2026-10-15 - Architectural Review Board Regular Meeting

11:34Mhm.

17:19>> Good morning. Welcome to the October

17:2215th Architecture Review Board meeting.

17:24Should we have a roll call, please?

17:25>> Uh Chair Adcock.

17:27>> Present.

17:28>> Vice Chair Rosenberg.

17:30>> Present. I am hearing a bit of an echo,

17:32so I just want to

17:34>> Um if we I believe board member

17:36Hershey's mic is

17:38>> on.

17:40>> Thanks.

17:40>> Is that No, still echoing.

17:42>> Uh if you

17:44>> Yeah, I I I can call roll call and then

17:46I can actually go troubleshoot real

17:47quick. Yeah. Um Chair Chen.

17:50>> Here.

17:51>> Uh Chair

17:52um uh

17:52Board member Chen.

17:54>> Okay.

17:55Yeah, present.

17:56>> Board member Jojola.

17:59>> Present.

17:59>> Board member Hershey.

18:01For the record, we have quorum. And then

18:02I will go and check the iPads real

18:04quick.

18:20>> Checking. Much better. Perfect. Thank

18:22you so much.

18:35Does that sound better?

18:36>> Yes, much better. Thank you.

18:39All right. Let's go on to agenda

18:41changes, additions, and deletions.

18:47>> No changes planned for this meeting.

18:50>> Thank you.

18:52Next we have um

18:54in-person public comment. This is a time

18:56for members of the public to speak on

18:58any item that is not on the agenda.

19:03So, seeing once you're settled, do we

19:04have any

19:05>> Agenda.

19:05>> Uh

19:06>> Uh uh Chair, we do have one request for

19:08speak for general public comment. Uh our

19:10Our speaker is Genie F.

19:12>> Right? Yeah.

19:13>> You're welcome to come up to the

19:15>> Uh

19:16Genie Fleming.

19:25>> Thank you. Um please state and spell

19:26your name for the record and you will

19:28have 3 minutes to speak.

19:29>> Uh Genie Fleming. J E A N N E F L E M I

19:33N G.

19:34And I'm speaking on as an update on the

19:37last cell tower that you considered at

19:391669 Page Mill Road.

19:41This tower was approved in October 25,

19:44approved in a rush

19:46because the right person at AT&T had

19:49somehow failed to sign the agreement to

19:51extend the shot clock by the morning of

19:54the ARB hearing.

19:56While AT&T and staff were rushing the

19:58ARB, they were in no hurry themselves.

20:01AT&T did not begin construction on 1661

20:05Page Mill until close to a year later.

20:08And the company sought and was granted

20:10by the city multiple extensions

20:12themselves.

20:14Where are we now on this facility? Well,

20:16this is what we know.

20:18First, the radios were installed on the

20:20wrong side of the pole.

20:22I spoke to AT&T's Ms. Stack about it

20:25and she tells me the problem either now

20:27has been

20:28or is about to be corrected.

20:31Second, we still don't know if the

20:33emergency shut off sign accurately

20:35directs emergency workers to the shut

20:37off switch. Ms. Stack tells me she'll

20:40send me a photo of the sign, I haven't

20:42received it yet.

20:44Uh third, Ms. Stack tells me she doesn't

20:46believe there were any design changes,

20:48but she's checking on this. Um I can

20:51tell you, however,

20:52um that what's actually installed on the

20:54top of the 1661 pole is a tangle of long

20:59wires, a tangle that was not depicted in

21:02the material AT&T provided to the ARB. I

21:06don't know about any other design

21:07changes because obviously I can't see

21:10the equipment on the pole very well. In

21:12some cases at all.

21:14Fourth and finally, as built plans have

21:17not yet been submitted to the city

21:19although construction has at least

21:21nominally been completed.

21:24That's where things stand on 1661 Page

21:26Mill.

21:27Final comment, I regret to report that

21:30United Neighbors of Palo Alto

21:33was never informed of the two summer ARV

21:35hearings regarding establishing a list

21:38of objective standards so called for

21:41cell towers. Needless to say, had we

21:44known the hearings were taking place, we

21:46would have been there.

21:48So please consider this my formal

21:51request to the city of Palo Alto to be

21:53kept informed of hearings, meetings and

21:56so on that involve cell towers. I have

21:59made this request before numerous times

22:02but apparently it has now been

22:03forgotten. Thank you.

22:08>> Thank you.

22:08>> Thank you. The chair has no other

22:10requests to speak for general public

22:11comment.

22:12>> Thank you.

22:16All right, we will

22:19move on to a city official reports.

22:25>> Good morning.

22:27Just wanting to note here that there

22:29were no recently recently submitted

22:32items since the last meeting.

22:34Um

22:35there has been a little bit of

22:37some changes

22:39we were anticipating having a project

22:41coming at the November 5th meeting

22:44but we are planning on canceling that

22:46meeting due to the items and staff

22:49needing some more time to

22:51prepare that

22:53get it ready for the board.

22:55There are remaining five meetings

22:57scheduled for the year and as we get

23:00closer to the holiday season, if you

23:02would please direct any planned absences

23:05to staff's attention and we'll note

23:07that. And just for the record, we have

23:09at the last December meeting a planned

23:11absence from Chair Adcock. So.

23:16And I can take any questions.

23:18>> So sorry, just to confirm, the November

23:205th is cancelled?

23:21>> Yes, November 5th is cancelled.

23:23>> Thank you.

23:25That leaves us three more meetings for

23:27this year.

23:28Um any other questions for staff?

23:34No?

23:36All right. In that case, we shall move

23:39on to

23:41the first agenda's item for the day,

23:44which is a public hearing quasi

23:46judicial,

23:48a request by AT&T for review of two tier

23:51two general wireless communication

23:52facilities

23:53to um collocate new antennas, remote

23:56radio units,

23:587-ft fiberglass pole extensions, and

24:00associated equipment and exist on

24:03existing city-owned wood utility poles

24:06in the public right-of-way.

24:07One is near 670 uh Ginda Street, and the

24:11next one is

24:13next to

24:14um 754 Homer Avenue. SEQUA status exempt

24:18pursuant to California's

24:20uh

24:20environmental quality act guideline

24:22section 15 15301,

24:25zoning district not applicable public

24:27right-of-way.

24:28Um so, the recommendation to the board

24:31is uh that the architectural review

24:33board conduct a public hearing and take

24:35the following action. Recommend that the

24:38director recommend that the director of

24:40planning and development services

24:42approve the tier two general wireless

24:43communication facility application for a

24:46colocation of new wireless equipment on

24:48two city-owned wood utility poles in the

24:51public right-of-way

24:52based on the architectural review board

24:54findings and general applicable

24:55development development standards set

24:57forth

24:58in attachment B and the conditions of

25:00approval in attachment C.

25:03So, with that um

25:05Nishita, would you want to start your

25:06presentation?

25:08Thank you.

25:08>> Yes. Thank you. Um good morning

25:10everyone. Uh my name is Nishita

25:12Kambakamba. I'm a planner. Uh I'm the

25:14project planner for this project. Um

25:17So, I'll go ahead and get started and

25:18give you a brief overview um of what was

25:21previously submitted and the change of

25:22scope. Um so,

25:25previously AT&T had submitted uh three

25:27sites for the review um for tier two

25:29general in the public right-of-way. Um

25:32the 804 Boyce Avenue site has since been

25:34removed. Um I tried to cross out as much

25:36of that information off from the project

25:38description letter and all the

25:39associated and supplemental documents.

25:42Um and in this um

25:44application, we're only going to be

25:46talking about um the remaining two sites

25:48as um 670 Guinda Street and 754 Homer

25:52Avenue.

25:54Next slide, please.

25:58Um both of these sites are located in

26:00the uh University South neighborhood um

26:04and the Homer site, as you can see, has

26:05been removed from the scope of work.

26:08Um each of these sites, sorry, next

26:10slide.

26:14Each of these sites has the um proposed

26:17wood pole installations including a 7-ft

26:19fiberglass pole top extension um at the

26:22top of the existing wood utility poles,

26:24um one omnidirectional canister antenna

26:27at the top of each pole, um equipment

26:30enclosure at the pole face consisting of

26:32two radio units and the power supply

26:34unit, um one service disconnect um at

26:38approximately 7 ft from grade, um and

26:40all the associated conduit cabling and

26:42equipment.

26:45Next slide.

26:47Um the first site that I'll be talking

26:48about is the um 670 Guinda Street site.

26:52Um, this one is a quick rendering of

26:55what's existing and what will um, the

26:57pole look like once it's been installed.

27:00Next slide.

27:02I've also included um, an elevation that

27:05was provided as a part of the radio

27:07frequency emissions reports. Um, so that

27:09just shows the heights relative to the

27:11adjacent properties. Um, so as you can

27:13see on the right side is actually the

27:14street. Um, so there's no immediate um,

27:17properties there, but on the left side

27:18there are homes. Um, and the the topmost

27:22part of the home um, the roof is at 18

27:24ft from grade.

27:26And the pole itself is over 50 ft.

27:30Next slide.

27:32Um, this is the 754 Homer Avenue site.

27:35Again, on the left, this is the existing

27:37pole um, as it exists today and then

27:39what it will look like once the wireless

27:41equipment has been installed.

27:45Next slide.

27:47And again, an elevation drawing um,

27:49showing the adjacent roof height at 15

27:51ft. Um, and on the left side is the

27:53street.

27:56Next slide.

27:57I've also included um, a color swatch of

28:00what all the equipment will be painted

28:02to match the existing pole um, in

28:05Sherwin Williams Sable um, in a

28:07non-glossy finish.

28:10Next slide.

28:12Um, a quick overview of the federal

28:14regulations. Um, so all wireless

28:17projects are um, subject to shot clock

28:20timelines. That means that all the

28:21permitting associated permits um, and

28:23review processes have to be completed

28:25within a certain timeline for different

28:27types and different um, thresholds of

28:29projects.

28:30Um, for the purpose of this project, um,

28:33both the sites at um, both these

28:35locations will be um, a tier two general

28:37application. Um, what that means is

28:40they're adding new wireless equipment on

28:42a pole that currently does not have any

28:44equipment.

28:45Um, and it will be subject to a 90-day

28:47shot clock, um, wherein all permits have

28:49to be issued.

28:51Um, since a timely notice of incomplete

28:54was sent to the applicant within the

28:5630-day period, um, the shot clock was

28:58paused on day 27 of the shot clock. Um,

29:02so on September 10th, 2020 6, not 2024.

29:06Um, the revised materials were submitted

29:09by the applicant yesterday. Um, so the

29:11shot clock will officially begin, um,

29:13which brings us the 90-day shot clock

29:15to, um, December 15th, 2026, which will

29:18be the 90-day end, which is when all the

29:20permitting and everything would have to

29:21be completed for the project.

29:24Um, the applicant has also provided the

29:27radio frequency emissions report, um,

29:29and we've provided that under attachment

29:31F of the packet. Um, essentially, this

29:34states that there's, um, all the

29:36equipment that's being proposed will be

29:38within the allowable radio frequency

29:39emission thresholds set by the, um,

29:42Federal Communications Commission, or

29:44FCC.

29:47Next slide.

