AT&T Tier 2 Wireless Facilities in Public Right-of-Way

At a glance

Based on auto-generated captions; names and numbers may be misheard.

• What: AT&T's application to add antennas, remote radio units, 7-foot fiberglass pole-top extensions and equipment shrouds to two existing city-owned wood utility poles in the public right-of-way: near 670 Guinda Street and next to 754 Homer Avenue (University South neighborhood). A third site, 804 Boyce Avenue, was withdrawn after residents objected; AT&T said it will return later with an alternate location.
• Where it stands: on 2026-10-15 the Architectural Review Board voted 5-0 to recommend that the Director of Planning and Development Services approve both sites as presented. The decision is the Director's.
• Clock: this is a tier two application under the federal "shot clock". It was paused on day 27 (September 10, 2026) for incompleteness; staff said revised materials arrived on October 14 and the 90-day deadline is December 15, 2026. An attorney for United Neighbors argued the application is still not complete, so the clock may restart.
• Next: staff is to confirm several follow-ups (see below) and may flag the missing Homer Avenue conduit on the drawings as an incomplete item.

The proposal

• One omnidirectional canister antenna on top of each pole, on a 7-foot fiberglass extension; poles are over 50 feet. Nearby roofs are 15 to 18 feet high.
• A pole-face shroud (roughly 4 feet tall, 2 feet wide, 10 inches deep) holding two radio units and a power supply, plus a service disconnect about 7 feet off the ground. Equipment is to be painted Sherwin Williams "Sable" in a non-glossy finish to match the pole.
• Cabling runs in exposed conduit up the pole: staff and AT&T described 3-inch for coax, 2-inch for fiber and 1.5-inch for power. AT&T cited California General Order 95 for the 6-foot clearance from primary power lines (which drives the extension height) and for the offset from the pole.
• AT&T says the radio frequency report puts emissions at about 1% of the public limit at ground level, within FCC thresholds, with no fans, and that this is a coverage and capacity gap fill (4G and 5G). It called the design its most compact yet, citing earlier ARB feedback.

Board review

• Staff said the board's purview is limited to aesthetic standards (architectural review findings and generally applicable development standards, Attachment B) and conditions of approval (Attachment C). The earlier objective standards, including areas of exclusion near homes, were repealed last year, and the new standards from the July and August ARB study sessions have not yet gone to the Planning and Transportation Commission or Council.
• Board questions covered pole heights and condition, whether GO 95 applies, grounding test wells, noise, whether the shroud and 3-inch conduit are oversized, the "or approved equivalent" language on the drawings, and gray versus brown on the plans (AT&T: brown, painted to match).
• Board Member Hirsch and others pressed on conduit size (eight quarter- to three-eighths-inch coax cables should fit a smaller conduit). AT&T agreed to evaluate a smaller conduit.
• The board asked for future submittals, and ideally revised drawings now, to show all conduits, the radio box, shutoff switch and bend radii accurately and in proportion.
• Closing comments: most members said their options are limited by federal law and GO 95, that AT&T had improved on earlier designs and dropped the third pole, and that any site would affect some neighbors. Board Member Hirsch said the cumulative clutter on poles is the real aesthetic problem and urged rethinking the approach.
• Motion to approve the project as presented carried 5-0 (Chair Adcock, Vice Chair Rosenberg, Board Members Chen, Jojola and Hirsch).

Concerns raised

• Public comment (five speakers plus written letters; United Neighbors cited 38 letters): sites too close to homes (one tower said to be under 33 feet from a residence); request that AT&T return with sites farther from homes, such as a rooftop on Middlefield Road; cabinets should be concealed or undergrounded; the roughly 52-foot poles with extensions are out of scale; photo simulations omit conduit and equipment; noise; health; whether approval opens the way for more equipment; and cabling being strung along nearby streets.
• An attorney for United Neighbors said the application lacks a map of existing facilities within 600 feet and treats two sites as separate when they cover one 5-by-4 block gap. A later speaker warned that federal rules (section 6409) let carriers add equipment to non-stealth poles without discretionary review, so each approval shapes later ones.
• AT&T responded that only eight of about 500 noticed residents came to its community meeting and most opposed the withdrawn third pole, that lower poles would need taller extensions or more sites, that PG&E rules bar attaching to poles with transformers, and that underground vaults are not workable in the right-of-way.
• Staff: no wholesale undergrounding program exists, and these poles are not in a planned undergrounding area.

Follow-ups promised

• Staff to confirm with Utilities whether GO 95 applies to these city-owned poles and to check the exclusion-area distance on Homer Avenue.
• AT&T to confirm what Palo Alto Utilities requires on exposed coax connections, and whether the extension is solid fiberglass or foam-filled.
• AT&T to look at a smaller conduit.

Sources

• Meeting video: 2026-10-15 - Architectural Review Board Regular Meeting
• Staff report attachments referenced on the video: Attachment B (findings and standards), Attachment C (conditions of approval), Attachment F (radio frequency emissions report). The agenda packet link for this meeting has not been collected.

Discussion time

About 110 minutes across 1 meeting (from transcript timestamps; approximate).

Log

• 2026-10-15 - Architectural Review Board Regular Meeting - Public hearing on both sites: staff presentation, AT&T presentation, five public speakers, board questions on conduit and shroud size; recommended approval 5-0.