Telecommunications Act (TCA) of 1996 limits the City’s authority in the review of wireless telecommunications projects. The City may only focus on the aesthetic and zoning code aspects of a project and, by law, may not consider potential health issues and any perceived related consequences (e.g. drop in property value). Under federal law, a local agency’s wireless facility siting decisions may not have the effect of prohibiting the provision of wireless service or unreasonably discriminating among wireless service providers. Further, a utility is required to provide any telecommunications carrier with nondiscriminatory access to its utility poles. Under federal law, the City may not regulate the placement, construction or modification of wireless communications facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency (RF) emissions, so long as the facilities comply with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulations concerning such emissions. Staff additionally has seen no information that indicates an identifiable loss of property value from such installations. Noise As outlined in PAMC Section 9.10.050, the public property noise limit specifies that no person shall produce on public property a noise level more than 15 dB above the local ambient at a distance of 25 feet or more from the source. The definition of local ambient means the lowest sound level repeating itself during a six-minute period as measured with a precision sound level meter; the code specifies that the minimum sound level shall be 40 dBA when determining noise levels outside (not inside a structure), and therefore, noise production in excess of 55 dBA at a distance of 25 feet away from the source would violate the noise ordinance. The noise requirements for residential properties, as set forth in PAMC 9.10.030, is that noise levels cannot exceed six dB above the local ambient (40 dBA minimum) at the property plane. According to AT&T, the two pieces of equipment that would produce sound are the back-up battery cabinet and the prism remote. All other elements proposed (antenna and wiring) do not produce noise. On June 6, 2012, Hammett & Edison Inc. performed a noise analysis at a powered installation in front of 255 N. California Avenue. The results of this study state that the noise level produced by the equipment, including the ambient noise, is approximately 44.5 dBA at a distance of 25 feet away from the pole. Based on this data, the conclusion is that the equipment is compliant with the Noise Ordinance. The details of the noise analysis are outlined in Attachment D. Staff does believe that, as indicated in the noise measurements at 255 N. California Avenue, lower noise levels (nearer the residential standard) can be readily achieved and that every City of Palo Alto Page 6 effort should be made to attain the lowest level reasonable. To further address the noise concern, therefore, staff has included the following two Conditions of Approval:  For installations in the City right-of-way, the Applicant shall endeavor to minimize the noise at the property line boundary with adjacent residential property, and shall attempt to keep such noise below 6dB above the ambient level most of the time, when fans are running at their normal setting. If such a standard is not reasonably achievable for a site, then the Applicant voluntarily agrees to use commercially reasonable efforts to ensure that the noise level does not exceed 6 dB above the ambient noise level at the nearest location of a residential structure. Under no circumstances shall the noise exceed the noise standard in Municipal Code 9.10.050 (i.e., +15dB over ambient at 25 feet).  The applicant shall submit a sound analysis of an operating installation within two months of the project installation/operation. The analysis shall clearly delineate how the installation complies with the previously listed condition regarding noise. Applicant may be required to submit these reports periodically for the life of the project, as determined by the Director of Planning. AT&T has agreed to the above conditions and has stated that it will make all feasible attempts to minimize the noise production from their installations. AT&T has completed several DAS installations, including 255 North California, 464 Churchill, 1720 Webster, 370 Lowell, and 1345 Webster. Council members may wish to visit one or more of these sites to assess the noise impacts from a layperson’s standpoint. Staff has visited the sites and believes that the noise is minimal adjacent to the pole and barely audible from 25 feet away. Aesthetics The Phase 3 installations follow the same design concepts that were reviewed by the ARB and approved by the City Council in January 2012. Carlson Circle Relocation to Street Right-of-Way Several residents in the vicinity of the 3706 Carlson Circle site have objected to the relocation of the pole from a public utility easement (PUE) to the street right-of-way. The City’s direction to AT&T has been to avoid location of antennas and equipment on poles in PUEs, given their proximity to homes and potential visual and noise concerns. This street, however, does not have existing utility poles on the street and the residents have identified some alternatives (including in PUEs) that might be viable. Staff recommends that the Council direct staff and AT&T to work with the residents to evaluate the alternative sites and re-issue an approval letter. AT&T concurs with the staff recommendation. The subsequent action would be appealable to Council if any neighbor objected. The Record of Land Use Action (Attachment A) has been prepared excluding this site from the Council approval at this time (condition #25). City of Palo Alto Page 7 Other Objections Staff also notes that some property owners objected (Attachment F) to the location and installations of four other sites near their properties, but those residents did not formally appeal the decision. Nevertheless, the entire Phase 3 project is one application, so the Council may act on those or any other proposal in the package. Staff believes that the objections fall into similar categories related to health impacts or visual concerns, as addressed above. Conclusion Staff believes that all of the site requests, other than 3706 Carlson Circle, are consistent with City criteria and federal and state law for such installations, and the Director’s decisions should be upheld. The approvals are reflected in the Record of Land Use Action. Citywide Wireless Communications Facilities Study In association with the Phase 1 DAS project, many residents requested the City to consider the development of a city-wide master plan for wireless facilities. On May 16, 2011, Council sponsored a study session to review issues related to wireless communications facilities (cell towers and antennas). Consultants to the City and staff presented an overview of the need for and technology related to such facilities, health issues, and relevant federal, state, and Palo Alto regulations. The Council asked that staff continue the dialogue with the community to provide better understanding for the public and the wireless industry. Council directed staff on July 2, 2012 to issue a request for proposal for a consultant/vendor to prepare a citywide wireless communications facilities plan. The RFP was released on October 2, 2012. Staff has interviewed four firms for the study and is finalizing its selection. A contract is expected to be awarded in February. Alternatives to Staff Recommendation The Council may also consider the following alternatives rather than approval as proposed: A. Council may remove the project from Consent to schedule and conduct a Public Hearing for one or more of the specific DAS locations; OR B. Council may remove the project from Consent to schedule and conduct a Public Hearing for all of the proposed DAS locations. Staff has targeted March 4, 2013 as a potential hearing date, given the wireless communications “shot-clock” processing requirements. (AT&T has stipulated to a shot-clock extension to accommodate the Council’s hearing schedule, if necessary.) City of Palo Alto Page 8 Policy Implications The proposed project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and staff believes there are no other substantive policy implications. The project is supported by the following Comprehensive Plan Policies: (B-13) Support the development of technologically-advanced communications infrastructure and other improvements that will facilitate the growth of emerging telecommunications industries; and (B-14) Work with electronic information network providers to maximize potential benefits for Palo Alto businesses, schools, residences, and other potential users. Resource Impacts The costs of project review by all staff and consultants is recovered by Architectural Review application fees paid by AT&T. Pursuant to the City’s standard license agreement, AT&T will pay the City $270 per year per installation, or a total of $4,050 per year for the 15 sites. Environmental Review The project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per section 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines. Attachments:  Attachment A: Record of Land Use Action (DOC)  Attachment B: Location Map (PDF)  Attachment C: Appeals (PDF)  Attachment D: Hammett and Edison Noise Memo, July 27, 2012 (PDF)  Attachment E: Applicant's Submittal Information (PDF)  Attachment F: Public Comments (PDF)  Attachment G: Project Plans (Councilmembers and Libraries only) (TXT) Attachment A ACTION NO. 2013-01 RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO LAND USE ACTION FOR AT&T DAS PROJECT PHASE 3: ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW 12PLN-00127 (AT&T, APPLICANT) On January 28, 2013, the Council upheld the Director of Planning and Community Environment’s December 18, 2012 decision to approve the Architectural Review application of the co-location by AT&T of (Distributed Antenna System, a.k.a. DAS) wireless communications equipment on existing utility poles, removing the DAS installation located adjacent to 3706 Carlson Circle 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 March 29, 2012, AT&T applied for Architectural Review for the co-location of wireless communications equipment (Distributed Antenna System) on 20 utility poles located within City rights-of-ways near the following locations: 747 Loma Verde Ave; 3284 Cowper; 3412 Ross/ 3374 Ross Rd; 3132 David Ave; 3415 Greer Rd; 3539 Louis Rd; 2385 Waverley; 3094 Greer Road on Maddux; 390 El Dorado Ave; 452 Loma Verde; 3524 Waverly on E. Meadow; 3706 Carlson Ci relocate to sidewalk; 3757 Corina Wy; 3915 Louis Rd; 631 E. Meadow; 3901 Middlefield Rd; 412 Ferne; 3945 Nelson Ave.; 1772 Hamilton Ave relocate to sidewalk; 109 Lois Lane. The proposed equipment would include one antenna at the top of each pole and two equipment boxes on the side of each pole (“The Project”). B. On December 18, 2012, following staff review, the Director of Planning and Community Environment (Director) approved the Architectural Review (AR) application. Notices of the Director’s decision were mailed notifying neighbors of the decision. The action is contained in the CMR #3435. D. Within the prescribed timeframe, five appeals of the Director’s decision were filed by Palo Alto residents: Moss, Keller, Ganesh, Kramer, and Petersen. 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. Architectural Review Findings. 1. The design is consistent and compatible with applicable elements of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project, as conditioned, incorporates a more streamlined design that conforms with policies that encourage quality development that is compatible with surrounding development and public spaces. The project is also supported by the following Comprehensive Plan Policies: (B-13) Support the development of technologically-advanced communications AT&T DAS Phase 3 2 infrastructure and other improvements that will facilitate the growth of emerging telecommunications industries; (B-14) Work with electronic information network providers to maximize potential benefits for Palo Alto businesses, schools, residences, and other potential users. 2. The design is compatible with the immediate environment of the site. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the proposed design, as conditioned, blends with the existing utility poles that are located within various residential neighborhoods within the City. 3. The design is appropriate to the function of the project. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the design of the equipment is not excessive for the intended utility use and has been improved with the required conditions of approval to streamline the design with the back-up battery cabinet placed above the prism and elimination of one antenna. 4. In areas considered by the board as having a unified design character or historical character, the design is compatible with such character. This finding is not applicable to this project. 5. The design promotes harmonious transitions in scale and character in areas between different designated land uses. This finding is not applicable to this project. 6. The design is compatible with approved improvements both on and off the site. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project, as conditioned, is compatible with the existing utility poles. 7. The planning and siting of the various functions and buildings on the site create an internal sense of order and provide a desirable environment for occupants, visitors and the general community. This finding is not applicable to this project. 8. The amount and arrangement of open space are appropriate to the design and the function of the structures. This finding is not applicable to this project. 9. Sufficient ancillary functions are provided to support the main functions of the project and the same are compatible with the project’s design concept. This finding is not applicable to this project. 10. Access to the property and circulation thereon are safe and convenient for pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the circulation under and around the utility pole is not impacted. AT&T DAS Phase 3 3 11. Natural features are appropriately preserved and integrated with the project. This finding is not applicable to this project. 12. The materials, textures, colors and details of construction and plant material are appropriate expression to the design and function. This finding can be made in the affirmative, see Findings 2, 3, and 4 above. 13. The landscape design concept for the site, as shown by the relationship of plant masses, open space, scale, plant forms and foliage textures and colors create a desirable and functional environment. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project, as conditioned, will be required to plant some additional street trees at some locations. The placement and selection of the street trees will be reviewed and approved by Public Works and Utilities to assure the plantings will be consistent with City standards. 14. Plant material is suitable and adaptable to the site, capable of being properly maintained on the site, and is of a variety which would tend to be drought-resistant to reduce consumption of water in its installation and maintenance. This finding can be made in the affirmative, see Finding 13. All City street trees are regularly maintained and will use only the required amount of water needed for establishment and maintenance. 15. The project exhibits green building and sustainable design that is energy efficient, water conserving, durable and nontoxic, with high-quality spaces and high recycled content materials. This finding is not applicable to this project. The scope of the project is small and there is limited opportunity to incorporate green building design into the sign installations. 16. The design is consistent and compatible with the purpose of architectural review as set forth in subsection 18.76.020(a). This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project design, as conditioned, promotes visual environments that are integrated into the aesthetics of the immediate environment of an industrial utility facility. SECTION 4. Architectural Review Approval Granted. Architectural Review Approval is hereby granted for the Project by the City Council pursuant to Chapter 18.77 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. SECTION 5. Plan Approval. The plans submitted for Building Permit shall be in substantial conformance with those plans prepared by AT&T titled Palo Alto ODAS, consisting of 63 pages, and received September 13, AT&T DAS Phase 3 4 2012, 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. The project shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plans and related documents received September 13, 2012, except as modified to incorporate these conditions of approval. 