29:50Um, we have received a, um, large volume

29:53of summary, uh, sorry, of public

29:55comments, and I've provided a quick

29:56summary of them on the next two slides.

29:59Um, one of the primary concern from the

30:01residents has been the, um, location of

30:04the proposed wireless facilities being

30:05very close to residential properties.

30:08Um, they've also talked about the impact

30:11of the wireless equipment on the

30:13character of the neighborhood, um, and

30:16not really appealing to aesthetic

30:17standards of these neighborhoods.

30:20Um, they've also asked, um, AT&T to

30:23provide some clarification on whether

30:25alternatives were considered for the

30:26poles, um,

30:28and whether there's been, um, any

30:30coverage gap that was studied to better

30:32understand how these different poles

30:34were chosen to actually place the

30:36wireless equipment.

30:45>> Um, one of the other concerns that was

30:47brought up was the concerns regarding

30:49potential health concerns or health

30:50risks that the wireless equipment could

30:53pose for the nearby residents.

30:56Um, and also in terms of the size of the

30:58equipment, whether this equipment would

31:00produce any noise, um, and if there's

31:02any construction-related outages or

31:04anything that are going to occur, um, as

31:06a part of the installation.

31:08Um, and also finally they've brought up,

31:10um,

31:11a question about whether this approval

31:14would in the future bring,

31:16um, any future facilities to be

31:18automatically approved on these sites,

31:20and the answer is no.

31:26Um, we had held, um, ARB study sessions

31:30in July and August of this year to

31:32discuss, um, the new review criteria for

31:35wireless projects in the public

31:37right-of-way. Um, that has not yet gone

31:40to PTC and Council. So, right now what

31:42we have, um, and what we'll be reviewing

31:44these projects against, um, are the

31:47architecture review findings as well as

31:49the, um, generally applicable

31:51development standards that have both

31:52been provided to you in attachment B of

31:54the staff report.

31:56And, um, the project will also be

31:58subject to, um, the conditions of

32:00approval, um, as provided in attachment

32:03C.

32:08Um, staff recommends ARB to conduct a

32:10public hearing, um, and take the

32:12following action, um, to recommend that

32:14the director of planning and development

32:15services approve the two tier two

32:18general wireless, um, facilities, um,

32:21for co-location of new wireless

32:23equipment on two city-owned existing

32:25wood utility poles in the public

32:27right-of-way based on the findings, um,

32:30generally applicable development

32:31standards as well as the conditions of

32:33approval.

32:35Alternatively, um, next slide, The ARB

32:38may recommend approval of the project

32:40with modified findings and conditions.

32:43Continue the project to a date certain

32:45with the applicant's consent, which may

32:47require a tolling agreement. And or

32:50recommend project denial based on

32:51substantial evidence in the record, um,

32:54supporting revised findings.

32:58All right. Thank you.

33:02>> Do we have any questions for staff?

33:06>> Yeah, I do have a couple of questions.

33:08Uh, so first I want to clarify since we

33:11received lots of comments for the this

33:13item today. And a number of them, uh,

33:17concerned about the location. So I want

33:19to verify whether for ARB today's

33:22discussion,

33:23the location, is it part of our

33:26discussion or we only focused on the

33:28pole design?

33:31>> ARB's purview is limited to the

33:33aesthetic standards of the design, you

33:35know, equipment and the proposed

33:36equipment, um, and AT&T actually does

33:39have coverage maps that they can that

33:41they review, um, that they provide as a

33:42part of their application. We do have

33:44representatives from AT&T here today who

33:46can speak to that. Um, and in terms of

33:49the, um, purview for ARB and AT&T, we

33:52also have, um, Eileen Balier, um,

33:55available online to answer any

33:57questions.

34:00>> And and another question is, as you just

34:02mentioned in your slides that the

34:04utility pole the the utility poles are

34:06owned by the city. So I want to know

34:09whether the GO 95 applies in both

34:12locations in this case.

34:15>> Uh, sorry, could you repeat the last

34:16part?

34:17>> Uh, the GO 95, the the one that requires

34:21the antenna to be raised over 6 ft above

34:25the

34:28>> Um, I will confirm with the utilities

34:29department and follow up with you. Okay,

34:31thank you.

34:35David, did you have a question as well?

34:38>> Yeah, um

34:41wanted to know if uh

34:44the the

34:45pole on Gwenda, does it have an

34:47extension in between the pole and the

34:51antenna?

34:55>> Both of the sites have a 7-ft tall pole

34:57that's being attached to the top of the

34:59existing wood um pole.

35:01And then the antenna will be mounted at

35:03the topmost part of that 7-ft extension.

35:07>> And was there

35:08any way that you verify the height of

35:10the pole there?

35:12Do you know exactly what the height is

35:14of the existing pole?

35:16>> Um we've used the information provided

35:18by um

35:19the applicant, and the utilities team

35:21has reviewed it to confirm compliance

35:23and um

35:25>> They confirmed the height height of the

35:26pole as well?

35:27>> Correct. Yes.

35:28>> Um

35:30Did they

35:32Did you have a chance to look at it

35:33relative to the areas you're excluding

35:36in front of houses? Eat both of those

35:38poles.

35:40Have you Have you reviewed that aspect

35:42of it?

35:50The obviously the one on the corner

35:52isn't in front. It's

35:54uh on Gwenda. But the other one, have

35:56you had a look at that to to make sure

35:59it's doesn't uh

36:02isn't an area of exclusion on Homer.

36:11>> The area of exclusion is a part of the

36:13objective um standards, and those were

36:16repealed last year. So at this time, the

36:18area of exclusion does not apply to

36:20either of the projects. So until the new

36:22standards are adopted, we don't have an

36:25area of exclusion. Um but that could be

36:28something that ARB can comment on today.

36:30>> Okay.

36:32>> I suppose to comment on those, just

36:34sorry, and David does a follow on that.

36:36Do we know where it is relative to

36:39what could have been the area of

36:40exclusion?

36:43>> We don't have that information, but I

36:45can quickly look up the site plan to see

36:47if we can measure it.

36:50>> Um, just, uh,

36:52in general, have have you

36:56planning department reviewed the

36:59each of these poles as to what is

37:01presently existing and the

37:03reasonableness of attaching all of the

37:06new

37:07uh, equipment for AT&T?

37:10>> Yes, um, planning looks at each of the

37:12poles independently. Um, we look at the

37:14area coverage maps that have been

37:16provided, um, and try to understand if

37:18there's alternative locations, which is,

37:20um, which information is provided by the

37:22applicant, and then we review each of

37:25the poles separately to see if it's

37:26placed in the pole, and also the the

37:29poles aren't new. They're keeping the

37:31existing poles, so the installation is

37:33limited to where it can be installed

37:36since they're using existing poles.

37:39>> And do they evaluate the condition of

37:41the existing poles to make sure that

37:42it's, uh, suitable for, okay.

37:44>> Yes, um, utilities have some standards

37:47that they would have to meet, um, before

37:49they're allowed to put new poles,

37:51especially with the structural stability

37:53of the pole, um, and right now this

37:56existing wireless infrastructure on the

37:58poles, um, and AT&T has given their

38:00approval, um, to install the wireless

38:02equipment on these poles.

38:05And if the, um, if utilities did

38:08determine that a new pole would be

38:10required, then that is a separate

38:11contract they would have to establish

38:13with AT&T.

38:16>> Um,

38:21uh, I wonder if, if

38:23whether who who should comment on the

38:25fact that these two poles are located

38:28just a couple of blocks from each other

38:30in that neighborhood. Will you leave

38:32that up to AT&T or can you explain

38:35something why that in fact this

38:38uh, something about the coverage, let's

38:40say, you know, of the neighborhood.

38:43Is that is that going to be, you know,

38:45we're going to see a lot of poles coming

38:47in later on, right? So,

38:50how how in fact do we judge something as

38:53to the

38:55relationship and coverage of a

38:57neighborhood?

38:58>> Absolutely. Um, we do have a

39:00representative from AT&T and Nexedge uh,

39:03who's representing AT&T from um, uh,

39:06here at the ARB today. Um, area coverage

39:08and how they determine to choose these

39:10specific poles, um, they can speak to.

39:13>> Okay, so I should wait until I we hear

39:15that

39:16>> Yes, they do have an applicant

39:17presentation and they'll probably cover

39:19that as a part of their application.

39:20>> Uh, as the presentation.

39:24>> Okay. Um,

39:27I have some photos. I wonder if I could

39:29somehow rather figure out how to get

39:31them on to the

39:33I haven't had a chance to do that

39:34before.

39:40>> Uh, if you may, you can send the photos

39:43um, via email to myself or or Sam and

39:47then we can share screen.

39:49>> Well, let's see if that works.

39:51>> All right. In the meantime, I have a

39:53couple of questions for Mr. Jess.

39:54>> Yes.

39:55>> Um, so, uh, you received a revised

39:58material yesterday and based on the

40:01report, it was uh,

40:04if I remember correctly, responses to

40:06um, or uh, notes from community meeting

40:10and then uh, some responses. So, can you

40:12clarify what was received and

40:15uh, I understand the project is still

40:17not deemed complete.

40:19>> That's

40:19That's correct. So, um, there was a

40:21couple of incomplete items uh, noted in

40:24their previous submittal. Um, as a part

40:27of any public um, right-of-way projects,

40:30uh, the applicant is required to host a

40:32community meeting, um, and the community

40:35meeting materials were not provided as a

40:37part of the application since the

40:38community meeting hadn't been held since

40:41uh, when they submitted the application.

40:42Um, so they AT&T has since provided the

40:46summary of the comments that were

40:47received at these meetings, um,

40:50and they also provided the digital or

40:52the color swatch of the material of the

40:54color that they'd be painting these

40:55materials, um, which I included in the

40:57slide deck. Um, besides the planning

41:00comments, um, besides the completeness

41:02comments, they also had some additional

41:03comments from utilities, um, regarding

41:06some clarification on like the conduits,

41:09um, which have since been clarified. Um,

41:11these wouldn't really affect the

41:13aesthetics of the pole in any way. These

41:15are more just, um, details that

41:16utilities needed from the applicant.

41:22>> Sorry. Uh, I understand not quite our

41:25purview on location and all, but based

41:27on the comments that we have received,

41:30um,

41:31I'm curious if you even Maybe it's too

41:34soon since you just received it

41:35yesterday, any summary of the community

41:37meeting and meeting notes. Um, is that

41:40anything outside of what we you

41:42summarized for us?

41:43Um, as public comments.

41:46>> Yeah, the summary that I provided on the

41:48slides included all the comments, um,

41:50that were provided at the community

41:51meeting as well as everything that was

41:52received via email.

41:55>> Thank you.

41:56Any other questions?

41:57All right, so then let's move on to

41:59applicant presentation.

42:01And you will have 10 minutes, and

42:03please, um, start with uh, stating and

42:06spelling your name. Thank you.

42:09>> Do you believe, uh,

42:10we have Courtney Perlow as a panelist

42:13on Zoom that is prepared to speak.

42:22Courtney, are you

42:25>> Yeah, I believe you'll need to unmute

42:26yourself, Courtney.

42:34Courtney, you're still on mute.

42:43You're unmuted, but can you speak again?

42:45We can't really hear you.

42:52Unfortunately, the audio is not coming

42:54through.

