HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 3436
City of Palo Alto (ID # 3436)
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 4
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: 4131 El Camino Way, 550
Georgia Ave, 4101 Park Blvd (on W. Meadow), 4255 Ruthelma Ave, 669
Maybell Ave, 110 E. Charleston Dr (on Alma), 493 W. Charleston Dr, 4298
Ponce Dr, 429 Monroe, 231 Parkside Dr., opposite 106 Loma Verde, 516
Barron Ave, 4257 McKellar, 320 Lambert Ave, 3989 La Donna, 397 Ventura
Ave, 3364 Emerson St, 820 Chimalus Dr, 715 Barron Ave, 915 Matadero Ave.
AT&T DAS Phase 4 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 4 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 231 Parkside Drive; and 2)
direct staff to work with AT&T and residents to evaluate alternative locations/options to 231
Parkside Drive.
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 4. 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 (Council action
01/23/12), and on December 18, 2012 the staff level Architectural Review approval was issued
for the project. Staff received two appeals of this decision from residents who cited concerns
regarding impacts to health and aesthetics. These are topics that have been raised in the Phase
1 and 2 appeals that Council reviewed in 2012. Staff believes the Director’s decision is
appropriate for all of the sites, with the exception of the 231 Parkside Drive 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 June 29, 2012, AT&T submitted an application for Architectural Review for the Phase 4 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 4 DAS project inlcudes one site (231 Parkside Drive) where the existing pole, which is
within a PUE and located close (≈3 feet) to the existing residential building, is 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 two appeals filed for this project and these are included as Attachment C. 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 Lilian Marcus, was directed at the proposed installation
near 820 Chimalus Drive. This installation is roughly 22 feet away from the appellant’s
home. Ms. Marcus raised concerns about the potential health impacts that could be
generated by the DAS installation.
Staff Response: 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. The conditions of approval require
demonstration of compliance with the federal standards.
2. The second appeal was filed by Carolyn and Mark Dobervich (241 Parkside) that includes
signatures from Betty Rundell (231 Parkside) and Nancy Karp (221 Parkside), and
focused on the installation between 231 and 221 Parkside Drive. This DAS installation is
a proposed pole relocation and would move the existing utility pole approximately 22
feet away from the current location (which is approximately three feet away from the
house at 221 Parkside) out towards the street. This site also has a condition of approval
that requires the installation of a new street tree for future screening (if the existing
street tree is damaged). This appeal cites concerns about the new pole placement not
fitting within the existing street context, in that there are no utility poles placed along
the curb in the immediate vicinity. The argument is made that the new pole would be a
“visual eyesore.”
Staff Response: The City’s direction to AT&T has been to generally 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 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
City of Palo Alto Page 5
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 #19).
Other Objections
Staff also notes that one other property owner objected (Attachment F) to the location and
installations near his property, but did not formally appeal the decision. Nevertheless, the
entire Phase 4 project is one application, so the Council may act on that site or any other
proposal in the package. Staff believes that the objection relates to health impacts of the
installation, as addressed in #1 above.
Conclusion
Staff believes that all of the site requests, other than 231 Parkside Drive, 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.
City of Palo Alto Page 6
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.)
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. 2013-02
RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO LAND USE ACTION
FOR AT&T DAS PROJECT PHASE 4: ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW 12PLN-00258
(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 231 Parkside Drive 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 June 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: 4131 El Camino
Way, 550 Georgia Ave, 4101 Park Blvd (on W. Meadow), 4255 Ruthelma
Ave, 669 Maybell Ave, 110 E. Charleston Dr (on Alma), 493 W.
Charleston Dr, 4298 Ponce Dr, 429 Monroe, 231 Parkside Dr (pole to
be relocated to the curb), opposite 106 Loma Verde, 516 Barron Ave,
4257 McKellar, 320 Lambert Ave, 3989 La Donna, 397 Ventura Ave,
3364 Emerson St, 820 Chimalus Dr, 715 Barron Ave, 915 Matadero Ave.
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 #3436.
D. Within the prescribed timeframe, two appeals of the
Director’s decision were filed by Palo Alto residents: Marcus and
Dobervich.