2. All conditions of approval shall be printed on the cover sheet of the plan set submitted to obtain any permit through the Building Inspection Division. 3. Any modifications/additions to the approved plans shall be approved by Planning prior to construction and installation. 4. The project approval shall be valid for a period of one year from the original date of approval. In the event a building permit(s), if applicable, is not secured for the project within the time limit specified above, the approval shall expire and be of no further force or effect. 5. For all pole installations, the backup battery cabinet shall be placed above the prism box. 6. For the life of the project, the size of the battery cabinet shall be reduced as technology improves so as to maintain the smallest battery cabinet needed. 7. The antenna, cabinet boxes, and pole extension shall be painted either “Rock Brown” or “Sand Brown”, with a matte finish, to match the existing color and finish of the utility pole, and all other equipment (i.e. wiring and related hardware) shall be painted with a matte finish to blend in with the background material/color of the pole. 8. The project shall be reviewed by the Utilities Department to determine if the pole is feasible for the placement of the proposed equipment and antennas. If the Utilities department does not support the placement of the equipment on the pole, the applicant shall submit a new Architectural Review application to the Planning Division for review of proposed alternative pole selection. 9. For sites that require new street tree installations, the applicant shall coordinate with the Public Works Tree Division, Utilities Department, and Transportation Division to gain approval for the placement and selection of tree AT&T DAS Phase 3 5 type. If the City departments do not support the placement of a city tree for screening purposes for the identified locations, then that site is no longer approved for the equipment installation and the applicant shall be required to submit a new Architectural Review application to the Planning Division for review of proposed alternative pole selection. 10. The applicant, in coordination with City departments, shall (1) analyze all proposed sites to determine whether new street trees can be added in the immediate vicinity for screening purposes and (2) add additional trees where feasible. 11. The preferred selection for new street trees shall be evergreen trees, as deemed appropriate by Public Works and the Utilities department. 12. Unless the City agrees to a modification of this condition, the requirements to install new street trees shall be 100% the responsibility of the applicant and shall be completed prior to the installation of pole equipment. 13. For installations in the City right-of-way, the Applicant shall endeavor to minimize the noise at the property line boundary with adjacent residential property, and shall attempt to keep such noise below 6dB above the ambient level most of the time, when fans are running at their normal setting. If such a standard is not reasonably achievable for a site, then the Applicant voluntarily agrees to use commercially reasonable efforts to ensure that the noise level does not exceed 6 dB above the ambient noise level at the nearest location of a residential structure. Under no circumstances shall the noise exceed the noise standard in Municipal Code 9.10.050 (i.e., +15dB over ambient at 25 feet). 14. The applicant shall submit a sound analysis of an operating installation within two months of the project installation/operation for City approval. The analysis shall clearly delineate how the installation complies with the previously listed condition regarding noise. Applicant may be required to submit these reports periodically for the life of the project, as determined by the Director of Planning. 15. The applicant shall perform a radio frequency (RF) analysis for each of the twenty installations to document the RF emissions for the installed and operating equipment. This analysis shall be submitted to the City within two months of the project installation/operation. Applicant may be required to submit these reports periodically for the life of the project, as determined by the Director of Planning. AT&T DAS Phase 3 6 16. If for any reason the project requires modification from the approved plans in any way, the applicant shall contact Planning staff for a determination on whether the change requires a new application for Architectural Review and Historic Review, if applicable, to be submitted. 17. Pole 1/Node P2N11A (747 Loma Verde Ave): Equipment shall face trees to the south west. 18. Pole 2/Node P2N15B installation shall be located adjacent to 3284 Cowper St. 19. Pole 3/Node P2N20A installation shall be adjacent to 3412/3374 Ross Road and an additional street tree shall be required to the left side of pole. 20. Pole 5/Node P2N24A (3415 Greer Road): Low growing (+/- 15’tall) street tree shall be planted to the south side of pole. 21. Pole 7/Node P2N51A installation shall be adjacent to 2385 Waverley St and an additional street tree shall be planted to the left. 22. Pole 8/Node P2N52A (3094 Greer Road): Verify that the maple tree is still growing to the left of the pole; if tree no longer there, applicant shall install a new street tree. 23. Pole 9/Node P2N6A installation shall be located adjacent to 390 El Dorado Ave. 24. Pole 11/Node P2N10B shall be located adjacent to 3524 Waverley Street, on E. Meadow. 25. Pole 12/Node P2N13A (3706 Carlson Circle) installation shall require the utility pole to be moved to the inside edge of sidewalk and one low growing street tree shall be installed to the left of the pole, with agreement of the adjacent property owner be eliminated from the project approval. AT&T shall work with staff and neighbors to determine if an alternative location is feasible for AT&T’s coverage needs and submit that site for separate Architectural Review. 26. Pole 15/Node P2N31A installation shall be located adjacent to 631 E. Meadow Drive. 27. Pole 17/Node P2N34B installation shall be located adjacent to 412 Ferne Ave. 28. Pole 19/Node P2N25A (1772 Hamilton Ave) installation shall require the utility pole to be moved to the inside edge of AT&T DAS Phase 3 7 sidewalk and shall install one low growing street tree to the left of the pole. 29. Pole 20/Node P2N13A (109 Lois Lane) installation shall require the utility pole to be moved to the inside edge of sidewalk and one low growing street tree shall be installed to the left of the pole. 30. All cost recoverable charges related to this Planning entitlement process, per the cost recovery agreement, shall be paid in full and in a timely manner; these include charges for two consultants hired for peer review of this project. Non-payment may result in the withholding of other city required permits and or approvals required for the project to move forward to the construction phase. Fire Department 31. The applicant shall submit a completed copy the document entitled “Optional Checklist for Local Government to Determine Whether a Facility is Categorically Excluded.” If the applicant is required to submit an Environmental Assessment (EA) to the FCC, please indicate if it has been submitted and the date submitted. Electric Utility 32. Electric Utility shall not perform any operations and/or engineering until a Master License Agreement is signed between AT&T and the City of Palo Alto. AT&T shall not attach any equipment on the City's portion of any utility pole until the Master License Agreement is signed by both parties. The Master License Agreement will determine the procedures, policies, fees and responsibilities for DAS work on joint utility poles. SECTION 7. Indemnity. To the extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the “indemnified parties”)from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties 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. Architectural Review Approval. The approval shall be valid for one year from the AT&T DAS Phase 3 8 original date of approval, pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.77.090. 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 AT&T titled Palo Alto ODAS, consisting of 63 pages and received September 13, 2012. Phase 3 - Palo Alto oDAS kj kj kj kj kj kj kj kj kj kj kj kj kj kj kj kj kj kj kj kj N25A N38A P2N7A P2N6A P2N52AP2N51A P2N36A P2N34B P2N33A P2N32A P2N31A P2N28A P2N27A P2N24A P2N21A P2N20AP2N15B P2N13A P2N11A P2N10BALMA MIDDLEFIELDEL CAMINO REAL PAGE MILL EMBARCADERO CHARLESTON OREGON FOOTHILL CHURCHILL JUNIPERO SERRA SAND HILL PALMARBORETUM RENGSTORFF GALVEZ EL CAMINO REAL £¤101 Legend kj N25A, 1772 Hamilton Ave kj N38A, 109 Lois Ln kj P2N10B, 3524 Waverly St kj P2N11A, 747 Loma Verde Ave kj P2N13A, 3706 Carlson Cir kj P2N15B, 3284 Cowper St kj P2N20A, 3412 Ross Rd/3374 Ross Rd kj P2N21A, 3132 David Ave kj P2N24A, 3415 Greer Rd kj P2N27A, 3757 Corina Way kj P2N28A, 3915 Louis Rd kj P2N31A, 631 E Meadow Dr kj P2N32A, 3901 Middlefield Rd kj P2N33A, 3539 Louis Rd kj P2N34B, 412 Ferne Ave kj P2N36A, 3945 Nelson Dr kj P2N51A, 2385 Waverly St kj P2N52A, 3094 Greer Rd kj P2N6A, 390 El Dorado kj P2N7A, 452 Loma Verde Ave ³ AT&T Proprietary (Internal Use Only)Not for use or disclosure outside the AT&T companies except under written agreement.Telco proprietary data is not to be disclosed to siloed employees. Gonsalves. Ronna From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: 0 1i t I • ..ttlm ;) Gr F ICE elainekllr@aol.com Tuesday, January 22, 2013 10:54 AM 13 JAN 22 PM 12: 50 Council, City scott.l.keller@lmco.com Appeal of AT&T DAS Antennas Phase ill -3945 Nelson Drive KELLER-LANDSCAPING_PLAN.pdf; Map_oC3945_Nelson_and_Environs.pdf Dear Honorable City Council Members: I am writing to make you aware of my husband's and my concerns regarding the AT&T DAS antenna installation on the telephone pole adjacent to our back yard at 3945 Nelson Drive. My husband has written to you before, but we wanted to make you aware that we have formally appealed the installation and to reiterate our concerns. We are in a unique situation in that the pole at 3945 Nelson Drive is located on the side of our property at the back property line, just a few feet from the gate to our backyard patio, and not at the front curb as is usually the case. We own an Eichler, and we purchased the property because of the indoor/outdoor space concept. It is a small house, and we see the backyard as an important extension of our living space. Before we knew about this proposed antenna, we relandscaped our entire back yard and added a patio in the back corner of the property, abutting the telephone pole in question. (See Attachment #1). In the January 23.2012 City Council meeting to approve Phase I of this project, City Planning stated that they were not recommending that antennas be located in people's back yards. but that is exactly what is happening here. The antenna is loud and unSightly and would basically become a part of our backyard space. We have tried, on multiple occasions, to address this issue with both the Palo Alto City Planning department and AT&T. City Planning has directed us to work things out directly with AT&T. In a June 25, 2012 email, Clare Campbell from the Palo Alto Planning Department stated that she "will be communicating directly with you, the property owner, regarding your concerns with the DAS project" but I have never been able to have a direct conversation with her. She went on to say that she was forwarding my concerns to AT&T and that "AT&T needs to communicate with you what their needs are and how those can be met with the various pole sitings." AT&T did not initiate a response with me on this matter. After I called AT&T multiple times, including calls to Ms. Clunie's supervisor, I was told that the location of the antenna in question was "critical" but information on why this was so was never given to me, despite multiple requests. I have tried repeatedly to engage AT&T in a conversation about this antenna location. I have sent Shiyama Clunie from AT&T External Affairs (and Clare Campell from Palo Alto City Planning) proposed alternative locations and have tried to engage AT&T in a conversation on the matter. Our property is adjacent or in close proximity to numerous public and commercial spaces that could be used to house this antenna. (See Attachment #2). Ms. Clunie tells me that the antenna in question could not possibly be moved, not even by 30 feet over to Cubberley, which is right behind us. When we question this (my husband and I are both engineers and this makes no sense to us), we have been kept at bay and have never received any information on why the 3945 Nelson Drive location is so critical. Ms. Clunie assured us as recently as January 4, 2013 (and copied City Council members on the email), that "I'll review your suggestions and will provide you with a written response shortly." We have never received any explanations from her or anyone at AT&T, just as we did not hear back from her after Clare Campbell forwarded my June 25,2012 email to her. I call upon you, the Palo Alto City Council, to balance your citizens' rights against those of corporations like AT&T and ensure due process is met. I am really surprised and disheartened that AT&T has so much control in this process. I have spoken to many others who are affected by the antennas, and the community at large feels railroaded by AT&T in this process. The Planning Department is asking citizens to work with AT&T, but AT&T has no incentive to consider moving any antennas, regardless of the reason, and is effectively stonewalling anyone who tries to engage with them in this matter. . Please do call me at 650-384-6411 with any questions you might have. I very much appreCiate your thoughtful consideration of this matter. Sincerely, Elaine M. Keller 1 RESIDENCE ... " \(ELlt;K t<ES\vE7\l~ NELSONDRIVE ~qLtS NeJ~ 1:) Thlo A\1-o GoogleMaps Page loft e 1'D~~\ ~\~.~ loc~s [[Ie-.ry .c{ 'Palo~11o.1>G\\"k'S /'e:.hoJ.-s. /oihz(o+, LA",c3 I. aG ree f\ ~.»J~M~(\ ~~S~ ~ • COM.~al ~ce Cc"'arl.es~o~ ~-b-) ~ l'~FSCt·J ~ T an.\ef'\f\a \ouJl.O" . • ?o.\enhq\.C\I.\ecn~Ve.. IO~$ ~ A1tf ))~ aftkf\~ 0\'1 e.~~~~ *t~~h<.. 1Dle~ hUps:llmaps.googkuomfmaps?Fh&bF=eb&ie=U1'F8AII=31.417737,·122.1U278&SplFO.O.,. 