Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Staff Report 3745
City of Palo Alto (ID # 3745) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 5/6/2013 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: AT&T DAS Appeal - 3704 Carlson Circle Title: Appeal of and Recommendation to Uphold Director’s Architectural Review Approval of the Co-location by AT&T Mobility LLC of One Pole- Mounted Wireless Communication Antenna and Associated Equipment Boxes on the Existing Utility Pole Within the City’s Public Utility Easement on 3704 Carlson Circle. From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation Staff recommends that Council approve the Record of Land Use Action (Attachment A), upholding the Director of Planning and Community Environment’s decision to approve the Architectural Review application for the AT&T Distributed Antenna System (DAS) installation within a public utility easement on 3704 Carlson Circle (part of the Phase 3 AT&T DAS project), based upon the findings and conditions of approval described in the Record of Land Use Action. Executive Summary On January 28, 2013, Council approved AT&T’s application for Architectural Review of the Phase 3 DAS project to allow 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 (City Manager’s Report (CMR) #3435, attachment G). The installations included 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). At that time, one site was excluded (“3706 Carlson Circle”) from the approval to allow additional time for staff, AT&T and the residents to fully understand the issues and explore feasible alternatives for site placement. Staff recommended the exclusion as the project entailed relocation of the pole to the street right-of-way in a neighborhood with no poles at the street (all are located in easements in the side or rear yards). Residents in the neighborhood objected to this aesthetic intrusion at the street, and staff concurred that a further review was warranted. City of Palo Alto Page 2 On March 6, 2013, staff hosted a meeting with AT&T and the appellants of the “3706 Carlson Circle” (the correct address is 3704 Carlson Circle) installation. Several alternatives were explored, but most were discounted as being inaccessible to AT&T or not optimal for the network. Staff suggested placing the equipment on the existing pole in the utility easement rather than moving it to the street, which would be minimally visible, while restricting the noise to the more stringent “residential” standard of the code. One other site on Redwood Circle (also in a side yard easement), however, was considered “technically feasible.” Staff and AT&T explored the placement of the DAS equipment at this location and made the determination that it was not a better location than the proposed Carlson Circle location. On March 28, 2013, the Director’s decision to approve the Carlson Circle placement on the existing pole was issued and the appeal of that decision was filed on April 11, 2013. Staff notes that the owners of the property on which the pole stands did not file the appeal, but they do concur with the appeal and signed the petition. The appellants of this decision had also appealed the original Phase 3 Architectural Review approval. The reasons cited in the recent appeal were concerns regarding the close proximity of the equipment to the existing homes; noise; and that the adjacent neighbors spend the majority of their time at home. Topics such as health, aesthetics, noise, and property value impacts were raised in the Phase 1 through Phase 4 appeals that Council reviewed and approved in 2012 and 2013. Background There are four phases of AT&T’s citywide DAS project, for a total of 75 installations. 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). 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 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 for consideration of an appeal filed by resident Tony Kramer, who cited concerns about the City of Palo Alto Page 3 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). On January 28, 2013, Phases 3 and 4 were forwarded to Council on appeal. The City Council did not remove these projects from the Consent Calendar and voted to uphold the Director’s decision to approve them (CMR #3435 & #3436). For Phase 3, the approval excluded the “3706 Carlson Circle” installation so staff could work with AT&T and the appellants to study potential alternative placements for the DAS equipment. On March 6, 2013, the Planning Director met with the appellants and AT&T staff to discuss the project and placement. At that meeting, a feasible (technologically) alternative site was identified at 3716 Redwood Circle. This location had similar conditions as Carlson Circle, with the existing utility pole located within a public utility easement (PUE) along the side yard and set back deeper into the property. On March 28, 2013, the Director’s decision to approve the DAS equipment on the existing utility pole located within a PUE on 3704 Carlson Circle was issued. This decision was based upon the fact that the alternative location at 3716 Redwood Circle was not a better solution, aesthetically or otherwise. Within the prescribed timeframe to appeal the decision, an appeal was filed by the same appellants that appealed the earlier Phase 3 decision. 