43:06We can't hear you, Courtney.

43:12If anyone following along in the

43:14outsider in the back of the chambers, we

43:16are getting a situation dealt with with

43:18David and the photos, and we are trying

43:20to figure out the audio here with AT&T.

43:22So, if you'll bear with us for just a

43:23moment.

43:30>> She's unmuted.

43:32Okay.

43:34Uh, hopefully that that will change. In

43:36the meantime, I I

43:38am prepared to start, so

43:40Um.

43:41>> Um, so this starts AT&T's presentation

43:44time. Uh, you have 10 minutes between

43:46all present presenters. Please start

43:48with spelling and stating your name.

43:50>> Sure, my name is Mark Grabisch, uh, g r

43:52a b i s c h. I am the program manager

43:56for small cells for AT&T.

43:58I thank the board for your time to

44:00consider these applications. I did want

44:03to point out that we did hold a

44:05community meeting, and at that community

44:07meeting there were eight residents out

44:10of 500 that were noticed. Uh most of the

44:13residents there were there to speak in

44:15opposition to the poll number four,

44:17which we have removed um to reconsider

44:20based on the feedback that we heard from

44:22the residents. And the there were no

44:24other residents that were there to

44:27um

44:28place opposition to the two nodes that

44:29are before you today.

44:31Uh I would like to point out that the

44:34letter that was submitted yesterday

44:38really

44:39totally dismisses the detailed RF

44:42statements that were provided in our

44:43application along with the coverage maps

44:45that show

44:47exactly the gap that we're trying to

44:48fill from a 4G LTE perspective. The fact

44:52that we sell an air internet product

44:55does not

44:56uh

44:57mandate or guarantee any certain level

44:59of service. It's no different than when

45:01we have coverage maps that show we have

45:03service.

45:04Uh we we do have service in the area.

45:06Our what we're saying is that service is

45:08not sufficient to uh for a customer to

45:12make and receive an in-building phone

45:14call, which is the standard that the

45:15courts have accepted. Uh the fact that

45:17they say that 911 is available as a

45:19backup through another carrier's network

45:21is not a guarantee that any customer

45:24would be able to make and receive a 911

45:25phone call. And obviously in a time of

45:28emergency that is an absolute last

45:30resort that a customer would have to

45:32rely on another carrier's network versus

45:34being able to make and receive an

45:36emergency phone call from within their

45:37home, which is the standard we're trying

45:39to build to here.

45:41Um

45:42the the significant gap in service is

45:44based on sophisticated modeling that

45:47takes into account a lot of different

45:49factors. We do have an RF engineer here

45:51who can speak to all of the the service

45:53levels, but for sure that gap exists and

45:57is verified through those

46:00the maps in the statement.

46:02Additionally,

46:03um

46:05the

46:075G service, again, in order to be able

46:10to provide an internet product, we do

46:12need the additional capacity. So, the 5G

46:14layer would provide that additional

46:16capacity. So, not in addition to filling

46:19a service coverage gap, we're filling a

46:21capacity gap that would be met by this.

46:24And the opposition would presume to uh

46:29actually tell us how to develop our

46:31network and service our gaps. But,

46:32removing that 5G equipment would be a

46:34material inhibition of the services that

46:36we're trying to provide and um

46:39the gap that we've presented. So,

46:41it

46:42the Verizon equipment was designed um

46:46for a different network need that

46:47Verizon has and it's not appropriate for

46:49the service gap that we're trying to

46:51fill here and the network uh that we're

46:53trying to

46:54um provide. Additionally, underground

46:57equipment, as we've already discussed,

46:59is not appropriate in the right-of-way.

47:01We have a hard enough time finding space

47:03to fit 1-in conduits to service the

47:05power and fiber to these sites. Even in

47:08the pictures that were presented in the

47:10opposition, it is clear that those

47:12vaults that I haven't verified actually

47:14exist or or how they were built, but

47:17they clearly approach upon private

47:18property and are not appropriate for the

47:20right-of-way for the same reasons that

47:22we've already mentioned underground

47:24facilities are are not appropriate.

47:28Um

47:29the design that we have before you today

47:31is based on feedback that we have heard

47:34from the ARB in multiple occasions, um

47:37starting with our application for the

47:40Pagel Road site. And um

47:44you know, we're using high-quality

47:46materials here. The

47:47shroud that we're enclosing the

47:49equipment in is designed so that it has

47:51sufficient airflow inside of it because

47:54it's an enclosure. It we don't want the

47:56equipment to overheat. It does need

47:58space for air flow. So, um it's designed

48:02to provide that spacing.

48:04And also provide some architectural

48:07flair to it. It's got rounded edges

48:09instead of being a a regular square box

48:11that you've typically seen on these

48:12facilities. So, this is the first of our

48:14kind that we're deploying here in Palo

48:17Alto. Um it will not require fans. So,

48:21no noise producing elements.

48:23They would also have you see, you know,

48:25say that the future modifications would

48:27allow this to to grow, but it still has

48:30limitations under 6409

48:32being in the right of way. Um it for for

48:35one, anything that requires a pole

48:37replacement under 6409

48:39would not be eligible. So, um in in this

48:44case on a utility pole, General Order 95

48:47is um

48:49required under the CPUC. So, even though

48:51it's Palo Alto Utilities, they still

48:54these utility poles are still governed

48:55by the General Order 95 of the

48:56California Public Utilities Code. And

48:59there are all severe restrictions as far

49:01as what the structural capacity on these

49:03poles can hold

49:05in addition to the equipment that we're

49:06already deploying. So, we do have a

49:08structural analysis that has um showed

49:11that these are safe for installation. We

49:13have reviewed these sites with Palo Alto

49:15Utilities and

49:16um they are appropriate for these

49:18facilities.

49:19The um

49:21Additionally, as you may be aware, a lot

49:24of all almost all modifications that we

49:26have recently made, we have

49:28significantly reduced the footprint

49:30that's on these poles. In the case of

49:32Page Mill Road, we removed an equipment

49:35cabinet that we could have left there

49:36for future growth, but it was no longer

49:38needed and we didn't, you know, feel it

49:41was appropriate to remain there. On the

49:43modifications that we did from our

49:45original ODAS conversions, we removed

49:47noise producing elements, removed

49:49removed battery backup. And again,

49:52reduced footprint rather than grew the

49:54footprint on all the poles. We are

49:56responsibly deploying these and

49:58providing

49:59the absolute best designs that we have

50:00available for the technology that we

50:02need in order to fill the service gap.

50:06Um even our maps, we have we did perform

50:09alternative analysis. That's also in the

50:11packet. The alternative analysis

50:13um identifies what was evaluated and

50:19we still feel that the location that

50:21we've the locations we've presented are

50:23the least intrusive means to fill this

50:25gap. The one uh that's at the

50:28intersection. Intersections typically

50:30have more infrastructure in there,

50:32whether that be stop signs. In this

50:34case, there's also a fire hydrant. Um

50:38and it is further away from being

50:40directly in front of people's homes.

50:43But in the case of lower poles that were

50:45presented by in the letter,

50:48in order to achieve the same service

50:49objective and coverage, we'd have to

50:52change a light pole that's roughly 25 ft

50:55and bring it up to roughly 50 ft in

50:57order to achieve the same service

50:59objective, which is a significantly more

51:01intrusive option than just doing a short

51:04extension on an existing pole.

51:07Same with the other utility pole that is

51:09roughly a 30-ft utility pole that would

51:11then need to be extended another 20 ft

51:13approximately in order to

51:16meet the same service objective. So,

51:17those would be significantly more

51:19intrusive options.

51:21In the case of the pole that has

51:23transformer on it, uh PG&E actually, for

51:27their safety requirements, do not allow

51:30us to attach to poles with transformers

51:32as a safety concern that they cite. And

51:35we just assume, you know,

51:37uh follow that safety guidance here. So,

51:40whether Palo Alto Utilities would allow

51:42us to

51:43relocate on that pole or not, we would

51:46assume that it's a safer installation if

51:48we do not go on a pole that has an

51:50existing transformer.

51:52Um

51:53when if we were to go with lower poles,

51:56so rather than extend, again to meet

51:59that service gap, we would end end up

52:00meeting more facilities than we're we're

52:03current currently proposing in order to

52:05fill that gap.

52:08Uh the other the opposition has also

52:10noted to apply tier three criteria to

52:13these sites. However, it is clear that

52:15this is clear a tier two application.

52:19And the fact that it's not a small cell,

52:22because it exceeds the 50-ft requirement

52:24to be classified as a small cell, the

52:26equipment cabinet is only 13 cubic feet,

52:29which is significantly smaller than the

52:3128 cubic feet that would be allowed for

52:33a small cell. Additionally, the antenna

52:35is smaller than the 3 cubic feet that is

52:37also allowed for small cells.

52:40And you could have multiple antennas. In

52:42this case, we only have one antenna. So,

52:44this really is

52:46as minimal an installation as possible.

52:49These are low-powered from an EME

52:51perspective. They're about 1% at ground

52:53level for public exposure. We also note

52:56that

52:57our our RF report does discuss arbor

53:00safety. And in this case, none of the

53:03surrounding trees fall within that

53:05public safe zone. So, the signage also

53:09puts people on notice that they were to

53:11enter into that public safe zone

53:12exposure

53:14area that there is a sign there to give

53:15them the warning. And we do have

53:19shut down procedures that can be

53:20followed to turn that RF emission off.

53:25Um

53:26and I think that concludes

53:30our presentation. Happy to answer any

53:31questions that you may have.

53:35>> Thank you. Um do we have any questions

53:38for

53:39applicant?

53:42You don't mind coming back to the

53:44podium? No, you're you're not you're not

53:45off duty yet. Come on.

53:47>> [laughter]

53:50>> Um I have two quick questions. You had

53:53mentioned there's no fans so there's no

53:54noise from fans. Is there any other

53:56noise, any associated buzzing,

53:58electrical current noises, anything like

54:00that?

54:00>> Nothing that would not that would be

54:03audible for, you know, people in their

54:05homes or on the ground or that wouldn't

54:08meet the city's noise ordinance.

54:09>> Well, city's noise ordinance is a very

54:11different thing than someone living in

54:13their house and hearing that slight

54:14buzzing all day every day.

54:16So, in theory, if you were walking on

54:17the sidewalk underneath it, you should

54:19not, in theory, hear any noise from

54:22this. Okay.

54:23Um the coverage map that we saw that was

54:26sort of the red it's the green coverage.

54:28Nishita, if you don't mind pulling that

54:29back up. The green, orange, the greens,

54:32yellows, and a little bit of red. There

54:34we go. That one. Um is this So, this is

54:36basically saying that the two new poles

54:39are going to provide this additional

54:40amount of coverage. Is that correct?

54:41>> Correct.

54:42>> And this is not including that third

54:43pole. Or is this evaluation for the

54:45third pole?

54:46>> Okay.

54:47Um where'd you go?

54:51And then I'm understanding that

54:53I'm understanding that one.

54:54>> Each location has its own coverage map

54:56to show the gap

54:57>> Okay.

54:58>> current and then pre and then post.

55:00>> So, this is the corner pole and then do

55:02we have another map for the other pole,

55:05the second pole? Okay, I understood. So,

55:08each one of these has its own coverage

55:09map. It looks like it's almost like two

55:10square blocks.