11312013 Gonsalves. Ronna From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Ms. Clunie, elainekllr@aoLcom Wednesday, January 23, 2013 12:58 PM sr2597@att.com '3 JAN 23 PH 3: 22 sctkllr@aoLcom; Campbell, Clare; Keene, James; Council, City; Williams, Curtis; mn3281 @att.com; pa@mallp.com Re: EXTERNAL: RE: AT&TDAS Antenna at 3945 Nelson Drive, Palo Alto Thank you for responding to my many requests for more information. However, I do not agree with your arguments in their entirety. First of all, the ARB approved this location based on misinformation provided by AT&T. You submitted photos of the area taken in March or so of 2012, well before the relandscaping that we did in May (before we know about this plan at all). This relandscaping eliminated the foilage screening that you claim existed aroud the telephone pole in question. We made you aware of the lack of screening at this location as early as June, 2012, but you stili submitted erroneous photos of the location to the ARB in September, which led to their December approval of the site .. There is no screening whatsoever at this location and you were made aware of that. Secondly, you do not address the possibility of moving the DAS antenna over to Cubberley, which is just a few feet from our property. At the proposed Parkside location, you are proposing to install a new AT&T telephone pole. Why isn't this possible at Cubberley? Or why can't you attach the antenna to an existing light pole at Cubberely, as the January 23, 2012 City Council minutes stated would be the alternative in cases of underground utilities? It does not appear that you have addressed either of these alternatives, and these locations would be close enough to not impact your coverage. Lastly, could you please provide the system design impact and the network performance impact for each of the alternatives that we have proposed along with technical proof that the alternatives are unworkable. This antenna would basically be located in our back yard. I feel you need to pursue EVERY alternative to that event, and we are not yet convinced that you have done so. Thank you. Elaine Keller -----Original Message----- From: CLUNIE, SHIYAMA <sr2597@att.com> To: 'elainekllr@aol,com' <elainekllr@aoLcom> Cc: 'sctkllr@aol.com' <sctkllr@aol.com>; 'clare.campbell@cityofpaloalto.org' <clare.campbell@cityofpaloalto.org>; 'james. keene@cityofpaloalto.org' <james. keene@cityofpaloalto.org>; 'city .council@cityofpaloalto.org' <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; 'curtis.williams@cityofpaloalto.org' <curtis.williams@cityofpaloalto.org>; NGUYEN, MINH V <mn3281@att.com>; 'Paul Albritton (pa@mallp.com)' <pa@mallp.com> Sent: Tue, Jan 22, 2013 9:43 pm Subject: RE: EXTERNAL: RE: AT&T DAS Antenna at 3945 Nelson Drive, Palo Alto Elaine -As you and I discussed when we spoke in July and October of 2012, we've carefully considered the sites that you suggested, and unfortunately they are not viable alternatives for AT&T. DAS nodes are low powered in nature and have only a one to two block range. As a result, the planning division-approved AT&T DAS network already includes facilities adjacent to the alternatives you suggest, including Piazza Shopping Center, the Greenmeadow Community Center and Mitchell Park, in addition to the node at 3945 Nelson Drive. Similarly, the area that would be served by the poles that you reference, located at the intersection of Nelson Dr. and Charleston Avenue, are already covered by nodes planned nearby, to the north of Middlefield and on the east side of Charleston, as well as by a node currently planned for Parkside Ave. If we moved the node at 3945 Nelson Drive to the Nelson Dr.lCharleston Ave. location, it would create overlaps in coverage close to that site, and gaps in coverage between that location and other nearby nodes. The poles along the access driveway to Cubberley adjacent to your property are located in rear residential yards and are not accessible to AT&T. 4 Please know that each of the 19 utility poles approved in the AT&T Phase II I DAS project were selected from 77 poles evaluated by AT&T, the City Planning Division and Utilities Department, as well as the City's third party consultant to identify poles with the least aesthetic impact to neighbors and the community using criteria established by the city's Architectural Review Board (ARB). Each individual DAS node also uses the diminutive, streamlined design that resulted from months of comment and review by the public and ARB. While we understand your concerns, AT&T continues to believe that 3945 Nelson Drive is the preferred location for AT&T's DAS node to provide needed wireless service to this area with the least impacts. I have attached the first page of the Planning Division's approvals of AT&T's Phase III and Phase IV DAS projects that lists the specific address of each approved pole for your reference. Finally, you correctly mention that the permit application for Phase "' of the DAS project was submitted in March 2012. However, the application was not accepted by the City as complete until September 2012. As noted above, AT&T has worked with Palo Alto's Planning Division, Utilities Department and the City's outside consultant to find locations that suit each neighborhood's coverage needs and aesthetics. This process has taken many months. I hope that this e-mail addresses your concerns adequately. If I've overlooked an issue or concern that you raised or didn't answer a question to your satisfaction, please let me know. Best regards, Shiyama Shiyama Clunie Area Manager AT&T External Affairs, Santa Clara County and Southern San Mateo County Office: (650) 473-8022 Cell: (510) 326-8897 From: CLUNIE, SHIYAMA Sent: Friday, January 04, 2013 11 :00 AM To: 'elainekllr@aol.com' Cc: sctkllr@aol.com; clare.campbell@cityofpaloalto.org; james.keene@cityofpaloalto.org; city.council@cityofpaloalto.org; curtis.williams@cityofpaloalto.org; NGUYEN, MINH V; Paul Albritton (pa@mallp.com) Subject: RE: EXTERNAL: RE: AT&T DAS Antenna at 3945 Nelson Drive, Palo Alto Elaine - I'm glad that we agree that we have had phone conversations and have exchanged e-mails and voice-mails over a period of months. I'm sorry that you don't feel that the information that I provided on alternative sites was detailed enough. I'll review your suggestions and will provide you with a written response shortly. Best regards, Shiyama Shiyama Clunie Area Manager AT&T External Affairs, Santa Clara County and Southern San Mateo County Office: (650) 473-8022 Cell: (510) 326-8897 From: elainekllr@aol.com [mailto:elainekllr@aol.com] Sent: Friday, January 04, 2013 10: 12 AM To: CLUNIE, SHIYAMA Cc: sctkllr@aol.com; clare.campbell@cityofpaloalto.org; james.keene@cityofpaloalto.org; city.council@cityofpaloalto.org Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: RE: AT&T DAS Antenna at 3945 Nelson Drive, Palo Alto 5 Shiyama, I agree that we have had telephone conversations in addition to emails. I also agree that you have told me that you do not have alternatives to the antenna location in our backyard. But, when I asked you for detailed information to support that comment, I have not received it. It may be inconvenient for AT&T to move this antenna but this not an excuse to force a noisy antenna system to abut a disabled person's -or anyone else's -back yard, just feet from their patio and entranceway. It is not plausible to us that, with all the choices within very close distance to us, that the only technically acceptable solution is our exact location. In fact, our little community is surrounded by phone poles and opportunities for your system in more commercial or public environments all within a few feet of us. In the attached map you can see multiple locations that should be suitable. There are easily accessible telephone poles abutting the Piazza's shopping center (Charleston Center), where higher noise levels are already standard. There are telephone poles at the intersection of Nelson and Charleston which face a major intersection rather than a residential back yard. Neither is far from the current proposed site. If you look at . the attached map, there is an over-abundance of public and commercial space in the immediate vicinity of this antenna location that could support the antenna. Clearly, the antenna does not have to be on a telephone pole. Per the January 23,2012 Palo Alto City Council meeting notes, light poles will be used when telephone poles are not available due to underground utilities. There is no reason why light poles or phone poles at Cubberly or Mitchell Park could not be used in this case. Cubberly is only 50 to 100 feet away! AT&T's statements to us regarding alternative locations lack specifics and are not credible. Thank you. Elaine and Scott Keller -----Original Message---- From: Keller, Scott L <scott.l.keller@lmco.com> To: 'elainekllr@aol,com' <elainekllr@aol,com> Sent: Fri, Jan 4, 2013 8:31 am ' Subject: Fw: EXTERNAL: RE: AT&T DAS Antenna at 3945 Nelson Drive, Palo Alto Sent from my Blackberry From: CLUNIE, SHIYAMA [mailto:sr2597@att.com] Sent: Friday, January 04,201308:37 AM To: 'elainekllr@aol.com' <elainekllr@aol.com>; 'clare.campbell@citvofpaloalto.org' <clare.campbell@citvofpaloalto.org> Cc: Keller, Scott L Subject: EXTERNAL: RE: AT&T DAS Antenna at 3945 Nelson Drive, Palo Alto Elaine - My records show that I called you on July 13th• As you mention below, when you left a message for me on September 29th (a Saturday), I called you back on Tuesday, October 2nd, after doing research on the site in question. Our interactions didn't consist of voice-mails, exclusively. I had a phone conversation with you, during which we discussed alternatives that had been considered and eliminated. This week, I've put together an e-mail response for you, and you'll receive that shortly. Sincerely, Shiyama Shiyama Clunie Area Manager AT&T External Affairs, Santa Clara County and Southern San Mateo County Office: (650) 473-8022 . Cell: (510) 326-8897 6 From: CLUNIE, SHIYAMA Sent: Friday, January 04, 2013 6:59 AM To: 'elainekllr@aol.com'; clare.campbell@cityofpaloalto.org Cc: scott.l.keller@lmco.com Subject: RE: AT&T DAS Antenna at 3945 Nelson Drive, Palo Alto Hello Elaine - We considered several alternatives to this location, as I shared with you when we spoke in November. I've put together an e-mail response for you, which you'll receive shortly. Sincerely, Shiyama Shiyama Clunie Area Manager AT&T External Affairs, Santa Clara County and Southern San Mateo County Office: (650) 473-8022 Cell: (510) 326-8897 From: elainekllr@aol.com [mailto:elainekllr@aol.com] Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2013 1:47 PM To: clare.campbell@cityofpaloalto.org; CLUNIE, SHIYAMA Cc: scott.l.keller@lmco.com Subject: Fwd: AT&T DAS Antenna at 3945 Nelson Drive, Palo Alto Hello and Happy New Year to both of you. I am writing to resend an email that I originally sent to the two of you back in early November of 2012, documenting our concerns with the placement of an AT&T DAS system just outside of our side yard fence and within just a few feet our our backyard living space. In the letter, I proposed three alternative placements for the antenna in close proximity to our property. I have not heard back from either of you regarding the feasibility of these alternate sites. My husband and I are formally protesting the placement of this antenna in Phase 3 of the AT&T DAS system, and we would appreciate your response to the alternative locations as part of this appeal. Thank you. Elaine Keller -----Orig inal Message----- From: elainekllr <elainekllr@aol.com> To: sr2597 <sr2597@att.com> Sent: Mon, Nov 5, 20125:52 pm Subject: Fwd: AT&T DAS Antenna at 3945 Nelson Drive, Palo Alto Shiyama, this is the email address that I used last week when I sent the email below, although it looks very different in the CC: line below. It did not come back as 'returned,' though. Elaine -----Original Message----- From: elainekllr <elainekllr@aol.com> To: clare. campbell <clare.campbell@cityofpaloalto.org> Cc: ""\"sr2597 sr2597\"" <"sr2597 sr2597''''@att.com>; scott.l.keller <scott.l.keller@lmco.com> Sent: Tue, Oct 30,20125:54 pm Subject: AT&T DAS Antenna at 3945 Nelson Drive, Palo Alto 7 Dear Clare, My husband and I remain extremely concerned about plans to locate an AT&T DAS antenna on a telephone pole abutting our back yard at 3945 Nelson Drive, Palo Alto. Per city documentation, it is Node # P2N36A. We would like to petition the city to relocate this antenna to another location. There are multiple locations in the vicinity that would be much more acceptable. Please bear with me as I step through our concerns and our attempts to obtain Clarification. NOTICES: To date, we have received no notices from the city regarding this project, nor have any of our neighbors, which is disheartening in and of itself. The fact that the city, together with AT&T, could even attempt to make decisions as to antenna placement without alerting the affected neighbors and understanding their individual concerns is just inconceivable. On the first two rounds of documents, AT&T and the city didn't even get our address right (first listed as 3495 Nelson Drive, then 3945 Nelson Avenue). My husband and I were only made aware of the project from another local resident who was affected by an antenna in Phase II, even though a September 12,2012 letter from Minh V. Nguyen of AT&T to Clare Campbell cites a March 29, 2012 Phase III application date. This 9-12-12 document went on to state that the 3945 Nelson Drive "location is acceptable as has less impacts to residences due to siting by athletic fields and within semi-deciduous tree canopy." The semi-deciduous tree canopy being referenced was removed when our yard was landscaped in May, 2012 (at which point we still had no idea about this project) but is still being referenced in the 9-12-12 letter, along with pre-May 2012 photos. We formally request that the city of Palo Alto and AT&T follow established laws and processes in terms of understanding residenfs concerns and impacts and cease work on the DAS planning in this area until they do so. CONVERSATIONS WITH AT&T: AT&T has been impossible to deal with in regards to this matter. Their idea of External Relations leaves a lot to be desired. I originally emailed you, Clare, with my concerns on June 25,2012 and was informed that you would forward my concerns to Shiyama Clunie in External Affairs at AT&T. By July 10 of 2012,1 had still not heard from Shiyama and you suggested that I call her supervisor, John Jefferson at AT&T. John reiterated that I needed to work with Shiyama, but still, weeks and then months passed with no communications from her. Fast forwarding to September -I attempted once again to contact AT&T after being made aware of the September 12, 2012 letter referenced above. I called John Jefferson on September 29 and was again referred to Shiyama Clunie, whom I left a voice message for on the same day. Shiyama returned my call with a voice message on October 2,2012, saying that her engineers felt the pole near our house was the ONLY suitable location in the area for their antenna, something that I do not begin to believe. My husband and I both have engineering degrees and realize that such a statement is absurd. I have since called Shiyama back an additional THREE times over the ensuing weeks, and she has yet to return my call. The last call that I placed to her was on October 26, 2012. NOISE AND AESTHETIC CONCERNS: We are very concerned about the noise that will be generated from the DAS antenna and are fairly certain that it will exceed the guidelines for residential noise pollution as outlined in City of Palo Alto Noise Ordinance, PAMC Chapter 9.10. Because the antenna would be adjacent to our side/back yard, it is only a few feet away from the backyard areathat is occupied on a daily basis, throughout the day and often well into the evening hours. This imposition is much greater than if the antenna were to have been located at the curb in the front yard. I am handicapped and as such I spend a disproportionate amount of my time in my house / yard. We recently had our yard landscaped so as to make better use of the outdoor space and hence improve my quality of life. As it stands, the antenna will be located: 1) on an easement located within our residential property line, 2) a mere 30" from the fence to our back yard and just adjacent to the gate into the back yard area, and 3) just 25' from our bedroom window. It is inconceivable that the hum from this antenna, which is quite noticeable, would not be heard loud and clear from within the indoor/outdoor area which we consider living space. Additionally, any stress will aggravate my medical condition, which is life limiting. The noise of the AT&T DAS antenna will undoubtedly add to my stress level. Lastly, the antenna itself is unsightly and we would have a clear line of sight from our back yard and our bedroom window. s ALTERNATE SITES: Contrary to AT&T's supposition, there are multiple sites in the immediate area that would be better candidates for placement ofthis antenna: 1) Cubberly Community Center First and foremost, locating the pole at the nearby Cubberly Community Center would alleviate a host of problems -it would be on city property and subject to public noise ordinances, the property is not used full-time and hence would not be under as much scrutiny, and for engineering purposes the antenna would be located close to its originally designated location. 2) Piazza's Shopping Center Piazza's and the adjacent shopping complex (and a pole near the parking lot of Piazzas) afford a vast area of space from which to choose an antenna location. This pole is in an area where the ambient noise is much greater than our quiet corner and is close to the original AT&T location. 