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 Architectural Review Board (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 June 3, 2013 has been targeted for this public hearing, if Council votes to conduct a hearing. Project Description The proposed project includes the installation of an 8’-6” pole extension above the existing 33’- 6” tall utility pole and equipment cabinets approximately 10 feet above grade. 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 City of Palo Alto Page 4 Figure 1: Proposed Location 10.125”D) located approximately 11’-0” above grade; (3) a back-up battery cabinet (27”H x 22”W x 18”D) located approximately 15’-11” 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 proposed location has an existing private tree that would provide screening for the equipment boxes, as shown in Figure 1. Discussion The approval decision for this installation was appealed by Roger Petersen (3719 Carlson Circle) and John Hamburger (3700 Carlson Circle). The appellants indicate they represent 22 concerned neighbors, as evidenced in a signed petition included as Attachment C. The appeal submitted by Mr. Petersen in January 2013 included the same signed petition submitted in April 2013. This DAS installation was one of the two proposed pole relocations in Phase 3 that would move the existing utility pole approximately 22 feet away from the current location, which is approximately four feet away from the garage at 3704 Carlson Circle, out toward the street. The concern Mr. Petersen cited in his original appeal is that relocation of the utility pole out onto the street would be unattractive, since there currently are no utility poles located along Carlson Circle. 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 identified some alternatives (including in PUEs) that staff and AT&T evaluated. In the effort to come up with a compromise, the recent approval of the Carlson Circle installation did not require the utility pole to be relocated to the sidewalk, and in so doing, the existing street character would be maintained. An existing tree also provides screening of the equipment from the two adjacent homes. City of Palo Alto Page 5 The newly submitted appeal from Messrs. Petersen and Hamburger raise the following three points: “The 3706 Carlson Circle location is less than 6 feet from each of (the) two homes on our circle. This couldn’t be what the Architectural Review Board has in mind.” “The equipment would tower over the patio and family room of a well-respected, longtime Palo Alto couple who spend the majority of their time at home.” “The Carlson location is a quiet cul-de-sac with no through traffic, and minimal ambient noise.” Health Impacts and Property Value 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 This project is required to meet the residential noise standards, as outlined in PAMC Section 9.10.030, and cannot exceed six dB above the local ambient (40 dBA minimum) at the property plane. This standard differs from other project approvals, since it is located in a PUE on private property, rather than in the public right-of-way. To further address and monitor the noise concern, staff has included the following Conditions of Approval: 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. Aesthetics City of Palo Alto Page 6 The Carlson Circle installation follows the same design concepts that were reviewed by the ARB and approved by the City Council in January 2012. A fairly large tree is located between the two homes and should provide significant screening for the equipment. The pole and equipment is not adjacent to primary living or bedroom areas of the homes, but is adjacent to a carport and a patio. Staff believes that relocation to the Redwood Circle site would have at least similar aesthetic impacts and would not be preferable to the approved location. In addition, the location is just as likely to encounter similar levels of neighborhood opposition. 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. 