55:13About

55:15>> And they are designed to overlap in

55:17coverage because you do need to have a

55:21an ability to hand off call as you're

55:23traveling from one side through the

55:25other.

55:27>> And so, that third pole that has been

55:28dismissed would have been located about

55:29in that area. I think you can see that

55:31right there.

55:32About in that area, if I understood

55:34correctly. And that would have picked up

55:36some of that coverage, but since it's

55:38not a viable solution based on public

55:41feedback, um that one will not be

55:43evaluated, correct?

55:45>> We are going to come back with an

55:47alternate location in the future that

55:49would still

55:51um

55:51cover the gap that currently exists, but

55:54also

55:56fill an additional gap that was pointed

55:58out by the resident in addition to the

56:00fact that, you know, they were

56:02concerned about it being in front of the

56:03residential house, and we agreed that we

56:06should be able to find a better

56:07alternative.

56:07>> Okay. Thank you very much.

56:12>> Any other questions?

56:14>> Sir,

56:15could you Yeah, could you uh

56:18explain uh

56:20the reason for the extension of the

56:23pole.

56:25What factor for you technically do you

56:26need to do that, or are there variables?

56:30Could you put a shorter extension on it

56:32on the pole versus the full extension

56:35that you get uh at the top of the pole?

56:37>> So, that is a general order 95

56:40requirement that there's 6 ft of

56:42separation from the top of the primary

56:46power lines and the bottom of our

56:48mounting

56:49of the antenna.

56:52And in in some cases, right, I've heard

56:54the ARB notice mention that the higher

56:56up these antennas are the better. So, we

56:59didn't consider that as being

57:00necessarily a bad thing, but the only

57:02reason that we have that additional

57:04height is to meet the general order 95

57:06clearances.

57:07>> And that general order comes from who?

57:09>> The California Public Utilities Code.

57:12>> Mhm.

57:13Okay. So, it's a separation on the uh

57:16on the Gwindo one, is uh is there a a uh

57:21possible conflict, and therefore you do

57:23need that there

57:25at the top of that pole?

57:26>> It's It's required for both in order to

57:29maintain the necessary clearances.

57:32>> But I'm asking specifically to that one,

57:35is it close to

57:36uh the electrical output that you're

57:38saying is a problem?

57:42>> Yes.

57:43If we were to we we would don't have

57:45sufficient clearance on the pole as it

57:47exists today

57:49in order to meet the

57:51clearance that's required from the

57:53primary power.

57:56>> So you're looking at a image here and I

57:59see the antenna.

58:01Okay. And the distance is how much? 6 ft

58:04approximately?

58:05>> It's 6 ft from the

58:08um top of the bottom of our antenna

58:10mounting bracket.

58:12>> 6 ft in in all situations that's the

58:15distance you need to have separation.

58:18>> Correct.

58:19>> Uh-huh.

58:21And and you're saying that on the on

58:23this particular pole

58:26>> [clears throat]

58:27>> the electrical that is the conflict is

58:316 ft below the present extension.

58:36>> The primary power.

58:38Yeah.

58:40Yes.

58:41>> So

58:42and I see a crossbar on the lower part

58:45of that diagram then. Is that is that

58:48carrying the

58:50questionable current in it that would

58:53cause you to do a an extension like

58:55that?

58:56>> That's correct.

58:58There's two cross arms. The upper cross

59:00arm is the one that we're concerned

59:01about from the electrical lines.

59:03>> Okay.

59:04All right.

59:06>> Yeah, it's a little hard to see from the

59:08photo because you can see the heavier

59:10lines of wiring on that lower crossbar,

59:12but that upper crossbar has wires as

59:14well.

59:17>> Correct.

59:17>> That that upper upper one is carrying a

59:21current that would

59:22interfere potentially interfere with

59:25your service.

59:27>> It's not an interference issue, it's a

59:29safety it's a worker safety issue.

59:31>> Oh. Worker safety for your your people

59:34that's

59:35>> or for the general or 95 requires a

59:38minimum of 6 ft of separation from high

59:41voltage lines. So, the lower the voltage

59:44the

59:45lower the distance needs to be, but in

59:47this case we need 6 ft based on the

59:50voltage of the lines.

59:52>> Okay, so that upper upper line is is a

59:54higher voltage.

59:55>> Yes.

59:57>> Okay, and the crossbar etc. that carries

59:59that that's where that is fastened to.

1:00:02>> Yes.

1:00:04>> I'll take your word for that. Okay, um

1:00:09Just let me think about it for a second

1:00:11here. On the base of the of that

1:00:13particular pole

1:00:16I noted that it is kind of

1:00:18cheek to jowl to concrete on the

1:00:20perimeter.

1:00:22Could you explain

1:00:23uh for your grounding what what do you

1:00:26have to do at the base of the pole?

1:00:29There are two actual inserts into the

1:00:31ground at that point kind of those round

1:00:34elements

1:00:35that that you build into the ground.

1:00:38>> Correct.

1:00:38>> Correct.

1:00:39One of them is uh the ground goes into

1:00:42that. The other one is what is that for?

1:00:46>> What?

1:00:47Um

1:00:48the the grounding rods.

1:00:51>> Mhm. Well, the ground there's one

1:00:53grounding rod I guess through the whole

1:00:56for that facility, right?

1:00:57>> Correct.

1:00:58>> Uh-huh. But, there it seemed to be that

1:01:00there are two

1:01:17>> The there are Yeah, so these are ground

1:01:20test wells, but that is just a

1:01:22requirement for electrical safety. Then

1:01:24again, that's reviewed with Palo Alto

1:01:26Utilities

1:01:27to ensure that um the proper grounding

1:01:30is at the site for our equipment.

1:01:32>> Mhm. Okay, but

1:01:36you have looked at the pole to determine

1:01:38that those since we're approving this

1:01:41particular area, if we do approve it

1:01:43today,

1:01:44um

1:01:45you looked at the ground situation uh

1:01:48for inserting those groundings into that

1:01:50area?

1:01:51>> Correct. If if the cement flag needs to

1:01:53be removed, it will

1:01:56um

1:01:56be restored to the same condition.

1:02:00>> Okay. And there's no interference with

1:02:03the sewer connection or the water, you

1:02:06know, those in the street.

1:02:08>> Correct. We do USA mark the sites to

1:02:11ensure that there are no other utilities

1:02:14that would be interfering in the ground

1:02:15well.

1:02:16>> Mhm.

1:02:18Um as to the directional area where you

1:02:22put the radio facilities on the pole,

1:02:27do you alter that based on what other

1:02:29facilities there are above and

1:02:32below it?

1:02:34>> It's it's typically again, that's

1:02:35another General Order 95 requirement

1:02:38that there be climbing space available

1:02:41on the pole. Not that most I don't know

1:02:44many people that are climbing poles

1:02:45these days, but that is still a

1:02:46requirement that uh safe climbing space

1:02:50is maintained on the pole, and that

1:02:51typically dictates the quadrant that we

1:02:53place the equipment on.

1:02:55>> Okay. And from that point, the

1:02:58the wires come out of the box and go up

1:03:01to the uh

1:03:03antenna?

1:03:04>> Correct.

1:03:04>> And you pick the shortest route, or do

1:03:07you actually vary it based on what what

1:03:10might be in between your

1:03:13location of the radios and the the

1:03:16center point, let's say, of the radios

1:03:19and straight up to the antenna at the

1:03:21top.

1:03:22>> It It It will be based on that path that

1:03:24is available up to the antennas, and

1:03:26they all the coax will be concealed in a

1:03:29conduit.

1:03:31>> Okay. Um

1:03:34Uh on on the one that's

1:03:37on Homer,

1:03:39have you looked at carefully at that and

1:03:41which location? I'm being detailed, but

1:03:44you're here, so I think it's better to

1:03:46ask you the questions that sort of came

1:03:48to my mind.

1:03:49Um it seems that there is some other

1:03:52interrupting materials if you have the

1:03:56radios

1:03:57uh in the direction of the

1:04:00towards the

1:04:01residence, let's say. Okay,

1:04:03perpendicular there.

1:04:09Um

1:04:11So, it's these the one on the

1:04:14Okay, so This is This is the one

1:04:17uh on

1:04:19Yeah, okay. I I got it.

1:04:22So, up at the lower area of the and I

1:04:25have an illustration of that, too. I

1:04:27think it's on that part. On the back

1:04:29part of the pole, there's a there isn't

1:04:31I don't know what it is. Something is

1:04:34there.

1:04:35So,

1:04:37if you look at that pole closely, and

1:04:39maybe you could

1:04:40uh also

1:04:42Can you

1:04:44put that image that that we sent you

1:04:47uh

1:04:48but somewhere on

1:04:49>> We didn't receive that email. It just It

1:04:52didn't go through to us, so I'm not sure

1:04:55what's happening with that.

1:04:56>> I'll just talk about it, then.

1:04:58>> Okay.

1:04:59>> Looking at it at that side, there is

1:05:01some object on the pole that's further

1:05:03up.

1:05:04You know, um

1:05:07and your

1:05:08and your wiring

1:05:10is going to have to

1:05:12miss it, whatever it is.

1:05:17>> In some cases, if we do need to avoid

1:05:20something that's on the pole, we would

1:05:22shift the conduit to a different

1:05:25quadrant and the rest of the way up, it

1:05:27would follow that clear path.

1:05:29So, there are opportunities

1:05:32to

1:05:33>> I think I've heard you doing that

1:05:34>> run and then come up.

1:05:35>> Well, unfortunately, these things get to

1:05:37be pretty ugly poles by the time you get

1:05:39everything on them. Um

1:05:42and I wonder if it would be worth your

1:05:44while taking another look at that pole

1:05:46to see if this is in fact the best

1:05:48location when you have have to to

1:05:51disturb the whole line of it and have

1:05:54extra wires

1:05:56uh kind of hanging around the perimeter.

1:06:01>> Yeah, I I it would still be a conduit

1:06:04that the wires are contained within,

1:06:06>> Mhm.

1:06:07>> painted to match the pole.

1:06:08>> Mhm.

1:06:08>> So, um

1:06:10I I don't suspect that it would be that

1:06:13noticeable, particularly relative to

1:06:15typical risers that you see on poles

1:06:16that are

1:06:17>> They're all over the place.

1:06:18>> or gray

1:06:19>> Mhm.

1:06:19>> rather than painted brown to match.

1:06:22>> Ahem.

1:06:23>> [clears throat]

1:06:23>> Which sort of asks

1:06:26why

1:06:27we as a city are not considering the

1:06:29other things that are on a pole,

1:06:32the actual electrical connections uh

1:06:35that are enclosed in a

1:06:38enclosure on, for example, the Gwinnett

1:06:40pole

1:06:41is a I think is a white material,

1:06:45doesn't didn't try to match.

1:06:47So, in this case, you're trying to do a

1:06:49better job, so I do agree that's a good

1:06:52idea.

1:06:55Um

1:06:57>> Any other questions, David, or

1:06:59>> No, that's that's it for the moment.

1:07:01Yeah.

1:07:02Uh I think. Yeah.

1:07:05>> Any questions?

1:07:06>> Uh

1:07:06>> Sure.