3) Greenmeadow Pool Area The area surrounding Greenmeadow's pool and park also offers potential locations that are better hidden from both residential sight and sound disturbances. We formally request the city of Palo Alto relocate this antenna to a more suitable site than 3945 Nelson Drive. Thank you for your patience in listening to my concerns. Please let me know what the next steps are that I should take. would be happy to meet with you at any time regarding this matter. Sincerely, Elaine Keller 9 Gonsalves, Ronna From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: "c: :1Y CLE{,t 's u hCE CLUNIE, SHIYAMA <sr2597@att.com> Tuesday, January 22,2013 9:14 PI'13 J ~I~ 23 PH 3: 25 'elainekllr@aoLcom' 'sctkllr@aoLcom'; Campbell, Clare; Keene, James; Council, City; Williams, Curtis; NGUYEN, MINH V; 'Paul Albritton (pa@mallp.com)' RE: EXTERNAL: RE: AT&T DAS Antenna at 3945 Nelson Drive, Palo Alto Pages from Phase 3 and 4 Directors ApprovaLpdf Elaine -As you and I discussed when we spoke in July and October of2012, we've carefully considered the sites that you suggested, and unfortunately they are not viable alternatives for AT&T. DAS nodes are low powered in nature mId have only a one to two block range. As a result, the planning division-approved AT&T DAS network already includes facilities adjacent to the alternatives you suggest, including Piazza Shopping Center, the Greeimleadow Community Center and Mitchell Park, in addition to the node at 3945 Nelson Drive. Similarly, the area that would be served by the poles that you reference, located at the intersection ofNel~n Dr. and Charleston Avenue, are already covered by nodes planned nearby, to the north of Middlefield and on the east side of Charleston, as well as by a node cUlTently planned for Parkside Ave. If we moved the node at 3945 Nelson Drive to the Nelson Dr.lCharleston Ave. location, it would create overlaps in coverage close to that site, mId gaps in coverage between that location and other nearby nodes. The poles along the access driveway to Cubberley adjacent to your property are located in rear residential yards and are not accessible to AT&T. Please know that each of the 19 utility poles approved in the AT&T Phase III DAS project were selected from 77 poles evaluated by AT&T, the City Plmming Division and Utilities Department, as well as the City's third party consultant to identify poles with the least aesthetic impact to neighbors and the commlmity using criteria established by the city's Architectural Review Board (ARB). Each individual DAS node also uses the diminutive, streamlined design that resulted from months of comment mId review by the public and ARB. While we understand your concerns, AT&T continues to believe that 3945 Nelson Drive is the preferred location for AT&T's DAS node to provide needed wireless service to this area with the least impacts. I have attached the first page of the Plarming Division's approvals of AT&T's Phase III and Phase IV DAS projects that lists the speci1ic address of each approved pole for your reference. Finally, you cOlTectly mention that the permit application for Phase III of the DAS project was submitted in March 2012. However, the application was not accepted by the City as complete until September 2012. As noted above, AT&T has worked with Palo Alto's Planning Division, Utilities Department mId the City's outside consultant to find locations that suit each neighborhood's coverage needs and aesthetics. This process has taken many months. I hope that this e-mail addresses your concerns adequately. If I've overlooked an issue or concern that you raised or didn't answer a question to your satisfaction, please let me know. Best regards, Shiymna Shiyama Clunie Area Manager 1 AT&T External Affairs, Santa Clara County and Southern San Mateo County Office: (650) 473-8022 Cell: (510) 326-8897 From: CLUNIE, SHIYAMA Sent: Friday, January 04, 2013 11:00 AM To: 'elainekllr@aol.com' Cc: sctkllr@aol.com; clare.campbell@cityofpaloalto.org; james.keene@cityofpaloalto.org; city.council@cityofpaloalto.org; curtis.williams@cityofpaloalto.org; NGUYEN, MINH V; Paul Albritton (pa@mallp.com) Subject: RE: EXTERNAL: RE: AT&T DAS Antenna at 3945 Nelson Drive, Palo Alto Elaine - I'm glad that we agree that we have had phone conversations and have exchanged e-mails and voice-mails over a period of months. I'm sorry that you don't feel that the information that I provided on alternative sites was detailed enough. I'll review your suggestions and will provide you with a written response shortly. Best regards, Shiyama Shiyama Clunie Area Manager AT&T External Affairs, Santa Clara County and Southern San Mateo County Office: (650) 473-8022 Cell: (510) 326-8897 From: elainekllr@aol.com [mailto:elainekllr@aol.com] Sent: Friday, January 04,2013 10:12 AM To: CLUNIE, SHIYAMA Cc: sctkllr@aol.com; clare.campbell@citvofpaloalto.org; james.keene@cityofpaloalto.org; city.council@cityofpaloalto.org Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: RE: AT&T DAS Antenna at 3945 Nelson Drive, Palo Alto Shiyama, I agree that we have had telephone conversations in addition to emails. I also agree that you have told me that you do not have alternatives to the antenna location in our backyard. But, when I asked you for detailed information to support that comment, I have not received it. It may be inconvenient for AT&T to move this antenna but this not an excuse to force a noisy antenna system to abut a disabled person's -or anyone else's -back yard, just feet from their patio and entranceway. It is not plausible to us that, with all the choices within very close distance to us, that the only technically acceptable solution is our exact location. In fact, our little community is surrounded by phone poles and opportunities for your system in more commercial or public environments all within a few feet of us. In the attached map you can see multiple locations that should be suitable. There are easily accessible telephone poles abutting the Piazza's shopping center (Charleston Center), where higher noise levels are already standard. There are telephone poles at the intersection of Nelson and Charleston which face a major intersection rather than a residential back yard. Neither is far from the current proposed site. If you look at the attached map, there is an over-abundance of public and commercial space in the immediate vicinity of this antenna location that could support the antenna. Clearly, the antenna does not have to be on a telephone 2 pole. Per the January 23, 2012 Palo Alto City Council meeting notes, light poles will be used when telephone poles are not available due to underground utilities. There is no reason why light poles or phone poles at Cubberly or Mitchell Park could not be used in this case. Cubberly is only 50 to 100 feet away! AT&T's statements to us regarding alternative locations lack specifics and are not credible. Thank you. Elaine and Scott Keller --Original Message---- From: Keller, Scott L <scott.l.keller@lmco.com> To: 'elainekllr@aol.com' <elainekllr@aol.com> Sent: Fri, Jan 4, 2013 8:31 am Subject: Fw: EXTERNAL: RE: AT&T DAS Antenna at 3945 Nelson Drive, Palo Alto Sent from my Blackberry From: CLUNIE, SHIYAMA lmailto:sr2597@att.com] Sent: Friday, January 04,201308:37 AM To: 'elainekllr@aol.com' <elainekllr@aol.com>; 'clare.campbell@citvofpaloalto.org' <clare.campbell@cityofpaloalto.org> Cc: Keller, Scott L Subject: EXTERNAL: RE: AT&T DAS Antenna at 3945 Nelson Drive, Palo Alto Elaine - . My records show that I called you on July 13th• As you mentiqn below, when you left a message for me on September 29th (a Saturday), I called you back on Tuesday, October 2nd, after doing research on the site in question. Our interactions didn't consist of voice-mails, exclusively. I had a phone conversation with you, during which we discussed alternatives that had been considered and eliminated. This week, I've put together an e-mail response for you, and you'll receive that shortly. Sincerely, Shiyama Shiyama Clunie Area Manager AT&T External Affairs, Santa Clara County and Southern San Mateo County Office: (650) 473-8022 Cell: (510) 326-8897 From: CLUNIE, SHIYAMA Sent: Friday, January 04, 2013 6:59 AM To: 'elainekllr@aol.com'; clare.campbell@cityofpaloalto.org Cc: scott.l.keller@lmco.com Subject: RE: AT&T DAS Antenna at 3945 Nelson Drive, P,alo Alto Hello Elaine - 3 We considered several alternatives to this location, as I shared with you when we spoke in November. I've put together an e-mail response for you, which you'll receive shortly. Sincerely, Shiyama Shiyama Clunie Area Manager AT&T External Affairs, Santa Clara County and Southern San Mateo County Office: (650) 473-8022 Cell: (510) 326-8897 From: elainekllr@aol.com [mailto:elainekllr@aol.com] Sent: Thursday, January 03,20131:47 PM To: clare.campbell@cityofpaloalto.org; CLUNIE, SHIYAMA Cc: scott.l.keller@lmco.com Subject: Fwd: AT&T DAS Antenna at 3945 Nelson Drive, Palo Alto Hello and Happy New Year to both of you. I am writing to resend an email that I originally sent to the two of you back in early November of 2012, documenting our concerns with the placement of an AT&T DAS system just outside of our side yard fence and within just a few feet our our backyard living space. In the letter, I proposed three alternative placements for the antenna in close proximity to our property. I have not heard back from either of you regarding the feasibility of these alternate sites. My husband and I are formally protesting the placement of this antenna in Phase 3 of the AT&T DAS system, and we would appreciate your response to the alternative locations as part of this appeal. Thank you. Elaine Keller -----Original Message----- From: elainekllr <elainekllr@aol.com> To: sr2597 <sr2597@att.com> Sent: Mon, Nov 5,20125:52 pm Subject: Fwd: AT&T DAS Antenna at 3945 Nelson Drive, Palo Alto Shiyama, this is the email address that I used last week when I sent the email below, although it looks very different in the CC: line below. It did not come back as 'returned,' though. Elaine -----Original Message----- From: elainekllr <elainekllr@aol.com> To: clare.campbell <clare.campbell@cityofpaloalto.org> Cc: ""\"sr2597 sr2597\"" <"sr2597 sr2597""@att.com>; scott.l.keller <scott.l.keller@lmco.com> Sent: Tue, Oct 30, 2012 5:54 pm Subject: AT&T DAS Antenna at 3945 Nelson Drive, Palo Alto Dear Clare, My husband and I remain extremely concerned about plans to locate an AT&T DAS antenna on a telephone pole abutting our back yard at 3945 Nelson Drive, Palo Alto: Per city documentation, it is Node # P2N36A. We would like to petition the city to relocate this antenna to another location. There are multiple locations in the vicinity that would be much more acceptable. Please bear with me as I step through our concerns and our attempts to obtain clarification. NOTICES: 4 To date, we have received no notices from the city regarding this project, nor have any of our neighbors, which is disheartening in and of itself. The fact that the city, together with AT&T, could even attempt to make decisions as to antenna placement without alerting the affected neighbors and understanding their individual concerns is just inconceivable. On the first two rounds of documents, AT&T and the city didn't even get our address right (first listed as 3495 Nelson Drive, then 3945 Nelson Avenue). My husband and I were only made aware of the project from another local resident who was affected by an antenna in Phase II, even though a September 12, 2012 letter from Minh V. Nguyen of AT&T to Clare Campbell cites a March 29. 2012 Phase III application date. This 9-12-12 document went on to state that the 3945 Nelson Drive "location is acceptable as has less impacts to residences due to siting by athletic fields and within semi-deciduous tree canopy." The semi-deciduous tree canopy being referenced was removed when our yard was landscaped in May, 2012 (at which point we still had no idea about this project) but is still being referenced in the 9-12-12 letter, along with pre-May 2012 photos. We formally request that the city of Palo Alto and AT&T follow established laws and processes in terms of understanding residenfs concerns and impacts and cease work on the DAS planning in this area until they do so. CONVERSATIONS WITH AT&T: AT&T has been impossible to deal with in regards to this matter. Their idea of External Relations leaves a lot to be desired. I originally emailed you, Clare, with my concerns on June 25,2012 and was informed that you would forward my concerns to Shiyama Clunie in External Affairs at AT&T. By July 10 of 2012, I had still not heard from Shiyama and you suggested that I call her supervisor, John Jefferson at AT&T. John reiterated that I needed to work with Shiyama, but still, weeks and then months passed with no communications from her. Fast forwarding to September -I attempted once again to contact AT&T after being made aware of the September 12, 2012 letter referenced above. I called John Jefferson on September 29 and was again referred to Shiyama Clunie, whom I left a voice message for on the same day. Shiyama returned my call with a voice message on October 2,2012, saying that her engineers felt the pole near our house was the ONLY suitable location in the area for their antenna, something that I do not begin to believe. My husband and I both have engineering degrees and realize that such a statement is absurd. I have since called Shiyama back an additional THREE times over the ensuing weeks, and she has yet to return my call. The last call that I placed to her was on October 26, 2012. NOISE AND AESTHETIC CONCERNS: We are very concerned about the noise that will be generated from the DAS antenna and are fairly certain that it will exceed the guidelines for residential noise pollution as outlined in City of Palo Alto Noise Ordinance, PAMC Chapter 9.10. Becausethe antenna would be adjacent to our side/back yard, it is only a few feet away from the backyard area that is occupied on a daily basis, throughout the day and often well into the evening hours. This imposition is much greater than if the antenna were to have been located at the curb in the front yard. I am handicapped and as such I spend a disproportionate amount of my time in my house / yard. We recently had our yard landscaped so as to make better use of the outdoor space and hence improve my quality of life. As it stands, the . antenna will be located: 1) on an easement located within our residential property line, 2) a mere 30" from the fence to our back yard and just adjacent to the gate into the back yard area, and 3) just 25' from our bedroom window. It is inconceivable that the hum from this antenna, which is quite noticeable, would not be heard loud and clear from within the indoor/outdoor area which we consider living space. Additionally, any stress will aggravate my medical. condition, which is life limiting. The noise of the AT&T DAS antenna will undoubtedly add to my stress level. Lastly, the antenna itself is unSightly and we would have a clear line of sight from our back yard and our bedroom window. ALTERNATE SITES: Contrary to AT&T's supposition, there are multiple sites in the immediate area that would be better candidates for . placement of this antenna: 1) Cubberly Community Center First and foremost, locating the pole at the nearby Cubberly Community Center would alleviate a host of problems -it would be on city property and subject to public noise ordinances, the 5 property is not used full-time and hence would not be under as much scrutiny, and for engineering purposes the antenna would be located close to its originally designated location. 2) Piazza's Shopping Center Piazza's and the adjacent shopping complex (and a pole near the parking lot of Piazzas) afford a vast area of space from which to choose an antenna location. This pole is in an area where the ambient noise is much greater than our quiet corner and is close to the original AT&T location. 3) Greenmeadow Pool Area The area surrounding Greenmeadow's pool and park also offers potential locations that are better hidden from both residential sight and sound disturbances. We formally request the city of Palo Alto relocate this antenna to a more suitable site than 3945 Nelson Drive. Thank you for your patience in listening to my concerns. Please let me know what the next steps are that I should take. would be happy to meet with you at any time regarding this matter. Sincerely, Elaine Keller 6 December 18,2012 Minh Nguyen AT&T Mobility LLC 870 N. McCarthy Blvd. Milpitas, CA 95035 Subject: Dear Mr. Nguyen: , On December 18, 201 was conditionally aot)t{)~fed . .fuv plrutmijfg set forth in Palo <"".~n."iI''''''..I~jLjJ''' PROJECT ,&1.."." ..... ,.&,,"- Request by installation an Cowper St; 3412 Waverley St; ""A~',",'- Waverly St on E. u'. YJ ...... ..uv Louis Rd; 631 E. lYl~l:tQO'W; Hamilton Ave ...... JV,gl,S/, the California Emlir~J:ltnenta'l '<.'----J< ""'''''.T<,n .. r of Small Structures. FINDINGS FOR The approval is based the Standards for Architectural Review tloarCl:·,-l:ma \_J""¥.""',,>l·'l')I-'rl'\:\J~ conditions outlined below. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Gty afPaIo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment 1. The project shall be in substantial cOllltot.tfia1a~(,\jiit1V'tb:e 'll1t)~ffl~ documents received September 13, 2012, conditions of approval. Planning 250 Hamilton Avenue P,O, Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 650.329.2441 650.329.2154 Transportation 250 Hamilton Avenue P,O. Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 650.329,2520 650.329.2154 Building 285 Hamilton Avenue P.O, Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 650.329,2496 650.329,2240 Gonsalves, Ronna From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Paul Albritton <pa@mallp.com> Wedn~sd~y, January 23/2013 11:16 AM 13 JAN 23 PM 3: 24 Councll, City . "- Williams/ Curtis; French, Amy; Campbell, Clare; Silver, Cara AT&T Mobility Letter to City Council -DAS Phase ill and Phase IV -Consent Calendar January 28/ 2013 AT&T Mobility Letter .pdf; ATTOOOOl.htm Please find attached AT&T Mobility's response to the appeals filed for Phase III and Phase IV of its Palo Alto DAS project. The letter asks the City Council to affirm the Planning Division approvals and allow them to remain on the consent calendar for January 28, 2013. Thank you. Paul for Paul Albritton Phone (415) 288-4000 Mackenzie & Albritton, LLP Fax (415) 288-4010 220 Sansome Street, 14th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 1 MACKENZIE & ALBRITTON LLP 220 SANSOME STREET, 14TH FLoOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94104 TELEPHONE 415/288-4000 FACSIMILE 415/288-4010 January 23, 2013 VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL Mayor Gregory Scharff Vice Mayor Nancy Shepherd Council Members Patrick Burt, Marc Berman, Karen Holman, Larry Klein, Gail Price, Greg Schmid and Liz Kniss City Council City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, California 94301 Re: AT&T's Response to Appeals of AT&T DAS Project Phase Ill, 12PLN-00127 Architectural Review Phase IV, 12PLN-00258 Architectural Review City Council Consent Calendar Januaty 28,2013 Dear Mayor Scharff, Vice Mayor Shepherd and Council Members: We write to you on behalf of our client AT&T Mobility ("AT&T") to urge that you adopt the fmdings and decision of the Planning Division to approve AT&T's distributed antenna system ("DAS") Phase III and Phase IV (the "Approvals"). Staffs findings in support of the Approvals are well-reasoned, supported by substantial evidence and represent years of exhaustive review by Planning Division staff, Utilities Department staff, th.e City'arborist, the City's outside consultants, the Architectural Review Board (the "ARB") and the Council. In addition, both state and federal law compel the City to affirm the Approvals. There is no reason to remove the Approvals from the Council's January 28, 2013, consent calendar. As described below, all but one of the appeals are filed by residents whose homes are next to existing poles. These appeals simply seek to re-open unsupported aesthetic, noise, health or property value concerns, while the remaining appeal challenges the City's implementation of its noise regulations with arguments that were rejected by the Council in its approval of Phase II of the AT&T DAS project. The concerns raised in all of the appeals have been thoroughly reviewed and previously addressed by the ARB and the Council and are not worthy of further review, as follows. Palo Alto City Council January 23, 2013 Page 2 of2 I. The Thoughtful Design and Careful Placement of AT&T DAS Node Facilities on Existing Utility Poles Create No Aesthetic Impacts. Since early 2010, AT&T has worked with the City of Palo Alto to arrive at an aesthetically acceptable design and pole site selection process that will minimize aesthetic impacts on the Palo Alto community while providing needed wireless service. Based upon ARB review, the aesthetic profile of AT&T's DAS nodes has been nearly eliminated by streamlining antennas to a single pole-top attachment, raising battery boxes above a narrow radio cabinet, and rotating all equipment toward the street and away from residential views. Closely following rigorous location guidelines established by the ARB, AT&T conducted a rigorous Alternative Aesthetics Fielding Analysis evaluating 150 existing utility poles to identify the 38 approved pole locations in Phase III and Phase IV, which represents the fewest poles feasible to provide necessary wireless coverage. Block placement was evaluated to identify locations away from street comers in order to minimize public views and in-between property lines to avoid impacts on individual views. Poles were also selected to maximize the benefit of existing foliage to camouflage DAS equipment. AT&T's aesthetic review was re-analyzed and adjusted by Planning Division staff and again by the City's independent consultant to arrive at final pole locations with the least aesthetic impacts to individuals and the community to be served. In sum, the design, pole selection guidelines and final pole selection have been thoroughly reviewed by the Planning Division staff, its independent consultants, the ARB and the Council and do not require further public hearings for review. II. Presently OperatingDAS Nodes Confirm Compliance with Noise Ordinance. Notwithstanding repetitious appeals, there is simply no question that the AT&T DAS project complies with Palo Alto Municipal Code §9.10 (the "Noise Ordinance"). Just two months ago, in November 2012, the Council, following the recommendation of Planning Division staff and the City Attorney, completely rejected a similar appeal based upon a tortured interpretation of the Noise Ordinance. As part of its obligations under the Phase I approval, and submittal requirements for its Phase II approval, AT&T has provided the City with a post-installation noise analysis by independent consultants Hammett & Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers. This report, which was included in the Council's approval of Phase II of the AT&T DAS project, measured the sound from an operating AT&T DAS facility in Palo Alto and confirmed that AT&T's Palo Alto DAS design fully complies with the Noise Ordinance. Based upon this information and the prior decisions of the Council, further appeals raising noise concerns are simply frivolous and do not warrant any further hearings. III. Health Concerns and. by Extension. Property Value Concerns Are Unfounded. Preempted by Federal Law and May Not Be the Basis of Further Hearings. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 bars local jurisdictions from denying an application for a wireless telecommunications facility based on the environmental effects of Palo Alto City Council January 23, 2013 Page 3 of3 radio frequency emissions! where, as here, AT&T has demonstrated full compliance with Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") emissions guidelines. The statements submitted by Hammett & Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers, confIrm that all of the AT&T DAS facilities will operate well within, and indeed far below, applicable public exposure limits allowed under FCC guidelines. The federal preemption of radio frequency emissions issues applies whether local decisions are directly based on emissions or indirectly based on a proxy such as property values. Thus, "concern over the decrease in property values may not be considered as substantial evidence if the fear of property value depreciation is based on concern over the health effects caused by RF emissions." AT&T Wireless Services of California LLC v. City of Carlsbad, 308 F.Supp.2d 1148, 1159 (S.D. Cal. 2003). IV. Federal and State Law Compel Council Affirmation of the Approvals. AT&T has worked diligently with the City of Palo Alto over the last three years to identify the least intrusive means to provide wireless service to an identifIed signifIcant gap in coverage. This effort has resulted in the Approvals that appear on the January 28,2013 . Council consent calendar. Failure to affirm the Approvals on that date would run afoul of limitations under the Telecommunications Act which preempt any local decision that would effectively prohibit the provision of personal wireless services or that would unreasonably delay approvals for such service.2 Similarly, the Council may not act in a manner that would deny AT&T the right to place its facilities in the public rights-of-way under the statewide franchise granted to AT&T under California Public Utilities Code.3 For these reasons, both state and federal law compel Council affirmation of the Approvals on January 28,2013. Conclusion The Phase III and Phase IV AT&T DAS Approvals that appear on the January 28, 2013 Council consent calendar represent years of design and aesthetic review to arrive at the ideal facility design and locations to best serve the Palo Alto community with the least impacts upon residents. The City Council should not permit the narrow, unfounded concerns of a few individuals to further delay this well-designed project, which represents the extensive efforts of both the City and AT&T. We encourage you to affirm the Approvals as part of the Council's consent calendar without further hearing. cc: Curtis Williams Cara Silver, Esq. 147 U.S.C. §332(c)(7)(B)(iv). 2 See 47 U.S.C. §332 et seq. Very truly yours, ~~~ V ~ B. Albritton 3 See California Public Utilities Code §7901 et seq. e-mail: bhammett@h-e.com Delivery: 470 Third Street West • Sonoma, California 95476 Telephone: 707/996-5200 San Francisco • 707/996-5280 Facsimile • 202/396-5200 D.C. WILLIAM F. HAMMETT, P.E. DANE E. ERICKSEN, P.E. STANLEY SALEK, P.E. ROBERT P. SMITH, JR. RAJAT MATHUR, P.E. KENT A. SWISHER ANDREA L. BRIGHT ___________ ROBERT L. HAMMETT, P.E. 1920-2002 EDWARD EDISON, P.E. 1920-2009 BY E-MAIL JD3235@ATT.COM July 27, 2012 John di Bene, Esq. AT&T Mobility 4430 Rosewood Drive Pleasanton, California 94588 Dear John: As you requested, we have visited the AT&T Mobility oDAS node recently installed at 255 North California Avenue in Palo Alto, California, in order to assess the noise levels from that installation and to evaluate those actual levels against both the city's noise limit and the projected levels. On the morning of June 6, 2012, using one of our Quest Technologies Type 2200 Sound Level Meters (Serial No. SBF110001, under current calibration by the manufacturer), we observed a minimum* noise level of 44.5 dBA at a distance of 25 feet from the pole. That is the distance specified for compliance with the city's municipal code Section 9.10.050, which limits an increase in noise to 15 dBA, measured at 25 feet, for facilities not located on private property. The ambient reading at that location with the AT&T node shut off was 42.1 dBA, so the actual increase was 2.4 dBA, well below the 15 dBA allowed by the code. Removing† the 42.1 dBA ambient level from the 44.5 dBA level with the AT&T equipment turned on indicates that the equipment by itself produced noise at 25 feet of approximately 40.8 dBA. This compares well with the manufacturer's data, given in our report dated November 1, 2011, which averaged 40.9 dBA to the front and sides. Therefore, we conclude from these measurements that noise from the AT&T Mobility oDAS nodes has been accurately represented by the manufacturer and that, indeed, the noise increase easily meets the Palo Alto limits. Please let us know if any questions arise on these measurements or this analysis. Sincerely yours, William F. Hammett * Intended to represent the noise from continuous, fixed sources, separate from the varying levels due to intermittent sources including traffic, wind, voices, and planes. † Using appropriate mathematical conversions. MACKENZIE & ALBRITTON LLP 220 SANSOME STREET, 14TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94104 TELEPHONE 415 / 288-4000 FACSIMILE 415 / 288-4010 January 23, 2013 VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL Mayor Gregory Scharff Vice Mayor Nancy Shepherd Council Members Patrick Burt, Marc Berman, Karen Holman, Larry Klein, Gail Price, Greg Schmid and Liz Kniss City Council City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, California 94301 Re: AT&T’s Response to Appeals of AT&T DAS Project Phase III, 12PLN-00127 Architectural Review Phase IV, 12PLN-00258 Architectural Review City Council Consent Calendar January 28, 2013 Dear Mayor Scharff, Vice Mayor Shepherd and Council Members: We write to you on behalf of our client AT&T Mobility (“AT&T”) to urge that you adopt the findings and decision of the Planning Division to approve AT&T’s distributed antenna system (“DAS”) Phase III and Phase IV (the “Approvals”). Staff’s findings in support of the Approvals are well-reasoned, supported by substantial evidence and represent years of exhaustive review by Planning Division staff, Utilities Department staff, the City arborist, the City’s outside consultants, the Architectural Review Board (the “ARB”) and the Council. In addition, both state and federal law compel the City to affirm the Approvals. There is no reason to remove the Approvals from the Council’s January 28, 2013, consent calendar. As described below, all but one of the appeals are filed by residents whose homes are next to existing poles. These appeals simply seek to re-open unsupported aesthetic, noise, health or property value concerns, while the remaining appeal challenges the City’s implementation of its noise regulations with arguments that were rejected by the Council in its approval of Phase II of the AT&T DAS project. The concerns raised in all of the appeals have been thoroughly reviewed and previously addressed by the ARB and the Council and are not worthy of further review, as follows. Palo Alto City Council January 23, 2013 Page 2 of 2 I. The Thoughtful Design and Careful Placement of AT&T DAS Node Facilities on Existing Utility Poles Create No Aesthetic Impacts. Since early 2010, AT&T has worked with the City of Palo Alto to arrive at an aesthetically acceptable design and pole site selection process that will minimize aesthetic impacts on the Palo Alto community while providing needed wireless service. Based upon ARB review, the aesthetic profile of AT&T’s DAS nodes has been nearly eliminated by streamlining antennas to a single pole-top attachment, raising battery boxes above a narrow radio cabinet, and rotating all equipment toward the street and away from residential views. Closely following rigorous location guidelines established by the ARB, AT&T conducted a rigorous Alternative Aesthetics Fielding Analysis evaluating 150 existing utility poles to identify the 38 approved pole locations in Phase III and Phase IV, which represents the fewest poles feasible to provide necessary wireless coverage. Block placement was evaluated to identify locations away from street corners in order to minimize public views and in-between property lines to avoid impacts on individual views. Poles were also selected to maximize the benefit of existing foliage to camouflage DAS equipment. AT&T’s aesthetic review was re-analyzed and adjusted by Planning Division staff and again by the City’s independent consultant to arrive at final pole locations with the least aesthetic impacts to individuals and the community to be served. In sum, the design, pole selection guidelines and final pole selection have been thoroughly reviewed by the Planning Division staff, its independent consultants, the ARB and the Council and do not require further public hearings for review. II. Presently Operating DAS Nodes Confirm Compliance with Noise Ordinance. Notwithstanding repetitious appeals, there is simply no question that the AT&T DAS project complies with Palo Alto Municipal Code §9.10 (the “Noise Ordinance”). Just two months ago, in November 2012, the Council, following the recommendation of Planning Division staff and the City Attorney, completely rejected a similar appeal based upon a tortured interpretation of the Noise Ordinance. As part of its obligations under the Phase I approval, and submittal requirements for its Phase II approval, AT&T has provided the City with a post-installation noise analysis by independent consultants Hammett & Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers. This report, which was included in the Council’s approval of Phase II of the AT&T DAS project, measured the sound from an operating AT&T DAS facility in Palo Alto and confirmed that AT&T’s Palo Alto DAS design fully complies with the Noise Ordinance. Based upon this information and the prior decisions of the Council, further appeals raising noise concerns are simply frivolous and do not warrant any further hearings. III. Health Concerns and, by Extension, Property Value Concerns Are Unfounded, Preempted by Federal Law and May Not Be the Basis of Further Hearings. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 bars local jurisdictions from denying an application for a wireless telecommunications facility based on the environmental effects of Palo Alto City Council January 23, 2013 Page 3 of 3 radio frequency emissions1 where, as here, AT&T has demonstrated full compliance with Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) emissions guidelines. The statements submitted by Hammett & Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers, confirm that all of the AT&T DAS facilities will operate well within, and indeed far below, applicable public exposure limits allowed under FCC guidelines. The federal preemption of radio frequency emissions issues applies whether local decisions are directly based on emissions or indirectly based on a proxy such as property values. Thus, “concern over the decrease in property values may not be considered as substantial evidence if the fear of property value depreciation is based on concern over the health effects caused by RF emissions.” AT&T Wireless Services of California LLC v. City of Carlsbad, 308 F.Supp.2d 1148, 1159 (S.D. Cal. 2003). IV. Federal and State Law Compel Council Affirmation of the Approvals. AT&T has worked diligently with the City of Palo Alto over the last three years to identify the least intrusive means to provide wireless service to an identified significant gap in coverage. This effort has resulted in the Approvals that appear on the January 28, 2013 Council consent calendar. Failure to affirm the Approvals on that date would run afoul of limitations under the Telecommunications Act which preempt any local decision that would effectively prohibit the provision of personal wireless services or that would unreasonably delay approvals for such service.2 Similarly, the Council may not act in a manner that would deny AT&T the right to place its facilities in the public rights-of-way under the statewide franchise granted to AT&T under California Public Utilities Code.3 For these reasons, both state and federal law compel Council affirmation of the Approvals on January 28, 2013. Conclusion The Phase III and Phase IV AT&T DAS Approvals that appear on the January 28, 2013 Council consent calendar represent years of design and aesthetic review to arrive at the ideal facility design and locations to best serve the Palo Alto community with the least impacts upon residents. The City Council should not permit the narrow, unfounded concerns of a few individuals to further delay this well-designed project, which represents the extensive efforts of both the City and AT&T. We encourage you to affirm the Approvals as part of the Council’s consent calendar without further hearing. Very truly yours, Paul B. Albritton cc: Curtis Williams Cara Silver, Esq. 1 47 U.S.C. §332(c)(7)(B)(iv). 2 See 47 U.S.C. §332 et seq. 3 See California Public Utilities Code §7901 et seq. New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC Application for Development Review Permit Outside Distributed Antenna System (DAS) City of Palo Alto March 23, 2012 3 Project Description AT&T is interested in deploying an outside “distributed antenna system” (DAS) to bolster voice and data capacity in areas of the City of Palo Alto. DAS is comprised of a network of small, low power antennas, usually placed on poles, which are connected to common radio equipment within a limited geographic area. This system would fill coverage and capacity gaps within areas of the City that are experiencing high density demand for mobile wireless services. The DAS proposed by AT&T would support the development of technologically advanced communications infrastructure that will facilitate the growth of emerging wireless telecommunications industries in the City of Palo Alto. In addition, residents as well as public safety are increasingly reliant on mobile devices. Data suggests as much as 70% of all mobile calls are made inside buildings and 50% of all calls to 911 are made on mobile devices.1 The Police Department reminds residents to know where their phones are to help report crimes. Also, in the event of disasters, first responders and affected residents rely on their cell phones. The DAS system thus will help improve service coverage and reliability and thus help enhance public safety efforts within the City. AT&T’s DAS technology is capable of serving multiple carriers with very minimal equipment installation. It is AT&T’s intent that its DAS will not only meet the existing demand but also provide the infrastructure for deployment of future 4G demands. 1 National Emergency Numbers Association - “It is estimated that of the 240+ million calls that were made to 9-1-1 in 2006, at least 100 million of them were made by wireless telephone users—that’s 50 percent. This is a huge increase from nearly 4.3 million wireless 9-1-1 calls just 10 years ago, and it is anticipated that the number will continue to rise, both due to cellular and IP-based WiFi and WiMAX forms of wireless service.” 4 Scope of Work This application is for a Development Review Permit and is being proposed for the construction of the 20 of approximately 80 DAS nodes on existing utility poles within the City of Palo Alto. The initial and 2nd group applications of 35 nodes has already been submitted to the City. This 3rd group of nodes will provide wireless service in the area of southeastern Palo Alto west of Oregon Expressway and east of El Camino. The exact locations of the 20 proposed nodes are depicted on exhibit of this application. The remaining node locations will be applied for on separate applications to address the remaining coverage needs within the City of Palo Alto. Under Section 1.1307(b)(1) of the Federal Communication Commission’s rules; the proposed low powered wireless facilities are “categorically excluded” as they are fully compliant with FCC requirements for limiting human exposure to radio frequency (RF) energy and are identified as unlikely to cause exposure in excess of the FCC’s guidelines. Please see the attached Federal Communications Commission – Local and State Government Advisory Committee Checklist. The facility also will comply with California Public Utility Commission General Orders - 95 and 170. AT&T intends to utilize its existing infrastructure within the City to minimize the impact of deploying DAS on residents of the City of Palo Alto. The DAS system will primarily use existing underground fiber to connect the DAS nodes to the DAS radio equipment hub which is located inside the local AT&T central switching office. 5 AT&T Mobility will purchase local fiber transport from AT&T California. If AT&T California does not have fiber to any node location, it will be necessary to place new fiber and in a few instances new conduit. In these instances, new conduit will be necessary only from the nearest manhole or pole to the node; generally, this should be between 50 to 250 feet. If fiber or power is not already located in the manhole, it generally can be pulled through existing conduit without the need for additional trenching or new conduit. In an effort to minimize trenching, power and fiber can share the same trench where feasible. All of the DAS nodes will be located within the public ROW on existing utility poles or within existing Public Utility Easement (PUE). Replacement of a utilities pole will be necessary if the pole is found to be noncompliant with General Orders - 95 and 170. For utility poles that must be replaced, it will remain at the existing height unless a change is requested by AT&T California or Palo Alto Utilities. On August 4th, 2011 AT&T attended a preliminary study session for this DAS project with the Palo Alto Architectural Review Board. As a result each node locations were reviewed and aesthetics guidelines from the ARB panel were adhered to where possible. The battery cabinets were moved higher on the pole to avert it from line of sight. And where applicable, nodes were moved to avoid being in front of second story windows. Also, nodes locations were reassessed to account for maximum screening with the available foliage. The DAS nodes consist of a remote prism antenna (which is 24 inches tall with a 16-inch diameter) that is mounted on top of the existing/replacement poles. The antenna is mounted at the top of a 6 feet tall fiber glass extension that is mounted to the top of the pole. In total, the extension will be 8 feet above the top of the utility pole in order to maintain GO95 separation. This is shown on page. 6 For a utility pole mounted cabinet design, a 10 inches high by 5.5 inches wide by 5 inches deep quick disconnect, a 11 inches high by 4 inches wide by and 3/8 inches deep ground bus bar mounted 9 feet above the ground line. Above that sits a Tyco remote cabinet that is 52.4 inches tall by 12.2 inches deep by 11.2 inches wide. And above that is the Alpha battery cabinet that is 27 inches high by 22 inches wide by 18 inches deep. Lastly, above that is a demark box that is 13 inches tall by 13 inches wide by 3.75 inches deep. This is shown on page 30. All the attached equipment is configured such that it blends into the width of the pole. Equipment is tan/beige, and designed to blend in with equipment usually found in the streetscape. Two of the cabinets produce measureable acoustical results. Both have theoretical maximum acoustical performance of 46dB, without isolating ambient noise from the environment, at a distance of 20 feet, which is a rough approximation of the typical distance from a user on the ground. AT&T Mobility expects the actual acoustical performance of the cabinet to be quieter than these theoretical maximums. Description of Construction The antenna structure installation may involve the removal and replacement of the utility poles. A new foundation will be excavated (size dependent on soil conditions), and conduits containing coaxial cables (from the Remote cabinet), and power. Trenching will typically extend to a depth of 36 inches below grade. The following is a description of the work involved in the installation of the Myers cabinet and ground mounted remote. The typical sequence for construction of these nodes will be as follows: 7 · Remote & Myers cabinet excavation and trenching -- An excavation will be made via backhoe to accommodate the proposed concrete slab for the equipment/meter cabinet with trenching from the cabinet location to the pole(s) and/or power connection point, as necessary. An additional trunk will haul and hold supplies. Excavated material will be exported from the site using a dump truck. Backhoe and dump truck will be manned and idling throughout the excavation process and then turned off; generator on truck will run during construction. · Utility pole replacement -- The existing foundation will be removed and replaced with new foundation adequate for new pole installation. · Electrical Installation -- Once conduit and cabinet are in place, cables will be installed to connect the new cabinet to the serving manhole. The power panel will be set by an electrical contractor. SCE will then be called to set the power meter. · Testing -- Final testing of cabinet equipment and antennas will be performed after electrical power is provided to the site. · Duration and Estimated Personnel -- Typical duration for active construction of each node will be 10 days with 2 trucks and 1-3 workers, with traffic control and Department of Transportation approvals required for lane closures associated with trenching, excavation of pad and caisson foundations, and setting of the pole. 8 NORTH PALO ALTO Polygon2 Existing Coverage In-Building Service In-Transit Service Outdoor Service Legend Existing Site City Boundary 9 NORTH PALO ALTO Polygon2 Proposed (Top) Coverage In-Building Service In-Transit Service Outdoor Service Legend Existing Site City Boundary 10 Palo Alto Phase 3 Nodes kj kj kj kj kj kj kj kj kj kj kj kj kj kj kj kj kj kj kj kj N34B37.41379-122.10791 N38A37.44575-122.136509 N7A37.426463-122.126148 N6A37.428466-122.132264 N51A37.431927-122.13638 N36A37.41718-122.111271 N31A37.42379-122.115742 N28A37.42315-122.106521 N21A37.433803-122.11966 N25A37.449747-122.132666 N52A37.437177-122.117219 N33A37.430394-122.111908 N32A37.420137-122.109488 N27A37.427621-122.107027 N24A37.432914-122.111599 N20A37.429212-122.116544 N15B37.425283-122.122644 N13A37.418163-122.117285 N11A37.429938-122.121374 N10B37.421091-122.120513 LOU I S US H W Y 1 0 1 MIDD L E F I E L D BRY A N T ALM A COW P E R GRE E R WAV E R L E Y ROS S SEALE BAY S H O R E SOU T H WEB S T E R LOMA VE R D E PARK COLORAD O FAB I A N NEW E L L RAM O N A ELYBARR O N CLAR A LEGHORN GARCIA CALIF O R N I A LOWE L L BYR O N MARIO N TENNY S O N AMES LOS R O B L E S AMAR I L L O HIGH MELVI L L E DRIV E W A Y OLIVE EME R S O N OREG O N NELS O N GEN G MATA D E R O LA PA R A HARKER ILIMA MAR I N E 2ND GRAN T GARLA N D MORE N O WILK I E WYANDOT T E SUTT E R COR I N A HANS E N COLER I D G E IRIS BIRC H BICYC L E JOSIN A WALKWA Y WILTO N CHIM A L U S PAUL GRO V E EDLEE HOPKINSKINGS L E Y PARKINSON LAMB E R T CASEY ORM E FULT O N MAYB E L L AMP H I T H E A T R E FLOR A L E S EL C A M I N O WAL N U T CURT N E R VISTA EL CA R M E L O TASS O EDG E W O O D TALISM A N FERN A N D O GUIN D A PARKS I D E RAM P BRUCE ELSIN O R E CERE Z A GEOR G I A MARG A R I T A SAL A D O CREEKSID E SUTH E R L A N D INDIA N CAROL I N A CHA R L E S T O N SAN T A A N A BRYSON WHIT S E L L LAN D I N G S TERMINA L SANTA R I T A COM M E R C I A L EMB A R C A D E R O TENNE S S E E MILIT A R Y TRA N S P O R T THAI N CELIA PEPP E R TULIP CHES T N U T VENT U R A WASH I N G T O N SYCAMOR E LAKE ACAC I A BLAIR FIELDI N G WRIG H T TANL A N D STONE CARM E L GREE N W I C H MOR T O N SIERR A SHAU N A MACL A N E MAUR E E N EME R S O N COLORAD O OREG O N RAM O N A US H W Y 1 0 1 HIGH PAR K RAMP DRIVEW A YTASS O MORE N O RAM O N A PARK CHARL E S T O N MATA D E R O RAM P DRI V E W A Y PARK BAY S H O R E BYRO N EME R S O N CALIF O R N I A Legend PA_Phase_3Nodes Name, Address kj N10B, 3524 Waverly St kj N11A, 747 Loma Verde Ave kj N13A, 3706 Carlson Cir kj N15B, 3314 Cowper St kj N20A, 3412 Ross Rd kj N21A, 3132 David Ave kj N24A, 3415 Greer Rd kj N25A, 620 Rhodes Dr kj N27A, 3757 Corina Way kj N28A, 3915 Louis Rd kj N31A, 651 E Meadow Dr kj N32A, 3901 Middlefield Rd kj N33A, 3539 Louis Rd kj N34B, 372 Ferne Ave kj N36A, 3945 Nelson Dr kj N38A, 109 Lois Ln kj N51A, 2410 Waverly St kj N52A, 3094 Greer Rd kj N6A, Side of 2801 South Ct kj N7A, 452 Loma Verde Ave ³ AT&T Proprietary (Internal Use Only)Not for use or disclosure outside the AT&T companies except under written agreement.Telco proprietary data is not to be disclosed to siloed employees.11 Palo Alto DAS all forecasted Nodes 0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 20.2 Miles PALO ALTO 280 280 101 101 82 114 109 82 MI D D L E F I E L D R D AL M A S T SAN D H I L L R D OR E G O N E X P Y EMBARCADERO RD CO U N T Y R O U T E G 3 UNI V E R S I T Y A V E W B A Y S H O R E R D JU N I P E R O S E R R A B L V D FOOT H I L L E X P Y SA N A N T O N I O A V E SAN T A C R U Z A V E FA B I A N W A Y GA R C I A A V E PU L G A S A V E CHAR L E S T O N R D AMPHITH E A T R E P K W Y E B A Y S H O R E R D W M I D D L E F I E L D R D N S H O R E L I N E B L V D AR A S T R A D E R O R D OLD M I D D L E F I E L D W A Y E CHA R L E S T O N R D W C H A R L E S T O N R D BA Y S H O R E P K W Y AL M A S T OR E G O N E X P Y FO O T H I L L E X P Y CO U N T Y R O U T E G 3 CHAR L E S T O N R D Legend Polygon 1 Polygon 2 City Bounds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`Y%];_Y%Y;X[% N!I%GNB):.'>.Q)5%!*?.>)%I'5.*L% [XX%];[X%Y;X`% `YY%!1Q%`YY%];,Y%Y;,[% a0*62%/)62/.:2.D)%+/)F=)7:A%/'7()b% cYZcYY%";YY%Y;]Y% &*C)/%>.7)%+/)F=)7:.)6%G^Y%1QL%'/)%C)>>%?)>*C%2-)%'BB>.:'?>)%/'7()%*+%2-)6)%62'75'/568%'75%2-)/)%.6% :*76.5)/)5% 2*% ?)% 7*% :*0B*=75.7(% )++):2% +/*0% 6.0=>2'7)*=6% )EB*6=/)% 2*% B*C)/% >.7)% '75% /'5.*% +/)F=)7:A%+.)>56;% 13                                                                                                                                                                  14 !"#"$%&'()(*+$,$-.&/&012$&3!4$5&210$ "617*+$8&(7*$-&)1$9&:;*(&70$,$-;)&$!)*&<$=;)(>&.7(;$ !"#$% &'()%*%+,%-% .#/#% % %.01)00'% %%%%%%%%%%%%%!'23454%6'7857'1)9%:2;+<5=)%>)?)7%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% @+9)%A% % B31)%.99=)<<%C)3(D1% %%%%%%'1%E=+509%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%+0%#+;%F7++=%G)H+09%I3<1'08)% @J.