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)
AT&T DAS Phase 4
2
Support the development of technologically-advanced communications
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
AT&T DAS Phase 4
3
can be made in the affirmative in that the circulation under and
around the utility pole is not impacted.
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.
AT&T DAS Phase 4
4
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 17,
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 17,
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
AT&T DAS Phase 4
5
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
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.
AT&T DAS Phase 4
6
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.
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 6/Node P2N29A (110 E. Charleston Road): An Additional
street tree shall be required to the left side of pole.
18. Pole 7/Node P2N30A (493 W. Charleston Road): Equipment shall
be installed to face the existing tree.
19. Pole 10/Node P2N28A (231 Parkside Dr) 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 if the existing tree is damaged
during construction activities 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 a separate Architectural Review.
20. Pole 13/Node P2N44A (4257 McKellar Ln): An Additional street
tree shall be required to the left side of pole.
21. Pole 20/Node P2N50A installation shall be located adjacent to
904 Matadero Road.
22. 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
23. 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
AT&T DAS Phase 4
7
Assessment (EA) to the FCC, please indicate if it has been
submitted and the date submitted.
Electric Utility
24. 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
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
AT&T DAS Phase 4
8
PLANS AND DRAWINGS REFERENCED:
Those plans prepared by AT&T titled Palo Alto ODAS, consisting of
63 pages and received September 17, 2012.
Phase 4 - Palo Alto oDAS
kj
kj
kj
kj
kj
kj
kj
kjkj
kj
kj
kj
kj
kj
kj
kj
kj
kj
kj
kj
P2N4A
P2N1A
P2N9A
P2N8A
P2N5A
P2N3C
P2N50A
P2N45A
P2N44A
P2N43A
P2N39A
P2N38A P2N35A
P2N30A
P2N29A
P2N25A
P2N23A
P2N16B
P2N14B
P2N12A
ALMA
MIDDLEFIELD
EL CAMINO REAL
CHARLESTON
FOOTHILL
PAGE MILL
ARASTRADERO
HILLVIEW
RENGSTORFF
SAN ANTONIO
OLD MIDDLEFIELD
CENTRAL
CALIFORNIA
FOOTHILL
EL CAMINO REAL
£¤101
£¤101
Legend
kj P2N12A, 4131 El Camino Real
kj P2N14B, 550 Georgia Ave
kj P2N16B, 4101 Park Blvd
kj P2N1A, 820 Chimalus Dr.
kj P2N23A, 4255 Ruthelma Ave
kj P2N25A, 669 Maybell Ave
kj P2N29A, 110 E Charleston Rd
kj P2N30A, 493 W Charleston Rd
kj P2N35A, 4298 Ponce Dr
kj P2N38A, 429 Monroe Dr.
kj P2N39A, 231 Parkside Dr
kj P2N3C, Across from 106 LomaVerde
kj P2N43A, 516 Barron Ave
kj P2N44A, 4257 McKellar
kj P2N45A, 320 Lambert Ave
kj P2N4A, 715 Barron Ave
kj P2N50A, 904/915 Matadero Ave
kj P2N5A, 3989 La Doona
kj P2N8A, 397 Ventura Ave.
kj P2N9A, 3364 Emerson St 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.
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.
From: James Ang <james.ang@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, December 23, 2012 10:53 PM
To: Campbell, Clare
Subject: Appeal: AT&T DAS Phase 4 Project - 20 Poles
Categories: forwarded to CW AFSC
To Whom This May Concern,
I am appealing the decision to place an antenna within 300 feet from my place of residence at
3130 Emerson St, Palo Alto, California 94306.
I am requesting that the City of Palo Alto does not approve a plan that places a DAS antenna
within 300 feet from my home.
I am concerned about the safety of my children who would be subjected to elevated levels of
electromagnetic interference from the proposed antenna. There has been no studies that
demonstrated that the level of exposure in terms of duration and magnitude is safe for growing
children.
Furthermore, the proximity of the antenna to the nearby El Carmelo Elementary school where
one of my child attends is another cause for my concern, if not the parents of the attending
children.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
James Ang
3130 Emerson St
Palo Alto, CA 94306
7070
Note only.
Page 1