1:07:07>> Um

1:07:09Uh just just a quick

1:07:11uh question actually, too.

1:07:13On like sheet D1,

1:07:16I was looking at the micro radio shroud

1:07:18and I can uh and it's quite large.

1:07:22Like 4 ft tall, 2 ft wide,

1:07:2510 in deep. Like is that like really

1:07:27necessary for the equipment you're

1:07:30putting in like right now?

1:07:32Or are you reserving some space in there

1:07:34for future things?

1:07:36>> It It's necessary for the equipment that

1:07:38we're installing right now based on

1:07:41again having the airflow cuz we have a

1:07:44power

1:07:45service unit that's there to convert AC

1:07:48power to DC power to um

1:07:51connect to the radios and that does

1:07:53generate heat, so uh again, the

1:07:56dissipation is is required. We do have

1:07:58the ventilation in there, but um air

1:08:00airflow within the unit helps ensure

1:08:03that they don't overheat.

1:08:05Uh so that we wouldn't need to install

1:08:07fans.

1:08:09>> You said you have ventilation in there.

1:08:11Like

1:08:12>> There's perforations on the outside.

1:08:14Right.

1:08:15>> And then

1:08:17uh related to the size question, I see

1:08:19there's a 5-in offset from the pole.

1:08:22Um is there a way to make that less?

1:08:26>> That is another General Order 95

1:08:28requirement.

1:08:29>> a requirement.

1:08:31Okay. Uh then um

1:08:34uh just another quick question. On the

1:08:36same

1:08:37um

1:08:38detail like detail number four,

1:08:42it says Ericsson multi-radio shroud BFL

1:08:45etc. or approved equivalent.

1:08:49So I just want to make sure that

1:08:51you know, if you you know,

1:08:54make some recommendation here that

1:08:56assumes this shroud,

1:08:59you don't They come back and just put

1:09:01something more ugly there. Like so what

1:09:03is what are the guardrails for or

1:09:05approved equivalent? I don't know where

1:09:07is the question.

1:09:09For you are you?

1:09:10>> I I Our intention is to deploy this

1:09:12cabinet and if it were

1:09:14an equivalent, it would have the same

1:09:17look, size, and shape.

1:09:19>> Oh, I see. I see. Okay. Thank you.

1:09:23>> Actually, if I can follow with the same

1:09:25uh question on the same image, the note

1:09:27on the drawing says color gray, which is

1:09:29the box on the left and on the your

1:09:31rendering it's brown. Which one is the

1:09:34correct intent?

1:09:35>> It will be brown painted to match the

1:09:37pole.

1:09:40>> Um I'll ask some kind of some uh

1:09:42questions in the same vein. Or Kendra,

1:09:44do you want to go next?

1:09:46>> I

1:09:46>> Um so as uh because these are wood

1:09:50utility poles, all wiring would be in

1:09:53conduits that are exposed on the

1:09:55outside. Right? Um

1:09:58so is it just one conduit? I know you

1:10:00you're trying to show those on the

1:10:01renderings. Is it one conduit and what

1:10:04size that goes up pole?

1:10:06>> It is It is one conduit that goes up the

1:10:08pole. I think the There's a size of the

1:10:10conduit in the drawings.

1:10:13I imagine it wouldn't be any larger than

1:10:142 in, but I'm not sure.

1:10:26>> I looked through your drawings. I didn't

1:10:27really find information on that.

1:10:28>> It's a

1:10:30I think it's 3 in.

1:10:31It's a 3-in conduit. Sorry.

1:10:34>> Okay. And that's from

1:10:36the ground

1:10:38up. So where does it start being

1:10:40exposed? Is it coming out of the ground?

1:10:43Like where Where does it come out?

1:10:44>> It's It's coming out of the cabinet

1:10:46itself.

1:10:49>> The cabinet the

1:10:52uh microwave radio shelf cabinet or

1:10:54>> Yes.

1:10:55>> Okay.

1:10:56So where does the

1:11:00So, from the

1:11:02power

1:11:03um

1:11:04cabling coming to it

1:11:06isn't that

1:11:08coming from somewhere else?

1:11:09>> The power itself is delivered by Palo

1:11:12Alto Utilities, which is coming from a

1:11:14from an existing power lines. Yes.

1:11:17>> Um

1:11:18and so the 3-in conduit goes all the way

1:11:21up to the pole to your fiberglass

1:11:25uh pole addition.

1:11:26>> Correct.

1:11:27>> And is the conduit encased within the

1:11:30fiberglass extension above that or is it

1:11:32also exposed?

1:11:33>> It's also exterior to the fiberglass.

1:11:36>> Okay. So, then when we look at I don't

1:11:39know if you can get us

1:11:41to the drawing sheet D1.

1:12:02Yeah, um if we can zoom in to detail

1:12:05seven.

1:12:06Um so, that's the antenna bracket. So,

1:12:10outside of this

1:12:12Yeah, if you could keep it right there.

1:12:14Thank you. So,

1:12:15um

1:12:16so, you have conduit

1:12:20here somewhere, 3-in conduit that comes

1:12:22off the side and then somehow enters the

1:12:25antenna. Is that correct? Or do we have

1:12:29>> There it will um

1:12:31come out from the conduit at that point

1:12:34to

1:12:35connect to the ports on the antenna.

1:12:40>> Okay. So, um we did hear concerns from

1:12:44the neighbors as the or community as

1:12:46well about, you know, exposed cable,

1:12:49spaghetti of stuff up there. Is that

1:12:51what we're expected to see here as well?

1:12:53Or like is it

1:12:55all concealed between conduit to

1:12:57antenna?

1:12:58>> What it will come out. Typically,

1:13:00there's a requirement um and I I

1:13:04not sure exactly with Palo Alto

1:13:06Utilities, but we can confirm and get

1:13:08back to you

1:13:10that uh PG&E has a requirement that

1:13:12they're able to see the coax

1:13:14the coaxial cables as they connect to

1:13:17the antenna so that

1:13:19they can't be shrouded. Um but the

1:13:22distance that it would come out and be

1:13:23exposed is minimal.

1:13:25Um they can be painted to match like a

1:13:28brown color. But we do require tape

1:13:31that's on there that identifies which

1:13:33cable carries which frequency and signal

1:13:37so that we can

1:13:38verify that.

1:13:41>> Um and uh so another question earlier,

1:13:44uh there's a question about the noise.

1:13:46Um so is it

1:13:48the the radio shroud

1:13:51um I know you said there's no fan, but

1:13:52is there any in the conversion from DC

1:13:55to AC or vice versa?

1:13:57Is there any noise produced from that

1:13:59equipment?

1:14:01>> There I mean I

1:14:03my understanding is that there is no

1:14:06noise because there won't be

1:14:09um

1:14:10elements that are producing the noise

1:14:13and being within that cat within a

1:14:16shroud, if there is any noise, it would

1:14:18be muffled by the shroud itself.

1:14:21>> All right.

1:14:23Um thank you. Any other questions,

1:14:25Yushi?

1:14:25>> Yeah, I also have a question related to

1:14:27the size of the radio shroud. So um

1:14:30based on your answer to uh board member

1:14:33Burgess, it seems like it related to the

1:14:36radio selection and there are certain

1:14:37clearance you need to provide it for

1:14:40ventilation or whatever else it is. So I

1:14:43want to know for the radio um

1:14:46selection, is it the only one that we

1:14:48can choose or the size are about the

1:14:50same? Is there like

1:14:52smaller radio that we can apply in this

1:14:56case? Because when we see the rendering,

1:14:58the

1:14:59the

1:15:00the radio shroud, it looks kind of like

1:15:02oversized and bulky attached to the wood

1:15:06pole.

1:15:08>> Uh the

1:15:09if we use smaller radios, that would

1:15:12reduce the power and then again have an

1:15:14impact on the number of nodes that we

1:15:16would need to fill the gap. The

1:15:19alternative radios are they're roughly

1:15:20the same size that Ericsson produces.

1:15:24Um the other thing is most of this coax

1:15:27that we discussed

1:15:29is concealed within that shroud, too.

1:15:31So, what's not depicted in there is the

1:15:32fact that there will be all of those

1:15:34connections within that shroud as well

1:15:37as it

1:15:38or routes out into the conduit.

1:15:41>> Thank you.

1:15:43>> You want to continue on this particular

1:15:46aspect of it here, the connections in

1:15:48the shroud. That that 3 in is a pretty

1:15:51big

1:15:52big circumference there, you know, a big

1:15:55diameter for for a pole. So, it's going

1:15:58up the outside of the pole because it's

1:16:00bringing power down to your radios,

1:16:03right?

1:16:04>> No, that is just for our connection from

1:16:07the radio to the antenna for the RF

1:16:10signal.

1:16:11>> Uh-huh. Okay, so

1:16:13then the where does your electricity

1:16:16come from?

1:16:17>> It will come from Palo Alto Utilities

1:16:19from the existing lines that are on the

1:16:21pole.

1:16:22>> So, it's brought down from the existing

1:16:25line in inside of what?

1:16:28>> Uh

1:16:29whether they have a conduit for it or

1:16:31not, I'm I'm not sure that is their

1:16:34design.

1:16:34>> You're I see. So, you're connecting from

1:16:36a city facility facility there in into

1:16:40your radio.

1:16:41>> Correct.

1:16:41>> Comes into the back of the radio, back

1:16:44back of that whole enclosure.

1:16:46>> It goes into an RF safety switch so that

1:16:49it can be powered down.

1:16:51Um and then goes from that into the

1:16:53radio.

1:16:53>> Into the radio within the enclosure. All

1:16:56that happens within the enclosure.

1:16:59So there'll be two lines really. One

1:17:01will be coming out of

1:17:03the

1:17:05uh

1:17:05and the radios

1:17:08and connected within the box.

1:17:10>> How was that done?

1:17:12>> How are the the

1:17:13>> Yeah, where are are the two radios

1:17:15connected within the box?

1:17:17>> Yes.

1:17:18So the

1:17:19>> And one line coming to the antenna.

1:17:22>> Well, there are multiple lines

1:17:25for the transmission of the frequencies

1:17:27into the antenna ports.

1:17:30But those those connections are all made

1:17:32within the enclosure.

1:17:33And then they're routed into the conduit

1:17:35from the enclosure. So as it goes up the

1:17:37pole, it's just that 1 3-in outer

1:17:40diameter conduit and then it comes back

1:17:44out

1:17:45to make the connections to the antenna.

1:17:47>> At the point of the antenna under the

1:17:49antenna. Correct.

1:17:51Okay, is there a shroud around the base

1:17:53of the antenna that connects it to the

1:17:55extension?

1:17:57>> Um

1:17:59>> pole extension. You know there are

1:18:01two pieces that come up there. Is that

1:18:03an open area?

1:18:04>> It is an open area and again that

1:18:07is typically a requirement that they can

1:18:10see the connections as opposed to having

1:18:13a shroud for

1:18:14>> Uh-huh.

1:18:15>> these types of facilities on utility

1:18:17poles at least.

1:18:17>> Okay. I mean the drawings that we saw

1:18:19did not include any

1:18:21indication of a connection of sort of a

1:18:24tunnel down in

1:18:26to meet the diameter of the extension

1:18:30piece itself. But the extension is

1:18:32filled with foam of some sort, right?