% KLM"%B+51D%6+5=1%-N!%,1% MOMM"K%4PQ84K%MOMMK"%4PQ84K%K"%,1% % +0%:7%I+='9+%% MOKRS%;5G738%% MO-*S%;5G738% @T.% -RK%>+4'%$)=9)%.?)05)% R*% MOMM""%4PQ84K% MOMM"L%4PQ84K%KR% % +0%U3;730(%B1=))1%% MOKKS%;5G738% MO*JS%;5G738% @"MV% *RK-%P'?)=7H%B1=))1% -N!% MOMM"K%4PQ84K%MOMMK"%4PQ84K%"L% % +0%:'<1%!)'9+W%I=3?)% % MOKRS%;5G738%% MO-*S%;5G738%% @"".% T-T%>+4'%$)=9)%.?)05)% R-!% MOMM"M%4PQ84K%MOMM"J%4PQ84K% *M% % 0)'=%#+==)H'%6+5=1%% MOK"S%;5G738%% MO**S%;5G738% @"*.% *TMJ%6'=7<+0%63=87)% --!% MOMM"J%4PQ84K%MOMM*M%4PQ84K% J% % 0)'=%6'=7<+0%6+5=1%% MO**S%;5G738% MOJMS%;5G738% @"RV% **"-%6+W;)=%B1=))1% -N!% MOMM"K%4PQ84K%MOMMK"%4PQ84K% K*% % 0)'=%B1O%67'3=)%I=3?)% % MOKRS%;5G738%% MO-*S%;5G738% @KM.% *-"K%X+<<%X+'9%R-% MOMM""%4PQ84K%MOMM"T%4PQ84K% *K% % 0)'=%.4)<%.?)05)%% MOKKS%;5G738% MO*-S%;5G738% @K".% *"*K%I'?39%.?)05)% -L!% MOMM"-%4PQ84K%MOMMK*%4PQ84K% KJ% % 0)'=%:7G=39()%P'H%% MOKTS%;5G738%% MO-JS%;5G738% @K-.% *-"R%E=))=%X+'9%-N!% MOMM"K%4PQ84K%MOMMK"%4PQ84K% "J% 0)'=%Y'038)%P'H%% MOKRS%;5G738% MO-*S%;5G738% @KR.% JKM%XD+9)<%I=3?)% -N% MOMM"*%4PQ84K% MOMMKK%4PQ84K% "N% 0)'=%C'4371+0%.?)05)% % MOKJS%;5G738% MO-RS%;5G738% @KT.% *TRT%6+=30'%P'H%-T!% MOMM"R%4PQ84K%MOMMKR%4PQ84K% KR% 0)'=%>+53<%X+'9%% MOKLS%;5G738%% MO-NS%;5G738% @KL.% *N"R%>+53<%X+'9%-L% MOMM"-%4PQ84K%MOMMK-%4PQ84K% K-% 0)'=%E'37)=0%.?)05)% % MOKTS%;5G738%% MO-LS%;5G738% @*".% JR"%:'<1%!)'9+W%I=3?)% -L!%% MOMM"-%4PQ84K% MOMMK*%4PQ84K% K"% 0)'=%!3997),3)79%X+'9% % MOKTS%;5G738% MO-JS%;5G738% @*K.% *NM"%!3997),3)79%X+'9% R-!% MOMM"M%4PQ84K%MOMM"J%4PQ84K% *M% +0%:'<1%6D'=7)<1+0%X+'9% % MOK"S%;5G738%% MO**S%;5G738% @**.% *R*N%>+53<%X+'9%-R% MOMM"J%4PQ84K%MOMMKN%4PQ84K% --% 0)'=%E=))=%X+'9%% MO**S%;5G738%% MORLS%;5G738% @*-V% *TK%F)=0)%.?)05)% -N%% MOMM"*%4PQ84K%MOMMKK%4PQ84K% **% 0)'=%I'Z)%.?)05)%% MOKJS%;5G738%% MO-RS%;5G738% @*J.% *N-R%@)7<+0%I=3?)% -N% MOMM"*%4PQ84K%MOMMKK%4PQ84K% *K% =)'=%+,%!3997),3)79%X+'9% % MOKJS%;5G738%% MO-RS%;5G738% @*L.% "MN%>+3<%>'0)%RM% MOMM"K%4PQ84K% MOMMK"%4PQ84K% L% 0)'=%P'7051%I=3?)%% MOKRS%;5G738% MO-*S%;5G738% @R".% K-"M%P'?)=7H%B1=))1% --% MOMM"T%4PQ84K%MOMM*"%4PQ84K% *N% 0)'=%[=)(+0%:2;=)<<W'H% % MO*-S%;5G738%% MOJ*S%;5G738% @RK.% *MN-%E=))=%X+'9%%-N!% MOMM"K%4PQ84K%MOMMK"%4PQ84K% KJ% +0%!'9952%I=3?)%% MOKRS%;5G738%% MO-*S%;5G738% % 15 !"#"$%&'()(*+$,$-.&/&012$&3!4$5&210$ "617*+$8&(7*$-&)1$9&:;*(&70$,$-;)&$!)*&<$=;)(>&.7(;$ !"#$% &'()%*%+,%*% ?1:&@@17212$%(*(A;*(&7$%1;0B.10$$ -.)%/+%/0)12%3+.4/14(%5+6'/1+478%/0)%9#:#%'4/)44'7%;+.5<%4+/%=)%'66)771=5)%/+%/0)%()4)2'5%>.=5168% '4<% 7+% 4+% 31/1('/1+4% 3)'7.2)7% '2)% 4)6)77'2?% /+% 6+3>5?% ;1/0% /0)% @AA% >.=516% )B>+7.2)% (.1<)514)7C%%% #+%>2)D)4/%+66.>'/1+4'5%)B>+7.2)7%14%)B6)77%+,%/0)%@AA%(.1<)514)78%4+%'66)77%;1/014%*%,))/%<12)6/5?%14% ,2+4/%+,%/0)%9#:#%'4/)44'78%7.60%'7%31(0/%+66.2%<.214(%3'14/)4'46)%;+2E%+4%/0)%>+5)78%70+.5<%=)% '55+;)<%;015)%/0)%='7)%7/'/1+4%17%14%+>)2'/1+48%.45)77%+/0)2%3)'7.2)7%6'4%=)%<)3+47/2'/)<%/+%)47.2)% /0'/%+66.>'/1+4'5%>2+/)6/1+4%2)F.12)3)4/7%'2)%3)/C%%&+7/14(%)B>5'4'/+2?%;'2414(%71(47G%'/%/0)%'4/)44'7% '4<H+2%+4%/0)%>+5)7%=)5+;%/0)%'4/)44'78%7.60%/0'/%/0)%71(47%;+.5<%=)%2)'<15?%D171=5)%,2+3%'4?%'4(5)%+,% '>>2+'60% /+% >)27+47% ;0+% 31(0/% 4))<% /+% ;+2E% ;1/014% /0'/% <17/'46)8% ;+.5<% =)% 7.,,161)4/% /+% 3))/%% @AAI'<+>/)<%(.1<)514)7C%%% =&7:)B0(&7$ J'7)<% +4% /0)% 14,+23'/1+4% '4<% '4'5?717% '=+D)8% 1/% 17% /0)% .4<)271(4)<K7% >2+,)771+4'5% +>141+4% /0'/% +>)2'/1+4% +,% /0)% +./71<)% -17/21=./)<% 94/)44'% L?7/)3% '7% >2+>+7)<% =?% 9#:#%!+=151/?% 14% &'5+% 95/+8% A'51,+241'8%;155%6+3>5?%;1/0%/0)%>2)D'1514(%7/'4<'2<7%,+2%5131/14(%>.=516%)B>+7.2)%/+%2'<1+%,2)F.)46?% )4)2(?%'4<8%/0)2),+2)8%;155%4+/%,+2%/017%2)'7+4% 6'.7)%'%71(41,16'4/%13>'6/%+4%/0)%)4D12+43)4/C%%#0)% 01(0)7/%6'56.5'/)<%5)D)5%14%>.=5165?%'66)771=5)%'2)'7%17%3.60%5)77%/0'4%/0)%>2)D'1514(%7/'4<'2<7%'55+;% ,+2%)B>+7.2)7%+,%.45131/)<%<.2'/1+4C%%#017%,14<14(%17%6+4717/)4/%;1/0%3)'7.2)3)4/7%+,%'6/.'5%)B>+7.2)% 6+4<1/1+47%/'E)4%'/%+/0)2%+>)2'/14(%='7)%7/'/1+47C% !B*C&.0C(/$ #0)% .4<)271(4)<% './0+2% +,% /017% 7/'/)3)4/% 17% '% F.'51,1)<% &2+,)771+4'5% M4(14))28% 0+5<14(% A'51,+241'% N)(17/2'/1+4%O+7C%MI"PQRS%'4<%!IRQSTS8%;0160%)B>12)%+4%U.4)%PQ8%RQ"PC%%#017%;+2E%0'7%=))4%6'221)<% +./%.4<)2%017%<12)6/1+48%'4<%'55%7/'/)3)4/7%'2)%/2.)%'4<%6+22)6/%+,%017%+;4%E4+;5)<()%)B6)>/8%;0)2)% 4+/)<8%;0)4%<'/'%0'7%=))4%7.>>51)<%=?%+/0)278%;0160%<'/'%0)%=)51)D)7%/+%=)%6+22)6/C% %%VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV% %W1551'3%@C%X'33)//8%&CMC% %TQTHYYSIZRQQ% !'260%"Y8%RQ"R% %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% G% W'2414(% 71(47% 70+.5<% 6+3>5?% ;1/0% [M#ISZ% 6+5+28% 7?3=+58%'4<%6+4/)4/%2)6+33)4<'/1+47C%% A+4/'6/% 14,+23'/1+4% 70+.5<%=)%>2+D1<)<%\!"#"8%'%/)5)>0+4)%4.3=)2]%/+%'22'4()%,+2%'66)77%/+%2)7/216/)<%'2)'7C%%#0)%7)5)6/1+4%+,%5'4(.'()\7]% 17% 4+/% '4% )4(14))214(% 3'//)28% '4<% (.1<'46)% ,2+3% /0)% 5'4<5+2<8% 5+6'5% ^+414(% +2% 0)'5/0% './0+21/?8% +2% '>>2+>21'/)% >2+,)771+4'57%3'?%=)%2)F.12)<C%%L1(4'()%3'?%'57+%4))<%/+%6+3>5?%;1/0%/0)%2)F.12)3)4/7%+,%&_A%`[YZC% 16 FCC Radio Frequency Protection Guide FCC Guidelines Figure 1 Frequency (MHz) 1000 100 10 1 0.1 0.1 1 10 100 103 104 105 Occupational Exposure Public Exposure PCS CellFMPo w e r De n s i t y (m W / c m 2 ) The U.S. Congress required (1996 Telecom Act) the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) to adopt a nationwide human exposure standard to ensure that its licensees do not, cumulatively, have a significant impact on the environment. The FCC adopted the limits from Report No. 86, “Biological Effects and Exposure Criteria for Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields,” published in 1986 by the Congressionally chartered National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (“NCRP”). Separate limits apply for occupational and public exposure conditions, with the latter limits generally five times more restrictive. The more recent standard, developed by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers and approved as American National Standard ANSI/IEEE C95.1-2006, “Safety Levels with Respect to Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, 3 kHz to 300 GHz,” includes similar limits. These limits apply for continuous exposures from all sources and are intended to provide a prudent margin of safety for all persons, regardless of age, gender, size, or health. As shown in the table and chart below, separate limits apply for occupational and public exposure conditions, with the latter limits (in italics and/or dashed) up to five times more restrictive: Frequency Electromagnetic Fields (f is frequency of emission in MHz) Applicable Range (MHz) Electric Field Strength (V/m) Magnetic Field Strength (A/m) Equivalent Far-Field Power Density (mW/cm2) 0.3 – 1.34 614 614 1.63 1.63 100 100 1.34 – 3.0 614 823.8/ f 1.63 2.19/ f 100 180/ f2 3.0 – 30 1842/ f 823.8/ f 4.89/ f 2.19/ f 900/ f2 180/ f2 30 – 300 61.4 27.5 0.163 0.0729 1.0 0.2 300 – 1,500 3.54 f 1.59 f f /106 f /238 f/300 f/1500 1,500 – 100,000 137 61.4 0.364 0.163 5.0 1.0 Higher levels are allowed for short periods of time, such that total exposure levels averaged over six or thirty minutes, for occupational or public settings, respectively, do not exceed the limits, and higher levels also are allowed for exposures to small areas, such that the spatially averaged levels do not exceed the limits. However, neither of these allowances is incorporated in the conservative calculation formulas in the FCC Office of Engineering and Technology Bulletin No. 65 (August 1997) for projecting field levels. Hammett & Edison has built those formulas into a proprietary program that calculates, at each location on an arbitrary rectangular grid, the total expected power density from any number of individual radio sources. The program allows for the description of buildings and uneven terrain, if required to obtain more accurate projections. 17 RFR.CALC™ Calculation Methodology Assessment by Calculation of Compliance with FCC Exposure Guidelines Methodology Figure 2 The U.S. Congress required (1996 Telecom Act) the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) to adopt a nationwide human exposure standard to ensure that its licensees do not, cumulatively, have a significant impact on the environment. The maximum permissible exposure limits adopted by the FCC (see Figure 1) apply for continuous exposures from all sources and are intended to provide a prudent margin of safety for all persons, regardless of age, gender, size, or health. Higher levels are allowed for short periods of time, such that total exposure levels averaged over six or thirty minutes, for occupational or public settings, respectively, do not exceed the limits. Near Field. Prediction methods have been developed for the near field zone of panel (directional) and whip (omnidirectional) antennas, typical at wireless telecommunications base stations, as well as dish (aperture) antennas, typically used for microwave links. The antenna patterns are not fully formed in the near field at these antennas, and the FCC Office of Engineering and Technology Bulletin No. 65 (August 1997) gives suitable formulas for calculating power density within such zones. For a panel or whip antenna, power density S = 180 BW 0.1 Pnet D2 h , in mW/cm2, and for an aperture antenna, maximum power density Smax = 0.1 16 Pnet h2 , in mW/cm2, where BW = half-power beamwidth of the antenna, in degrees, and Pnet = net power input to the antenna, in watts, D = distance from antenna, in meters, h = aperture height of the antenna, in meters, and = aperture efficiency (unitless, typically 0.5-0.8). The factor of 0.1 in the numerators converts to the desired units of power density. Far Field. OET-65 gives this formula for calculating power density in the far field of an individual RF source: power density S = 2.56 1.64 100 RFF2 ERP 4 D2 , in mW/cm2, where ERP = total ERP (all polarizations), in kilowatts, RFF = relative field factor at the direction to the actual point of calculation, and D = distance from the center of radiation to the point of calculation, in meters. The factor of 2.56 accounts for the increase in power density due to ground reflection, assuming a reflection coefficient of 1.6 (1.6 x 1.6 = 2.56). The factor of 1.64 is the gain of a half-wave dipole relative to an isotropic radiator. The factor of 100 in the numerator converts to the desired units of power density. This formula has been built into a proprietary program that calculates, at each location on an arbitrary rectangular grid, the total expected power density from any number of individual radiation sources. The program also allows for the description of uneven terrain in the vicinity, to obtain more accurate projections. 18 Alternative Aesthetics Fielding Analysis 3/20/12 Seq Design Status Node Number Latitude Longitude Pole _Ht PA_ Pole _no Locations Fielding Notes 1 in-design P2N10B 37.421091 -122.120513 38' 6" 3954 3524 Waverly St on E Meadow Dr Feasible - Deciduous tree against pole to rt (NE). No street tree opportunity. alternate P2N10B 37.421339 -122.120306 3453 3524 Waverly St W corner of Waverly and E Meadow Dr on E Meadow Feasible - Corner pole. Trees behind. No street trees or opporunity for. Equipment streetside on E Meadow? alternate P2N10B 37.421250 -122.120140 2311 Rear of 3546 South Ct on E Meadow Dr - South Corner of Waverly and E Meadow Feasible - Corner pole. No tree screening, except for tree behind (S) pole. Middle School across Waverly St. alternate not feasible P2N10B 37.420980 -122.120384 223? Side of 3535 South Ct. on E Meadow Dr Not feasible - No room on pole. Pole number obscured. Can't read last digit. alternate P2N10B 37.420852 -122.120743 3955 Side of 3527 South Ct on E Meadow Feasible - Evergreen tree to rt (NE) and deciduous to left (SW). Cable box on pole at 17.j Equipment could be located under cable box. 2 in-design P2N11A 37.429938 -122.121374 43' 6" 3289 747 Loma Verde Ave Feasible - Decid tree to left (W) on property line. 2nd story window, but distant, offset and screened. Room for street tree to right (E). alternate not feasible P2N11A 37.429793 -122.121713 3288 737 Loma Verde Ave Not feasible - Decid tree to rt (W) and Euc behind. Euc would block 130 AZM. alternate P2N11A 37.429766 -122.121515 3290 734 Loma Verde Ave Feasible if replaced. Power step down pole. No AT&T. Not tall enough. Evergreen trees to rt and left. alternate P2N11A 37.430177 -122.121133 3291 761 Loma Verde Ave Feasible - Euc for screening to rear. Possible to add street tree to right. 2nd story windows behind eucalyptus tree. 3 in-design P2N13A 37.418163 -122.117285 33' 6" 2255 3706 Carlson Cir Feasible - PUE not ROW. Deciduous yard tree to 5' from top. Pole within 6' of garage. No 2nd story. alternate P2N13A 37.418982 -122.117042 n/a 3716 Redwood Cir Feasible - Evergreen shrubs 10' up pole. No 2nd story. Pole number covered by foliage. 3 spans north of primary. PUE. alternate not feasible P2N13A Not AvailableNot Available n/a 3704 Calson Cir Not feasible - Rear yard no access. N of primary 1 span. alternate not feasible P2N13A Not AvailableNot Available n/a 3709 Carlson Cir Not feasible - Rear yard no access. S of primary 1 span. End pole. alternate not feasible P2N13A Not AvailableNot Available n/a 3719 Redwood Cir Not feasible - Rear yard no access. N of primary 2 spans. 4 in-design P2N15B 37.425283 -122.122644 39' 6" 3993 3314 Cowper St Feasible - No 2nd story window. Magnolia tree to far left (SE). Decid tree to far right (NW). No trees immediately adjacent and no room for street trees. alternate P2N15B 37°25'31.68"N122° 7'22.76"W 3992 3304 Cowper St Feasible - Large pine to rear. Magnolia tree to left (SE). Place equipment to left. 2nd story window to rt. alternate P2N15B 37°25'32.70"N122° 7'24.25"W 3991 3284 Cowper St Feasible - Large decid tree to right of and around pole. Across street from school. Equipment streetside. alternate P2N15B 37°25'29.69"N122° 7'19.58"W 3994 3352 Cowper St. Not feasible unless replaced. End pole. Too short. Guy pole only. No tree screening. 5 in-design P2N20A 37.429212 -122.116544 43' 3368 3412 Ross Rd - border of YMCA property and 3374 Ross Rd Feasible - Large cypress behind pole. No 2nd story window alternate P2N20A 37.428626 -122.115709 3371 3412 Ross Rd - YMCA Feasible - surrounded by deciduous trees. No 2nd story window. Equipment streetside. 2 spans SE of primary. alternate P2N20A 37.428848 -122.116042 3370 3412 Ross Rd - YMCA Feasible - surrounded by deciduous trees. No 2nd story window. Equipment streetside. 1 span SE of primary alternate P2N20A 37.429433 -122.117015 3367 3370 Ross Rd Feasible - No 2nd story window. Topped redwood behind pole to screen. Equipment streetside. 1 span NW of primary. 6 in-design P2N21A 37.433803 -122.119660 37' 6" 3268 3132 David Ave Feasible - No 2nd story window. Good evergreen and decid screening behind pole. Mature decid tree to right (NW). No room for new street trees. alternate not feasible P2N21A Not AvailableNot Available n/a 3135 David Ct.Not Feasible - 1 span to the NE. Rear yard, no access. alternate not feasible P2N21A Not AvailableNot Available n/a n/a All other poles within 2 spans are rear yard. alternate P2N21A 37.433971 -122.120905 3258 3055 Stelling Dr Feasible if not too far for RF - Alternate pole located approx 250' W of primary. No 2nd story. Decid tree to rt (SW). Possible new street tree to left (NE). Page 1 of 3 19 Alternative Aesthetics Fielding Analysis 3/20/12 Seq Design Status Node Number Latitude Longitude Pole _Ht PA_ Pole _no Locations Fielding Notes 7 in-design P2N24A 37.432914 -122.111599 38' 6" 2917 3415 Greer Rd Feasible - No 2nd story window. Birch tree behind. Equipment on rt (S) to avoid streetlight on separate pole in front of utility pole. No room for new street tree. alternate not feasible P2N24A Not AvailableNot Available n/a n/a No other feasible candidates. All poles rear yard 8 in-design P1N25A 37.449747 -122.132666 38' 4490 Side of 620 Rhodes Dr (borders 1772 Hamilton Ave) Feasible - Screen from SW by evergreen trees. Equipment on E side of pole. No 2nd story window. Set back from street in PUE. alternate Not feasible P1N25A Not AvailableNot Available n/a Back of 1765 Hamilton Ave Not feasible - Pole in yard. No access. alternate Not feasible P1N25A Not AvailableNot Available n/a Back of 660 Rhodes Dr Not feasible - Pole in yard. No access. alternate Not feasible P1N25A Not AvailableNot Available n/a Back of 580 Rhodes Dr Not feasible - Pole in yard. No access. 