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: Petersen Appeals (PDF) : Attachment D: Comment Letters (PDF) : Attachment E: Architectural Review Approval Letter, March 28, 2013 (PDF) : Attachment F: Applicant's Submittal Information (PDF) : Attachment G: City Council Report #3435 Appeal of AT&T DAS Phase 3 without Attachments (PDF) : Attachment H: Project Plans (Councilmembers and Libraries only) (PDF) 1 DRAFT ACTION NO. 2013-05 RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO LAND USE ACTION FOR AT&T DAS PROJECT LOCATED AT 3704 CARLSON CIRCLE (PART OF PHASE 3): ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW 12PLN-00127 (AT&T, APPLICANT) On May 6, 2013, the Council upheld the Director of Planning and Community Environment’s March 28, 2013 decision to approve the Architectural Review of the co-location by AT&T of (Distributed Antenna System, a.k.a. DAS) wireless communications equipment on an existing utility pole on 3704 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 January 28, 2013, the City Council approved AT&T’s Architectural Review application for the co-location of wireless communications equipment (Distributed Antenna System) on 19 utility poles located within City rights-of-ways near the following locations excluding the installation at 3704 Carlson Circle requiring the pole relocation to the back of sidewalk. Staff would continue to work with AT&T and the appellants to determine the most appropriate placement of the DAS equipment. The action is contained in the CMR #3435. B. On March 28, 2013, following staff review, the Director of Planning and Community Environment (Director) approved the DAS equipment location on the existing utility pole (relocation not required) located within the public utility easement on 3704 Carlson Circle, amending the Architectural Review (AR) application for Phase 3. Notices of the Director’s decision were mailed notifying neighbors of the decision. The action is contained in the CMR #3745. D. Within the prescribed timeframe, one appeal of the Director’s decision was filed by Palo Alto residents Petersen and Hamburger. 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 Attachment A 2 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 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. 3 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. 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 Phase 3 DAS 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. 4 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 – 3706 Carlson Circle, consisting of 3 pages, and received April 29, 2013, 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 April 29, 2013, 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. All conditions of approval associated with the AT&T Phase 3 approval (RLUA 2013-03)are applicable to this project, except as modified to incorporate these conditions of approval 4. Any modifications/additions to the approved plans shall be approved by Planning prior to construction and installation. 5. 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. 6. For all pole installations, the backup battery cabinet shall be placed above the prism box. 7. 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. 8. 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 5 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. 9. 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. 10. 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. 11. 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. 12. The preferred selection for new street trees shall be evergreen trees, as deemed appropriate by Public Works and the Utilities department. 13. 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. 14. Pole 12/Node P2N13A (3704 Carlson Circle) installation shall be installed on the existing utility pole located within the public utility easement. This installation shall have the equipment boxes facing toward the street; and shall not exceed the residential noise standards as specified in PAMC 9.10.030 of 6dB above the ambient noise level, measured at the property line. 15. 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 6 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). 16. 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. 17. 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. 18. 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. 19. 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 20. 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 7 21. 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 8 PLANS AND DRAWINGS REFERENCED: Those plans prepared by AT&T titled Palo Alto ODAS – 3706 Carlson Circle, consisting of 3 pages, and received April 29, 2013. 