1:18:35>> The fiberglass extension?

1:18:37>> Mhm.

1:18:38The

1:18:38the pole extension.

1:18:40>> Right.

1:18:41>> Yeah, that the inside of that is a kind

1:18:43of a

1:18:44filled up, right?

1:18:46>> It's

1:18:47It's not hollow if that you know, again

1:18:50it it does have to support the

1:18:52structural load of the

1:18:54>> Yeah, yeah,

1:18:54yeah, that's true. So, what is it?

1:18:57>> It's fiberglass. I don't know if it if

1:18:59it it's entirely fiberglass through and

1:19:01through, but we can find out if that

1:19:04>> Well, I think I read somewhere that it's

1:19:06it's enclosed inside of it is some kind

1:19:08of a foam.

1:19:10So, but in any case, you know, the

1:19:13>> If you slide up, sorry to interrupt,

1:19:14slide up to

1:19:16detail 10, it says structural foam.

1:19:19>> Yeah, okay.

1:19:23>> So, if it's in

1:19:26Is it conceivable to run the

1:19:28some wiring through that versus it going

1:19:31on the side of this extension piece?

1:19:36Make a neater connection up there, you

1:19:38know, if it went straight up at the

1:19:39inside of the tube.

1:19:41>> It I'm I I don't I'm not an expert, but

1:19:45I would venture to guess that is going

1:19:46to compromise the structural integrity

1:19:48of

1:19:49the extension because again we're the

1:19:52antenna and the coax

1:19:55has weight. These are engineered

1:19:58specifically to support that that way

1:20:01and if we make structure modifications

1:20:03to it, that's

1:20:05going to reduce the structural

1:20:07integrity.

1:20:08>> So, this

1:20:10nicely colored

1:20:13extension of the pole

1:20:16is going to have a 3-in

1:20:19conduit running all along the outside of

1:20:21it.

1:20:22>> Correct.

1:20:23>> And you haven't explored that in any way

1:20:25to to determine if there is a way to

1:20:27make that better looking because of

1:20:30>> It It would still if if were to run it

1:20:33internally

1:20:34then

1:20:35you're there's going to be a transition

1:20:37point where all of the coaxial cables

1:20:40are exposed and then curved routed to

1:20:44try to get through the bottom of that

1:20:46unit. So

1:20:48I I think at the end of the day you're

1:20:50still going to you might be left seeing

1:20:52more coaxial cable

1:20:55>> Yeah.

1:20:55>> than what you're currently going to get

1:20:57with the conduit going all the way up. I

1:20:59would also argue that the you know, I

1:21:02think if I saw if I remember correctly

1:21:04the opposition letter stated that

1:21:06it doesn't have a transition because

1:21:08that is a more narrow

1:21:10the the

1:21:12extension is more narrow than the pole

1:21:14itself. And if you add that conduit on

1:21:17the outside then it becomes closer to

1:21:19the circumference of the existing pole

1:21:21too.

1:21:22>> I would also be curious about how um

1:21:24maintenance would be available to wires

1:21:27that are inside there. Like let's say

1:21:28something happened to the wire. If it's

1:21:30much more of a headache to have to pull

1:21:32it out from the inside of a pole rather

1:21:34than remove a shroud from a conduit. And

1:21:36um

1:21:37I mean I also would assume that this

1:21:39conduit whatever it is is painted the

1:21:40same sable color.

1:21:42>> Correct.

1:21:44>> All right. Well, I agree with you, Ed.

1:21:47These These poles get filled with junk

1:21:50that looks

1:21:51pretty bad, I think.

1:21:53It's unfortunate, but uh

1:21:56>> And just to note proportionately this

1:21:59shroud um sorry, the pole extension is

1:22:02is 7 to 8 in diameter.

1:22:04And then 3-in conduit outside of it is

1:22:08>> Ugly.

1:22:08>> almost 50% of that dimension. So I think

1:22:11not that we can do anything about it,

1:22:13but I think it'd be useful if those were

1:22:15drawn just because it's such a big part

1:22:17of the overall look.

1:22:19>> Understood. So actually any work on the

1:22:21wiring you have to get inside of that

1:22:24enclosure that you're the 3-in

1:22:26enclosure.

1:22:28>> [clears throat]

1:22:28>> Is your wiring really that much that it

1:22:31has to be that big?

1:22:34>> In order to propagate the signal and

1:22:37provide the service level that we're

1:22:40identifying here, yes.

1:22:43>> So, if if I can jump in here and just

1:22:44say I think that basically you're

1:22:46correct me if I'm misstating this, but I

1:22:47think, you know, we'll we'll probably

1:22:49see you again, right? I assume there's

1:22:51going to be more poles at different

1:22:52times over the course of the next

1:22:53several years. So, in future, I think

1:22:56the ARB is requesting that you guys draw

1:22:57on these conduits. We really want to

1:22:58understand what's going on here and

1:22:59leaving out something that's 50% of the

1:23:01width of a extension pole is a is a

1:23:03pretty big leave out. Um, on that same

1:23:06note, just in the packet pages, um, I

1:23:09don't know if you can It's not part of

1:23:11the actual package, it's part of the

1:23:13smaller one, and it's packet page 72. On

1:23:17this color drawing, again, they sort of

1:23:19show the pole extension up top, but they

1:23:20don't show the boxes down below. They

1:23:22don't show the radio box below. They

1:23:24don't show the shutoff switch. They

1:23:25don't show any of that. So, again, in

1:23:26these sort of detail drawings, we would

1:23:28expect to see that. Just as a future

1:23:30reference, it's not going to make or

1:23:31break anything here today, but just

1:23:34word for the future presentations, we

1:23:35would appreciate seeing all the details.

1:23:37So, thank you.

1:23:38>> Understood.

1:23:39Um, you know, just sticking with this

1:23:41for a second, it wouldn't it wouldn't

1:23:44you be able to find some way to make a

1:23:47connector on the outside of it and run

1:23:49that all the way up where it's going to

1:23:51have to go anyhow to the antenna?

1:23:54So, it isn't just another one of those

1:23:56kind of pieces that's kind of

1:23:58attached. You You haven't shown any any

1:24:00idea for that attachment in the drawings

1:24:03that I have seen.

1:24:05That [clears throat]

1:24:06it ought to be maybe in its in its own

1:24:08designed element that attaches to the

1:24:12extension itself.

1:24:14I mean, there is no consideration of

1:24:16really what what it's going to look

1:24:17like.

1:24:18A 3-in is pretty big element.

1:24:22I mean, there are

1:24:25from a personal perspective, we have a

1:24:28number of installations already that

1:24:31have the same conduit coming up on

1:24:35extensions.

1:24:36I drive by them every day

1:24:38and I don't even notice them.

1:24:40I mean, I

1:24:42I I could be, you know, cuz I'm I'm in

1:24:45the carrier, but my kids swim at

1:24:47Rinconada pool and I pass by these

1:24:48facilities all the time. I'm constantly

1:24:51looking at them and the I

1:24:54hardly ever notice the conduit going up

1:24:56the pole even as it um goes up on the

1:25:00extension itself.

1:25:02>> Well, that's pretty high up, of course.

1:25:05Um

1:25:06but that also is going to be a conduit

1:25:08that's enclosed in something that's

1:25:10painted the same color.

1:25:11>> Correct.

1:25:13>> Uh-huh. So, it'll look like the tube

1:25:15that's on the outside of there.

1:25:17>> Well, Ashley, let me get clarification

1:25:19on that. Conduit is the enclosure.

1:25:21You're not covering it with something

1:25:22else, are you?

1:25:23>> Correct. The The conduit is just

1:25:26covering the the cable connections.

1:25:29>> Okay.

1:25:30Um cuz I have seen on some of the other

1:25:32poles that um I think it's electrical

1:25:34that has a kind of a galvanized sheet

1:25:37metal Mhm. Covered around it. Not what

1:25:39you cover. You're not doing that. You're

1:25:41just putting

1:25:41>> It's a PVC

1:25:42>> Yeah. Conduit.

1:25:44PVC conduit with brackets every so many

1:25:47feet.

1:25:48>> Correct.

1:25:48>> Okay.

1:25:52Um

1:25:53>> are really three conduits, right? So,

1:25:55there is there is a 3-in coax, there is

1:25:57a 2-in fiber

1:25:58fiber.

1:26:00Uh you know, both of those go up to the

1:26:04antenna, right?

1:26:05>> The fiber comes from the communication

1:26:08line.

1:26:09>> Com com communication all down. Okay.

1:26:11>> Mhm.

1:26:12>> Um yeah, to be honest, I'm not

1:26:14100% convinced of that 3-in

1:26:17coax PVC, like you know, you said

1:26:20you know, for the

1:26:21you know, whatever uh service

1:26:24you know, you need it, but I mean, 3-in

1:26:26is so much, like

1:26:28I don't I don't like, you know, I'm

1:26:31you know, I'm I'm not an expert, but I

1:26:32mean, I see a fair bit of construction,

1:26:34and I mean, it's extremely rare to see

1:26:363-in

1:26:38conduits for um

1:26:40uh you know, for anything not

1:26:42that's that's power. Um

1:26:45So, I I mean, that would be I would love

1:26:48if you could clarify like how many

1:26:51cables are in that conduit, and how big

1:26:53those cables are, and like why is it

1:26:54really necessary to do 3-in?

1:26:56I understand it's easier to run it, you

1:26:58know, the bigger the conduit, it's the

1:26:59easier to run.

1:27:01Like, you know, I wonder, could those

1:27:03cables fit in into a 2-in

1:27:05conduit? You know, maybe with a little

1:27:07bit more work, but, you know, they might

1:27:10still fit.

1:27:11>> Uh we we always we use the smallest

1:27:14co-actual cable size. Typically, it's a

1:27:17quarter to 3/8 of an inch

1:27:20for each of the connections to the

1:27:21antenna.

1:27:22Um and again, anything smaller, then you

1:27:27start losing your signal over the run of

1:27:29that coaxial cable. So,

1:27:31>> How many of those do you have? 3/8 wire?

1:27:35>> I I I believe we have

1:27:38at least eight.

1:27:41Um because we'll we have two radios,

1:27:44each of them should have four

1:27:46um

1:27:47cables that are coming out and

1:27:48connecting to the antenna, so we have

1:27:50eight total.

1:27:51>> I mean, those should be those should fit

1:27:54into an inch and a half uh conduit.

1:27:56Like, why do you need

1:27:57>> Um there's a 40% fill limit, right? Is

1:28:01are you hitting the 40% fill?

1:28:03>> This is low voltage.

1:28:05>> Even then, that's

1:28:07>> We can evaluate if if we can evaluate if

1:28:10a smaller conduit could be used. Um I

1:28:13have no I mean

1:28:15I

1:28:15I trust that my construction drawings

1:28:18and the team that architectural team

1:28:20that's developing them is using the

1:28:22minimum sized elements.

1:28:24If for some reason they oversize this,

1:28:27we're happy to

1:28:28go back and reduce it to whatever is the

1:28:32minimum size needed.

1:28:33>> Through the chair,

1:28:35we've not taken public comment. So, just

1:28:37wanted to remind you.

1:28:38>> So, thank you for reminding us.