9 in-design P2N27A 37.427621 -122.107027 36' 6" 3660 3757 Corina Way Feasible - No 2nd story. Mature decid tree to right (SW). No tree and no room for new tree on left. alternate not feasible P2N27A Not AvailableNot Available n/a n/a No other feasible candidates. All poles rear yard 10 in-design P2N28A 37.423150 -122.106521 37' 3571 3915 Louis Rd Feasible - No 2nd story. Mature decid tree to left (N). alternate P2N28A 37.424167 -122.106458 3672 3891 Louis Rd Feasible - No 2nd story. Mature decid tree to left (N) Transformer. Equipment streetside. Adjacent to Adobe Creek. alternate not feasible P2N28A Not AvailableNot Available n/a n/a No other feasible candidates. All poles rear yard 11 in-design P2N31A 37.423790 -122.115742 3620 651 E Meadow Dr Feasible - No 2nd story windows. Equipment streetside. No screening. No room for street tree. alternate P2N31A 37.424176 -122.114924 37' 6" 3623 691 E Meadow Dr at Middlefield Rd Feasible - Corner pole.Guy pole only. Evergreen olive tree screening from behind. Decid tree to rt (NW). alternate P2N31A 37.424085 -122.114782 3622 3600 Middlefield Rd Feasible - Corner pole. PA Fire Dept. No 2nd story. Equipment facing E Meadow Dr. Note there is a flagpole cell tower at the Fire station. alternate P2N31A 37.423846 -122.115236 3618 Side of 3600 Middlefield Rd (on E Meadow) Feasible - No 2nd story. Bet church and Fire Station. No screening. No opportunity for street tree. Equipment on N side. alternate not feasible P2N31A 37.423980 -122.115377 36??681 E Meadow Dr Not feasible - Pole full. Pole number obscured. alternate not feasible P2N31A 37.424111 -122.115140 3261 691 E Meadow Dr Feasible only if tree is pruned and pole replaced with taller pole. Pole is approx. 30' high. No 2nd story, not corner. Support pole and drop. 12 in-design P2N32A 37.420137 -122.109488 43' 6" 2167 3901 Middlefield Rd on E Charleston Rd Feasible - Large oaks on both sides. 2nd story only across E Charleston. End pole. None further W. alternate P2N32A 37.420236 -122.109198 2166 3901 Middlefield Rd on E Charleston Rd (further NE) Feasible - Large oak on east side and street tree to west. 2nd story window across E Charleston. alternate P2N32A 37.420365 -122.108862 2165 706 E Charleston Feasible - Tree (deciduous) on west side only. No 2nd story window. 13 in-design P2N33A 37.430394 -122.111908 23' 6978 3539 Louis Rd Feasible - At Eichler Swim Club. Support pole only. 23' AGL. Will need replacement. Only fully accessible pole candidate. Adjacent to creek. alternate P2N33A 37.430645 -122.111546 2975 3539 Louis Rd Feasible - Pole located inside Eichler Swim and Tennis Club. There is gate access to utility easement. Feasible if ATT can get access to that gate as a utility. Redwood alternate not feasible P2N33A Not AvailableNot Available n/a n/a No other feasible candidates. All poles rear yard 14 in-design P2N34B 37.413790 -122.107910 38' 1980 372 Ferne Ave Feasible - No 2nd story. Evergreen shrub to 10' up pole. Equipment facing driveway (SW). PUE not ROW. alternate not feasible P2N34B 37.414412 -122.107422 1998 412 Ferne Ave Not feasible - Tree behind that interferes with 170 AZM. alternate not feasible P2N34B Not AvailableNot Available n/a n/a No other feasible candidates. All poles rear yard Page 2 of 3 20 Alternative Aesthetics Fielding Analysis 3/20/12 Seq Design Status Node Number Latitude Longitude Pole _Ht PA_ Pole _no Locations Fielding Notes 15 in-design P2N36A 37.417180 -122.111271 38' 1951 3945 Nelson Dr rear of 4000 Middlefield Rd Feasible - Evergreen screening behind (E) and left (N). On border or Cubberly Community Center. No 2nd story window. alternate not feasible P2N36A Not AvailableNot Available n/a Rear of 3962 Nelson Dr First pole W of primary Not feasible - Rear yard no access. alternate not feasible P2N36A Not AvailableNot Available n/a Rear of 3960 Nelson Dr 2nd pole W of primary Not feasible - Rear yard no access. alternate not feasible P2N36A Not AvailableNot Available n/a Rear of 3945 Nelson Dr First pole E of primary Not feasible - Rear yard no access. alternate not feasible P2N36A Not AvailableNot Available n/a Rear of 3929 Nelson Dr 2nd pole E of primary Not feasible - Rear yard no access. 16 in-design P1N38A 37.445750 -122.136509 39' 5048 109 Lois Ln near Walnut Dr Feasible - Setback 10' from sidewalk in front yard. No 2nd story. No tree screening but could plant one at street. Equipment will be within 10' of 2 houses. PUE. alternate Not feasible P1N38A Not AvailableNot Available n/a Back of 109 Lois Ln near Walnut Dr (first pole to NW of primary) alternate Not feasible P1N38A Not AvailableNot Available n/a Back of 108 Lois Ln (first pole to SE of primary) alternate Not feasible P1N38A Not AvailableNot Available 5029 108 Walter Hayes Ln (2nd pole to SE of primary) alternate Not feasible P1N38A Not AvailableNot Available 5058 Side of 1547 Walnut (on Stanley) (2nd pole to NW) 17 in-design P2N51A 37.431927 -122.136380 33' 2575 2410 Waverly St. Feasible - 2nd story window. End pole. Last pole to SE. Large evergreen mature tree to SE. No street tree opportunity. alternate not feasible P2N51A 37.432257 -122.136955 4863 2398 Waverly St Not feasible - No space available without interfering with climbing. 30' from corner. Street tree behind. alternate P2N51A 37.432539 -122.137175 4862 2385 Waverly St Feasible - 2nd story window approx 80' back. Decid trees to rt (SE) and behind. Comm, no power. alternate P2N51A 37.432440 -122.137248 4861 2380 Waverly St Feasible - 2nd story window behind on house next door. Small decid tree to rt (NW). Larger decid street trees 20' each side of the pole. 18 in-design P2N52A 37.437177 -122.117219 38' 6" 2355 3094 Greer Rd on Maddux Dr Feasible - No 2nd story. Redwood behind. Decid trees to rt and left. Equipment streetside. alternate P2N52A 37.437595 -122.117177 2379 3095 Greer Rd Feasible - No 2nd story window. In side yard, adjacent to garage, not house. Matadero Creek to left. No screening. Tree could be added in yard? alternate not feasible P2N52A Not AvailableNot Available n/a n/a No other feasible candidates. All poles rear yard 19 in-design P2N6A 37.428466 -122.132264 39' 6" 2669 Side of 2801 South Ct on El Dorado Feasible - Magnolia tree rt (NE) and decid tree to left (SW). No 2nd story window. Shrubs growing up pole to ht of 5'. alternate P2N6A 37.428179 -122.132552 2668 Side of 2800 South Ct on El Dorado Feasible - Deciduous tree to left (NE) and rt (SW). No 2nd story window. alternate P2N6A 37.428693 -122.132072 2670 Side of 2801 South Ct on El Dorado (NE of Primary) Not feasible - Surrounded by trees for screening, but tall redwood across street in 360 AZM. 20 in-design P2N7A 37.426463 -122.126148 42' 4002 452 Loma Verde Ave on Kipling St Feasible - No 2nd story. Equipment streetside. Birch to rt and behind. alternate P2N7A 37.426713 -122.126467 3972 Side of 3149 Waverly St (on Loma Verde) Feasible - No 2nd story. Shrubs to rear. No room for street tree to left(W). Mature dec street stree to ft (E). alternate P2N7A 37.426443 -122.126879 3970 Side of 3149 Waverly St (on Loma Verde) Feasible - Grace Lutheran Church. No 2nd story. Dec street trees to rt and left. Equipment streetside. alternate P2N7A 37.426347 -122.126785 3971 Side of 3157 Waverly St (on Loma Verde) Feasibility to be determined by RF. Decid street tree to left (E). Possible new tree to rt (W). No 2nd story. Height might be an issue as this is a short pole. Page 3 of 3 21 PRISM REMOTE INSTALLATION !"# $% &' % & & ( #$ %'& ) % * & * % & % # & + + $ % & & , &% % & % -- % #!$& % . %' / & % & /0 1 2 1 3 4 5 6 1 7 6 8 9 :;1 <2 :6 1 =2 5 >7 0 1 8 7 0?@ A>7 0 B >5 C C D 6 :>7 0 :5 6 2 :6 1 =2 5 >7 0 1 8 7 0?E A ******PROPRIETARY INFORMATION****** NOT FOR USE OR DISCLOSURE OUTSIDE OF ADC TELECOMMUNICATIONS OR THEIR CUSTOMERS FGHIIJJJKLJGJLMNOGPQOKRGHIS JT U V W X X Y Y Y Z [Y V Y [\]^V _`^Z a V W X b Y c 50 ' - 0 " 6' 6 " 43 ' - 6 " 21 ' - 1 0 " 12 ' - 4 " 12 ' - 4 " 2'-0" 1'- 0 " 4" U GUARD EXOTHERMIC (CAD) WELD TO GROUND ROD 10'-0" 9'- 0 " 20 ' - 8 7 / 8 " QUAD BAND/ QUAD BAND BATTERY CABINET-ALPHA MMOE 24 ' - 1 / 8 " 24 ' - 1 1 7 / 8 " d e f ghijklmnoplq DUAL BAND X-POL TRI-SECTOR ANTENNArstuvswvx y w z {|}~ € ‚|}‚{ ƒ ‚„}‚|{ …†‡ˆr€‡v v x w x ‰y…x x s ‰r u Š ‹‡y y w s Œ‹‡ Ž ‰rz| € || ƒ ‚ …† ‘ƒr ’‰r u ‚~„„„„{„ ’‚“”•–—˜™š –›œ š ž Ÿ Ÿ ¡›¢£¤–¥¦™— §¥¥™§¥¨™š© ª‰‡…‹‡«…¬’r x ˆy st’u w y x s ‡«y w ««‡z |~ € ‚‹‡u w…t ‡v w y w s †x r yt ‡ˆ«w yƒx s Ž t «y w s‘‡ w z ‚® € ‚® ƒ ®} { …†r ¯°w r s x ±t…w…v w y w s‹‡u w z ‚ € ²}{ ƒ …†¯s x ‰«…‹‡s z ‚‚ € ~ ƒ ®Š …†Ž ‚ ‚{Ž y u y ‡«…x‘‘rt r w v x ‰«yz®€ |~ ƒ |®Š x…†Ž ³´µ ¶·¸ ¹‡¹´·¹¹³v º»¹´z |„ € ‚‚ ƒ† 52 ' - 3 " CABLE GAUGE BETWEEN UTILITY POLE GROUND BAR AND GROUND ROD #2 AWG SOLID PLACED IN LIQUID TIGHT NON METALIC CONDUIT COAXIAL CABLE WILL BE ½” FOR ALL RUNS >/= 1'-0" 5" x 5 " F I B E R G L A S S E X T E N S I O N 6'- 0 " 6" 22                                                                                                                               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`5<<5'I!-C!a'II)77A!&CGC! !]0]b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`P!'78! $.566,3!3&.2#.! !!LP!'78! (5:21&:#.! @E!\!/P!(&)!>/P@/W/P!]!/P@OW/P!]!aB9! 25 From: John Hamburger <jwhamburger@yahoo.com> Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 10:43 PM To: Campbell, Clare Cc: ildikoran@gmail.com; tim.perkins@yahoo.com; sv.rogerp@gmail.com; Sandra Park; manasmandal@yahoo.com; elizabeth.ratner@gmail.com; jimafox@pacbell.net; meng@arts4all.org; Williams, Curtis; French, Amy; 'CLUNIE, SHIYAMA'; NGUYEN, MINH V Subject: Re: No DAS on Carlson Circle Attachments: DAS Petition Carlson Circle.pdf Clare, We just received a card from your department stating the intention of the Palo Alto Planning Dept to ignore the petition that we, the neighbors of Carlson Circle, submitted, attached, requesting that the AT&T DAS system not be installed on our circle. In your last email, you said that you would discuss with AT&T relocating the switch underground. We think a better alternative is to place the system on a busier route, such as along Alma St, Charleston or Middlefield. We are adamant in opposing this unsightly and potentially harmful system on our small circle. We do not consider it a feasible alternative to place a pole on the sidewalk in front of 3706 Carlson Circle. We request that you address this issue, as we have communicated to you, your department and to AT&T over the past year, and not install the DAS system on Carlson Circle. Thank you for your consideration. John Hamburger From: "Campbell, Clare" <clare.campbell@cityofpaloalto.org> To: 'John Hamburger' <jwhamburger@yahoo.com> Cc: "ildikoran@gmail.com" <ildikoran@gmail.com>; "tim.perkins@yahoo.com" <tim.perkins@yahoo.com>; "sv.rogerp@gmail.com" <sv.rogerp@gmail.com>; Sandra Park <tesyl@pacbell.net>; "manasmandal@yahoo.com" <manasmandal@yahoo.com>; "elizabeth.ratner@gmail.com" <elizabeth.ratner@gmail.com>; "jimafox@pacbell.net" <jimafox@pacbell.net>; "meng@arts4all.org" <meng@arts4all.org>; "Williams, Curtis" <Curtis.Williams@CityofPaloAlto.org>; "French, Amy" <Amy.French@CityofPaloAlto.org>; "'CLUNIE, SHIYAMA'" <sr2597@att.com>; "NGUYEN, MINH V" <mn3281@att.com> Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2012 11:49 AM Subject: RE: No DAS on Carlson Circle Hello John, Thanks for this and the other three emails. I see that you have included AT&T in your communications, and I need them, as the project applicant, to respond to the issues you raise about alternative placement. Your issues raised about aesthetics and (health) hazards have been discussed at previous public hearings with the Architectural Review Board and City Council when the first phase of the DAS project was reviewed. By law (Telecommunications Act, 1996), the City cannot base a decision to approve or deny an application based upon potential health issues. AT&T has gone through an extensive design review process with the first phase of the DAS project. The project approval was appealed to and ultimately supported by Council (01/23/12). The aesthetics of the Phase I project was discussed with the Architectural Review Board and with City Council to assure that the approved design would have the least visual impacts to the existing neighborhoods. The recently submitted Phase 2 and 3 projects follow the approved design of Phase I. I understand that the proposed installation on 3706 Carlson Circle is much closer to the adjacent homes than those that were approved in the Phase 1 application. To address the aesthetic impacts, perhaps AT&T can consider the undergrounding of the equipment, so the boxes are not so visually intrusive on the private properties. I will need AT&T to respond to this redesign (they are copied on this email). Thanks, Clare Campbell | Planner From: John Hamburger [mailto:jwhamburger@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2012 10:17 PM To: Campbell, Clare ; Williams, Curtis Cc: ildikoran@gmail.com; tim.perkins@yahoo.com; sv.rogerp@gmail.com; Sandra Park; manasmandal@yahoo.com; elizabeth.ratner@gmail.com; jimafox@pacbell.net; meng@arts4all.org Subject: No DAS on Carlson Circle Clare, Curtis, The attached petition, signed by the residents of Carlson Circle, Palo Alto, CA, requests that the City of Palo Alto ensure that AT&T does not install a DAS (Distributed Antenna System) cell phone tower on Carlson Circle, Palo Alto. We oppose this installation on the basis that: (1) the DAS system will be visually obtrusive and will spoil the low Eichler design lines on our circle; (2) concern regarding unknown and untested hazards from having such a cell tower antenna in a residential area; (3) concern regarding the health and safety of individuals living on Carlson Circle; and (4) there are other more appropriate locations to install such an antenna system. Therefore, we Carlson Circle residents request that the City of Palo Alto Planning Department and AT&T relocate the DAS RF antenna system to another location— not on Carlson Circle . Please respond at your earliest convenience. Thank you for your consideration. John Hamburger From: dyebc@msn.com Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 9:34 PM To: Campbell, Clare Subject: DAS installation Hi Clare, I emailed you regarding my concerns with the DAS installation at 1772 Hamilton Ave. which is near our home and Duveneck Elementary school. I am even more concerned now given the plan to relocate the antenna to the sidewalk. It seems this would make an unsightly addition to the neighborhood. I would like to better understand this latest decision. Also, my earlier concerns about the long term effect of the DAS on small, growing children was never addresses by the City or by AT&T. I contacted the person you suggested multiple times, but they never responded. It seems improper of the City to allow AT&T to just put up installations without answering the residents' questions. I'm also wondering why the city is providing final notice of the installation over the holidays with a deadline to appeal so soon after the holidays. It seems that the City is trying to avoid residents' concerns. Your thoughts are greatly appreciated. Best, Clara Dye From: Sung Park <spark0820@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, December 28, 2012 11:00 AM To: Campbell, Clare Subject: Concern over proposed AT&T DAS 3 Project Dear Clare, I am a Palo Alto home owner and have been recently notified by your office regarding the proposed DAS installation plan on a utility pole which is located near my residence at 971 Maddux Dr. I'm very much concerned about the proposed installation due to the proximity of the pole's location to our residence. My primary concern is the noise (primary from the fan) that it will generate during hot summer months where we will have our bedroom windows open. Since our bedroom windows is literally a few feets away from the pole, I am worried that the generated noise from DAS will interfere with the peace and tranquility of my residence. Please let me know if the noise issue is being adequately addressed. If I feel that it's be not being addressed to some satisfaction, I am planning to file an appeal for the proposed plan. Please let me know how I can go about doing that as well. I understand that there is a need for better wireless coverage in the city and I realize the importance of the proposed plan. I just feel that a good compromise between the city's need and homeowner's desire to maintain peace and tranquility can be met. I hope you understand. I look forward to hearing from you soon. Best regards, Sung 7069 Note only Page 1