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. From: Thomas A. Vician <tvician@sbcglobal.net> Sent: Saturday, April 13, 2013 2:52 PM To: Campbell, Clare Cc: 'Ashwinee Khaladkar on Nextdoor' Subject: AT&T DAS on Carlson Circle Clare, I am strongly opposed to placing the AT&T DAS on the pole between 3716 and 3718 Redwood Circle. I strongly support placing the DAS on the proposed site on Carlson Circle. I support the original location on the basis that the AT&T engineers chose it as the most appropriate location for sending a strong wireless signal to the geographic area relevant to the placement of their other DAS installations. I am prepared to address the City Council on Monday night if the issue is being decided then. Please, inform me of the next step in this process. Best wishes, Thomas A. Vician, Ph.D. 3718 Redwood Circle From: Bhushan Khaladkar [mailto:bhushan@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 10:43 PM To: Ashwinee Khaladkar Cc: Campbell, Clare Subject: Re: AT&T DAS location Dear Ms. Campbell, My name is Bhushan Khaladkar, resident of 3716 Redwood Circle. I wanted to submit my comments about the location of the AT&T DAS antenna. 1. The characteristics of Redwood Circle are identical to Carlson circle, so changing would not have any additional benefits. 2. We already receive good AT&T coverage at our location so there will no benefit by putting the Antenna at the Redwood circle location. 3. We already have 2 electric utility poles on our property which are a huge eye sore, adding another pole will significantly impact our property appeal and will put disproportionate burden of the poles on our property. 4. We are also greatly concerned about the noise and EMF signals and its impact on children, especially given that we have small children. Given these considerations, we are strongly against putting the AT&T DAS antenna at the Redwood circle location and hopefully would consider more appropriate locations like Charleston which would be more useful to the community. Thanking you, Bhushan Khaladkar, 3716 Redwood Circle, Palo Alto. MACKENZIE & ALBRITTON LLP 220 SANSOME STREET, 14TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94104 TELEPHONE 415 / 288-4000 FACSIMILE 415 / 288-4010 April 30, 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, 3706 Carlson Circle City Council Consent Calendar May 6, 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 uphold the well-reasoned decision of the Planning Division to approve the AT&T distributed antenna system (“DAS”) node at 3706 Carlson Circle (the “Approval”). The Approval represents the last node of 75 AT&T DAS nodes approved in Palo Alto in four phases over the last two years. The appeal of Roger Petersen and John Hamburger (the “Appellants”) seeks to re-open unsupported aesthetic concerns regarding design and site placement that have been thoroughly reviewed by both AT&T and the City. The appeal simply raises no new concerns that justify removing the Approval from the Council’s May 6, 2013, consent calendar. The Approval represents years of exhaustive analysis by Planning Division staff, Utilities Department staff, the City arborist, the City’s outside consultants, the Architectural Review Board (the “ARB”) and the Council of both the design and the site locations of the AT&T DAS project. Notwithstanding this careful analysis, staff withdrew the 3706 Carlson Circle facility from its December 18, 2012 Phase III approval to allow further review of Appellants’ aesthetic concerns. After months of reevaluation that included meeting with Appellants and a review of numerous alternatives, staff re-issued the Approval on March 28, 2013 which places the facility on the existing utility pole at 3706 Carlson Circle. In sum, Staff’s findings in support of the Approval are well-reasoned, Palo Alto City Council April 30, 2013 Page 2 of 3 supported by substantial evidence and represent years of analysis and re-analysis. In addition, both state and federal law compel the City to affirm the Approval. 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 design and locate its DAS nodes to 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. The benefits of this streamlined design and site placement are well-demonstrated in the approved node at 3706 Carlson Circle that is now being appealed. As shown in the attached photosimulation, the approved node only minimally increases the profile of the existing utility pole. Closely following rigorous location guidelines established by the ARB, AT&T conducted an Alternative Aesthetics Fielding Analysis evaluating and initial five existing utility poles to identify the Carlson Circle location. This included consideration of block placement to identify locations away from street corners in order to minimize public views and in-between property lines to avoid impacts on individual views, as well as identifying poles where existing foliage would best camouflage DAS equipment. AT&T’s aesthetic review was re-analyzed and adjusted by Planning Division staff and again over the last month through meetings with AT&T, Appellants and