1:28:41Um

1:28:42this is still question time. Are we done

1:28:44with questions for the applicant and can

1:28:46we

1:28:47All right, so let's move on to public

1:28:48comments. You may sit down.

1:28:52>> Yeah.

1:28:52Um through the chair, we have um

1:28:56five requests to speak. And if there's

1:28:57any members on

1:28:59uh Zoom that would like to speak, I'd

1:29:01ask that you please raise your hand.

1:29:04Or

1:29:05yeah. Or push if you're calling in, you

1:29:08can also press star nine.

1:29:10Um our first speaker will be uh Genie

1:29:12Fleming.

1:29:16>> Please state and spell your name again,

1:29:18please.

1:29:19And you'll have 3 minutes.

1:29:20>> Genie Fleming, F L E M I N G. Um

1:29:24I'm here on behalf of United Neighbors.

1:29:26Um sheets that were passed out to you

1:29:28before, that's a partial list of the

1:29:30Palo Altans who've written to you

1:29:32objecting

1:29:33to what AT&T has in mind. If you haven't

1:29:35seen all 38 of their letters, just ask

1:29:38me and I'll I'll forward them to you.

1:29:41Uh what we're asking you to do this

1:29:43morning is three things. First, we hope

1:29:46you'll direct AT&T to return with sites

1:29:48for these two cell towers that are

1:29:50significantly uh further away from

1:29:52residents' homes. The tower on Miranda

1:29:55is less than 33 feet from a residence

1:29:58and the one proposed on Homer is even

1:30:00closer.

1:30:01AT&T has better alternatives including

1:30:05locating a macro tower on a nearby

1:30:07commercial building on Middlefield Road.

1:30:10And to be clear, citing is well within

1:30:13the ARB's aesthetic purview.

1:30:17When City Council restored subjective

1:30:19standards and public hearings for cell

1:30:21towers last year, they made it a point

1:30:23to say they wanted cell towers to be

1:30:25located as far as possible from homes.

1:30:28That was unanimous, by the way.

1:30:30Unfortunately, AT&T has not heeded them.

1:30:34Second and separately, we hope you'll

1:30:36direct AT&T to return to you with a

1:30:39design that conceals the bulky,

1:30:41attention-getting hanging cabinets they

1:30:44proposed. Undergrounding that equipment

1:30:47is most definitely feasible. It's done

1:30:49in other cities, including by AT&T.

1:30:52Undergrounding is just more expensive

1:30:54than slapping all this stuff up on the

1:30:56side of a pole.

1:30:58There are other alternatives as well to

1:31:00the unsightly cabinets AT&T has

1:31:02proposed.

1:31:03For example, right around the corner on

1:31:05Middlefield, Verizon installed a

1:31:07combination radio antenna on the top of

1:31:09the pole. This is a general Ericsson

1:31:12product, by the way, that is

1:31:15certainly can be modified for AT&T or

1:31:17any other carrier.

1:31:19Third and finally, we ask you to direct

1:31:22AT&T to not use the 52-ft poles they're

1:31:25proposing. Uh that's 52 ft plus a

1:31:28lengthy pole top extension. These giants

1:31:31are disharmonious in this residential

1:31:33neighborhood, to say the least.

1:31:35Uh my understanding, by the way, is that

1:31:37PG&E stopped allowing this type of

1:31:39extension over 10 years ago. Why would

1:31:42Palo Alto continue to permit this unsafe

1:31:45and unsightly practice?

1:31:47Members of the ARB,

1:31:49we are asking you to please hold AT&T to

1:31:52the standards in our municipal code.

1:31:54That is why City Council unanimously

1:31:57removed cell tower review from the

1:32:00planning director's sole control and

1:32:02returned to you as the arbiters of

1:32:04aesthetics in our city the job of

1:32:07ensuring that cell tower applicants do

1:32:09not continue to scar our neighborhoods

1:32:13with their on-the-cheap eye sores. Thank

1:32:16you.

1:32:18>> Our next Our next speaker is Observer.

1:32:21Observer, you may now speak.

1:32:25>> Hi, good morning. Sorry about the name

1:32:27designation. My name is Ariel Strauss.

1:32:28I'm an attorney representing United

1:32:30Neighbors. Am I coming in clear?

1:32:32>> Sorry to interrupt. Yes, could you

1:32:34please state and spell your name?

1:32:36>> Yes, A R I E L, last name S T R A U S S.

1:32:43Thank you. Now, I want to point out

1:32:45something critical we heard today from

1:32:46staff, which is that this application is

1:32:49not deemed complete.

1:32:51That means that the information that

1:32:53staff received yesterday, I assume

1:32:55they're reviewing it to determine if

1:32:56that makes it complete, and then once

1:32:58that determination is made, which they

1:33:00have 10 days to do, then the shot clock

1:33:02will then restart with that 90-day

1:33:04period. That means there's a

1:33:06considerable amount of time from now

1:33:08until one of these needs to be made that

1:33:09can allow this board to bring back this

1:33:12application and address any questions

1:33:14that you have. I want to point out an

1:33:16additional critical incompleteness item

1:33:18that I included in my letter. I hope you

1:33:20were able to look at that detailed

1:33:22letter.

1:33:23And one of those items is the failure to

1:33:26identify and map within 600 ft any

1:33:28existing facilities by any carrier. The

1:33:31preference in the code is for

1:33:33co-location. That information is not in

1:33:35the application.

1:33:38Uh as Ms. Fleming said that it is

1:33:40critical that this board consider uh the

1:33:42location. Location is one of the most

1:33:44important aspects of aesthetics. Uh one

1:33:47of the problems we're seeing in this

1:33:48application is that

1:33:50AT&T has treated these two sites as

1:33:52separate

1:33:54gaps to fill. In actuality, they're

1:33:56talking about between these two sites

1:33:58roughly a 5 by 4 block area.

1:34:00And there are numerous ways to fill that

1:34:02gap. They're also requesting or at least

1:34:05intending to put in roughly another 11

1:34:08sites.

1:34:09And they are now constraining

1:34:11what they're asking you to consider on

1:34:13assumption about how those other sites

1:34:14will be configured and how they hope

1:34:16those other sites will be configured.

1:34:17But, that's not part of this

1:34:18application. That may never happen. So,

1:34:21what's necessary to do is to step back

1:34:24from that those that 200-ft radius

1:34:26constraint they're imposing and asking

1:34:28what options are available to partially

1:34:31fill this site within the constraints of

1:34:33the design guidelines. The pole

1:34:35attachments are ugly, they're intrusive,

1:34:37they're inherently low quality.

1:34:39The 53-ft height towers over anything

1:34:42else. There's no consideration of street

1:34:44trees, which is something the ARB

1:34:46considered in 2012 and 2013 and imposed.

1:34:50The box-like radios, they hover over the

1:34:53sidewalk. The right way to do this is to

1:34:56first look at what can be done from

1:34:57Middlefield and from

1:34:59rooftop options, which is preferred, to

1:35:01look at co-location, to consider those

1:35:05other sites that are slightly shorter on

1:35:07the standard stub pole, or better yet, a

1:35:10stealth facility inside a light post

1:35:13standard because those stealth

1:35:14facilities cannot be

1:35:16uh changed without ARB design review.

1:35:21The ARB should bring this back to

1:35:24require AT&T to do analysis of

1:35:27undergrounding

1:35:29and stealth option.

1:35:32I'm happy to answer any questions.

1:35:36>> Our next speaker is Nathaniel S.

1:35:38Nathaniel S, you may now come to mic.

1:35:43>> Hello. Uh my name is Nate Saul, S A A L.

1:35:46Uh couple relevant pieces of

1:35:47information, uh born and raised here in

1:35:50Palo Alto. Um

1:35:52uh I own the home at 670 Guinda

1:35:55and I'm also an AT&T mobile customer.

1:35:58So, I I feel their pain.

1:36:00Um,

1:36:01a couple things. One,

1:36:04the images they've sent out, I think are

1:36:06incomplete. As a

1:36:09neighborhood member community,

1:36:11um,

1:36:12they're not showing all the equipment

1:36:14that they're sending to me saying this

1:36:15is what it's going to look like it's not

1:36:17what it's going to look like. And, um,

1:36:20I respectfully disagree with

1:36:23Rosen

1:36:24Rosenberg's statement that next time

1:36:26they should provide more more

1:36:27information. They don't get a pass. I

1:36:29think this time they should come back

1:36:31provide all the conduit up and down that

1:36:34means power conduit, radio conduit,

1:36:37fiber conduit with renderings of the

1:36:40radios, with renderings of the antennas

1:36:43so that we really know what this is

1:36:44going to look like. There's already, as

1:36:45you mentioned, member Hirsch,

1:36:47a white conduit sticking off of that

1:36:50pole at the corner.

1:36:51Not very pretty.

1:36:53Um, the location of the house literally,

1:36:56you know, 5 ft to the property line less

1:36:58than

1:36:59about 30 ft to the kitchen. There's a

1:37:01beautiful bay window looking out at the

1:37:04corner looking at the pole.

1:37:06Um, that will be a significant eyesore.

1:37:09Um,

1:37:11uh,

1:37:12you know, also if you look at those

1:37:13pictures they have these nice long shots

1:37:15of the pole. The reason they can do the

1:37:17long shots of the pole is because

1:37:18there's no tree coverage. There's

1:37:19nothing blocking that pole at the

1:37:21corner.

1:37:22There as I was driving from my home

1:37:24here, I was noticing all the the poles.

1:37:27Lots of poles that can be used where

1:37:30they're more

1:37:31protected, let's call it, they're less

1:37:33of an eyesore than the one at the corner

1:37:36of

1:37:37of Forest and Guinda.

1:37:39Um,

1:37:40I'm also very concerned about noise.

1:37:43Um, I would love to see a decibel

1:37:45reading measurement based on the

1:37:47equipment that they're going to install

1:37:49so we know what the actual noise level

1:37:50is. I was also concerned hearing that

1:37:53they can swap out or improve and put in

1:37:55other equipment without putting some

1:37:57kind of a um,

1:37:59requirement on noise level.

1:38:02Um,

1:38:03the

1:38:05uh, extension, excuse me, the exclusions

1:38:08that we had in term that uh,

1:38:11I guess there seems to be some gap in

1:38:13um, you know, what are reasonable

1:38:14exclusions. Um, I don't think we should

1:38:17sort of allow something to slip in.

1:38:19Um,

1:38:20and I think one other really important

1:38:22thing is I think there was a a

1:38:23presentation that showed the existing

1:38:25structure, but my concern as the owner

1:38:28is not just the existing structure, but

1:38:30my ability to build on that site in a

1:38:32future structure and

1:38:35what exposure levels might be if there's

1:38:37a two-story residence um, there. And so

1:38:40I it feels like that's infringing on my

1:38:42ability to use my space.

1:38:45Um, and aesthetic, um, you know, of the

1:38:47house with a giant pole with a radio

1:38:49boxes uh, on top of that. So again, I I

1:38:52I think we should reconsider. They were

1:38:54willing to reconsider another location.

1:38:57Um,

1:38:57>> Thank you. Please conclude your time.

1:38:58>> Thank you.

1:39:01>> Our next speaker is Bob W.

1:39:05>> The yeah.

1:39:07Bob Wiedemeyer. That's right, right?