Planning Division staff. This extensive review has confirmed that the final pole location represents the least aesthetic impacts to individuals and the community to be served. In sum, the design and pole selection guidelines have been thoroughly reviewed by the Planning Division staff, the ARB and the Council. Further, the 3706 Carlson Circle node has been twice reviewed and compared to identified alternatives by the City’s Director of Planning and Community Environment following consultation with Appellants and does not require further public hearings or review. II. The Appeal Does Not Warrant Further Council Review. In their appeal, Appellants argue that AT&T has failed to fully evaluate alternatives to the 3706 Carlson Circle node and that inadequate time has been devoted to reviewing alternatives. In reality, and as confirmed by Appellants in their appeal, AT&T and Planning Division staff have devoted over a year to evaluating alternatives to the Carlson Circle node, and in particular have identified and evaluated those nodes that Appellants claim need further evaluation. Over the last month, AT&T has worked with City staff, including meeting with the Appellants, to re-review and reevaluate at least seven alternatives, including those identified by Appellants. The result of this reevaluation, which included all alternatives identified by Appellants, is the Approval which appears on Palo Alto City Council April 30, 2013 Page 3 of 3 the May 6, 2013 consent calendar. Under the Approval, the existing utility pole at 3706 Carlson Circle will be used, which addresses the concern regarding the aesthetic impact of relocating the utility pole to the street. Appellants’ claims that alternatives have not been thoroughly evaluated or that adequate time has not been devoted to evaluating alternatives are simply unfounded.1 III. Federal Law Compels Council Affirmation of the Approval. 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 approval of 75 AT&T DAS nodes including this final component of all four phases of the DAS network. Failure to affirm the Approval 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 For these reasons, federal law compels Council affirmation of the Approval on May 6, 2013. Conclusion The Approval that appears on the May 6, 2013, Council consent calendar represents the culmination of years of design and aesthetic review, including a second look by Planning Division staff earlier this year. That process has resulted in 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 Approval as part of the Council’s consent calendar without further hearing. Very truly yours, Paul B. Albritton cc: Curtis Williams Cara Silver, Esq. Attachment 1 Appellants’ claims of the adverse impacts of the node on their homes is also in error. As demonstrated by submittals provided by AT&T, the existing utility pole where the DAS node is to be located is over 25 feet from exterior walls of adjacent homes. 2 See 47 U.S.C. §332 et seq. 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 23 !"#"$%&'()(*+$,$-.&/&012$3(0*.('4*12$!5*1556$7+0*18$ -6)&$!)*&9$:6)(;&.5(6$ !"#$%! !!&'()!*!+,!*! '!-.%/*000!1&2!3'456)7!+6!78)!9+:);!+;!<5(87!9+<)!4)<+:!78)!'67)66'=!'7!)'38!>?2!6+@)!56!&'<+! ?<7+A!B'<5,+;65'C!! 7*42+$<104)*0$ >'7'! 9;+D5@)@! 4E! FG! B+66)375D57E! 56@53'7)=H! 78'7! 78)! I'J5IKI! 3'<3K<'7)@! 6+5=)! <)D)<=! ,;+I! 785=! )LK59I)67!'7!'!@5=7'63)!+,!*M!,))7!';)!'=!,+<<+:=N! !O5(87! -;+67! P),7! Q'3R!! !S0C0! S*C*! S0CT! UVCM!@Q?! ?@@56(! 78)=)! <)D)<=! 7+! 78)! =7'7K7+;E! I565IKI! <+3'<! 'I45)67! +K7@++;! <)D)<! +,! S0! @Q?! (5D)=! 78)! ,+<<+:56(!;)=K<7=N! !! O5(87! -;+67! P),7! Q'3R!! B+I456)@!F+7'<! SUC0! SSC*! SUCT! S*CW!@Q?! X+5=)!Y63;)'=)! ZUC0! Z*C0! ZUC0! ZUCU!@Q?! ?<<!+,!78)!6+5=)!563;)'=)=!';)!:)<<!4)<+:!78)!B57E[=!'<<+:)@!<)D)<A!4E!3+I9<5'63)!I';(56=!56!)J3)==!+,! T0!@Q?C! :&5=)40(&5$$ Q'=)@! +6! 78)! 56,+;I'75+6! '6@! '6'<E=5=! '4+D)A! 57! 5=! 78)! K6@);=5(6)@[=! 9;+,)==5+6'<! +9565+6! 78'7! 78)!! ?F\F! @5=7;54K7)@! '67)66'! =E=7)I! 6+@)=! 9;+9+=)@! 7+! 4)! <+3'7)@! '7! D';5+K=! <+3'75+6=! 56! &'<+! ?<7+A! B'<5,+;65'A!:5<<!3+I9<E!:578!78'7!357E[=!=7'6@';@=!<5I5756(!'3+K=753!6+5=)!)I5==5+6!<)D)<=C! !4*>&.0>(/$ F8)! K6@);=5(6)@! 'K78+;! +,! 785=! =7'7)I)67! 5=! '! LK'<5,5)@! &;+,)==5+6'<! G6(56));A! 8+<@56(! B'<5,+;65'! O)(5=7;'75+6!X+=C!G/TU0*#!'6@!%/*0#]#A!:8538!)J95;)!+6!^K6)!U0A!*0TUC!!F85=!:+;R!8'=!4))6!3';;5)@! +K7!K6@);!85=!@5;)375+6A!'6@!'<<!=7'7)I)67=!';)!7;K)!'6@!3+;;)37!+,!85=!+:6!R6+:<)@()!)J3)97A!:8);)! 6+7)@A!:8)6!@'7'!8'=!4))6!=K99<5)@!4E!+78);=A!:8538!@'7'!8)!4)<5)D)=!7+!4)!3+;;)37C!! !!!_____________________________________! !`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 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. 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) PLACEHOLDER