1:39:09Yeah. Uh,

1:39:10w e d e m e y e r. Um, I live at the 827

1:39:16Guinda Street. My wife and I have

1:39:19lived there for about 35 years. Raised

1:39:21our kids in Palo Alto.

1:39:23Um,

1:39:24so I was at the meeting the other day

1:39:26over here on University where we met

1:39:29with members of AT&T. There were I guess

1:39:31there were about eight of us. There were

1:39:32about six of them. And but anyway, and

1:39:36there were AT&T users there and they had

1:39:39said there was no problem with their

1:39:40service or anything. So, they were

1:39:42wondering why we needed additional

1:39:44service or new service or whatever.

1:39:47So, anyway, um

1:39:49the um

1:39:51things that I find kind of curious, I

1:39:53mean, we we have I guess what I

1:39:55understood from today is in we are going

1:39:58to still have three antennas within a

1:40:00few blocks of each other, which again, I

1:40:02just don't get, you know, that why they

1:40:04have to be so close together and why we

1:40:06need so many of them. Uh

1:40:08with respect to undergrounding, um

1:40:11one of the things I noticed in Palo Alto

1:40:13and maybe you've noticed it as well. I

1:40:15noticed it right in front of my house

1:40:17the day after we went to that hearing,

1:40:20AT&T was pulling giant black I I'm

1:40:23assuming fiber optic cables. I think

1:40:25that's what they said. And they're

1:40:27pulling them from the pole in front of

1:40:28my house and then which by the way stops

1:40:30there and then goes underground.

1:40:32But anyway, they're pulling cable all

1:40:34the way down the street. I noticed

1:40:35elsewhere in Palo Alto along Alma and

1:40:38other places. Maybe you've noticed it as

1:40:39well, but they're these big giant heavy

1:40:42black cables that are being draped

1:40:44everywhere. Okay. So, one of our

1:40:46concerns at this meeting the other day

1:40:48was when we look at at all of that and

1:40:50we think of AT&T and then we think of

1:40:52T-Mobile, we think of Verizon, we think

1:40:54of all these other companies. Are all

1:40:56these other companies going to be coming

1:40:58through draping heavy fiber optic

1:41:00cables? Uh are they going to be wanting

1:41:03to put antennas at the end of those

1:41:04cables? Uh what's all this where does

1:41:07this end? Uh and in fact, I was hoping I

1:41:09I was thinking I've been observing this

1:41:12for years that the city of Palo Alto is

1:41:13actually moving in the other direction

1:41:16aesthetically, which is to get rid of

1:41:17telephone poles, underground stuff, have

1:41:20just a light pole,

1:41:22maybe, you know, something off of that

1:41:24if you need to have an antenna, but you

1:41:26don't have all of this

1:41:28this stuff everywhere. I mean, it's just

1:41:31getting to me it's just getting out of

1:41:32hand, you know, and so it's not just

1:41:35these poles and the the towers and

1:41:36stuff, but it's also the the cabling and

1:41:39stuff like that. So I guess that's

1:41:42that's just basically my comment is

1:41:44where are we going with this, okay, and

1:41:46is there an end in sight or is it just

1:41:48going to continue?

1:41:50But like I said, I now have a nice big

1:41:52black cable running, you know, in front

1:41:54of my house to the pole there. It's

1:41:56already stuffed with stuff, you know,

1:41:57all kinds of things.

1:41:59So anyway, that's all I had to say.

1:42:01Thank you.

1:42:03>> Our last speaker is Henry E. Henry E,

1:42:06you may now speak.

1:42:11>> Am I Do you hear me?

1:42:13>> Yes, we can hear you.

1:42:14>> Very good.

1:42:16So I'm Henry Eskridge,

1:42:18Neighbors for Environmental and Social

1:42:20Justice.

1:42:21As a sociologist for comparative

1:42:23purposes, I'd like to take you to two of

1:42:26the neighborhoods. One is the diplomatic

1:42:28quarter of Stockholm. I say Stockholm

1:42:31because Ericsson was mentioned, which of

1:42:34course is a Swedish radio television

1:42:37radio corporation

1:42:38supplying electrical equipment in

1:42:40Sweden. And I was there in Sweden as a

1:42:44member of the

1:42:46Swedish business and policy organization

1:42:49that interfaces with universities, large

1:42:52corporations. So I was sitting there

1:42:54with the CEO of Ericsson. And in the

1:42:57diplomatic neighborhood, well,

1:43:00it looked like the older section of Palo

1:43:02Alto, there were no poles.

1:43:04And then let me take you to another

1:43:06neighborhood where I grew up in the

1:43:08Bronx in the early 1940s. We'd be called

1:43:11to the window to look out at the

1:43:13lamplighter lighting the gas lamps on

1:43:15the streets.

1:43:17And through the gas lamps you could see,

1:43:19we called them telegraph poles, lining

1:43:21the streets with those repeaters above

1:43:25and

1:43:26wires going across. But we went away to

1:43:29summer camp, say about 1950. And one

1:43:32time when I came back for camp, there

1:43:35were no poles.

1:43:36The streets were clear.

1:43:38Now, what is going to be the future of

1:43:40Palo Alto? Is it going to be the

1:43:42diplomatic neighborhood of

1:43:44of Stockholm or is it going to be 1940s

1:43:47Bronx?

1:43:48Well, I predict

1:43:51well, it's going to be

1:43:531940s Bronx because we're building squat

1:43:56buildings in Palo Alto up to the

1:43:59building line in San Antonio. So, we're

1:44:02going backwards to the to the Bronx,

1:44:05which has gone forward. There are no

1:44:07poles on that street in the Bronx. I

1:44:10want to see the old neighborhood

1:44:11recently and librarian in Stanford got

1:44:14me on the site and we looked down the

1:44:16street.

1:44:17And the main change has been that the

1:44:19small stores have been replaced by a

1:44:21supermarket.

1:44:23And then we looked up to where I used to

1:44:24live on the second floor of an apartment

1:44:27house. And you know what?

1:44:30The air conditioner that my family had

1:44:32bought in the 1950s was still sticking

1:44:36out of the window.

1:44:37Now, that was sturdy equipment. Uh it

1:44:39probably still worked, but we don't

1:44:41know. I've meant to go back to the

1:44:43neighborhood, uh but so for sure, there

1:44:46are no poles. Now, you're not the real

1:44:48AT&T, of course. The real AT&T, you're

1:44:51baby bell and you took over the name and

1:44:54uh

1:44:55you're just spoiling Palo Alto for no

1:44:57reason whatsoever because the technology

1:45:00has superseded what you are doing. Uh

1:45:02this is absurd that we're sitting here

1:45:05today in 20s 26 and Jean and her

1:45:08neighbors have to spend all this time to

1:45:11try to get rid of a technology that's

1:45:12been superseded elsewhere in the world,

1:45:15even in the Bronx.

1:45:17Thank you.

1:45:19>> Uh did you just want to make a comment?

1:45:25>> Thank you. Um if the applicant wanted to

1:45:28respond to any of the comments.

1:45:34No?

1:45:36Do you

1:45:37Do you want Yeah, no. Applicant, do you

1:45:39want to respond to any of the public

1:45:41speakers?

1:45:43>> Um

1:45:44I I I did want to point out that

1:45:47we do have the

1:45:50all of the conduits are shown in the

1:45:52drawings.

1:45:53I understand that the photo simulation

1:45:56may be lacking them. It is difficult to

1:46:00fit that fine detail when you're showing

1:46:03a pole that's 50 ft high. Um

1:46:06in order to get that whole pole in what

1:46:08is a photo simulation, it's going to be

1:46:10difficult to point out all that fine

1:46:12detail, but we will definitely make a

1:46:15better effort to to do that, but the

1:46:18drawings do depict the conduits that are

1:46:20going to be

1:46:21on the pole running up um for power for

1:46:24fiber and for electricity. Additionally,

1:46:27one of

1:46:28one of the residents uh at the community

1:46:30meeting actually

1:46:32noted that they had AT&T service. They

1:46:36recognized that AT&T service is

1:46:38deficient in the area and that required

1:46:40them to switch to Verizon. So, um one of

1:46:43the residents that did come to the

1:46:44community meeting acknowledged that they

1:46:46did have a gap in service and that that

1:46:49forced them that shouldn't be the case

1:46:50that we have to lose customers because

1:46:53we can't provide sufficient service for

1:46:54people to use their phones again within

1:46:57their homes to make emergency calls to

1:46:59um conduct, you know, business if they

1:47:02choose to work from remotely. So, our

1:47:05investment in Palo Alto is to bring, you

1:47:08know, the 20th century communications

1:47:10and connectivity that uh customers

1:47:13expect and rely upon within the city of

1:47:16Palo Alto, which is, you know, a leading

1:47:17edge of Silicon Valley. So, thank you.

1:47:22Sorry if you didn't say for a minute. Uh

1:47:25Can you point out to Nishita what

1:47:26drawing page we should pull up with the

1:47:28conduits?

1:47:30>> A4

1:47:31>> For everybody's information.

1:47:32>> A4

1:47:51>> That is not the A4 in front of me.

1:48:01I have A4 open in front of me and it

1:48:03looks different. Is that Is this a

1:48:05resubmission of A4?

1:48:09>> These are the revised plans that were

1:48:11submitted yesterday that I have

1:48:12downloaded it and up on the screen.

1:48:15>> Yeah, those would have been on in the in

1:48:16original plans as well.

1:48:19>> Well, which one or which one are we on?

1:48:21>> Well, which one are we

1:48:23Which one are we on?

1:48:24>> 70

1:48:25>> Oh, okay. And we have

1:48:27>> Yeah, we've got two in here.

1:48:28>> On page

1:48:31A4

1:48:33for the Gwenda application.

1:48:35The conduits are shown with a 3-in

1:48:38a 2-in and a 1.5-in.

1:48:41One noted for coax, one noted for fiber,

1:48:45and one noted for power.

1:48:46>> Okay. So, it's shown on the Gwenda A4

1:48:49but not in the Homer A4.

1:48:51>> Do you have Can you pull up Homer?

1:49:05>> I think it's because it's on the other

1:49:06side.

1:49:09>> Is there no other

1:49:11No, because it's coming off the other

1:49:12side over here.

1:49:15>> Wait, look up here.

1:49:17It's just on the backside.

1:49:20Like three.

1:49:25>> It does look like it was admitted from

1:49:27the

1:49:28>> Yeah, so for those at home, it's what

1:49:30we're talking about here and I'm going

1:49:31to try and make my panel a little

1:49:33thicker is this sort of line right here

1:49:36running down the side showing the

1:49:37conduit.

1:49:43>> The city has the opportunity within the

1:49:4510-day period of review to

1:49:50notice that as an incomplete item and we

1:49:52can address it.

1:50:01>> Thank you. Um, all right, so I got a

1:50:04quick question for staff if you don't

1:50:06mind. Um, one more question for staff

1:50:08and again, you may not be able to answer

1:50:10this. This is sort of a

1:50:11larger question.

1:50:14Does the city of Palo Alto have plans or

1:50:17a associated board or anything like that

1:50:19that intends to underground power lines

1:50:22and things in the future? So I

1:50:23specifically live in a neighborhood

1:50:25that's built in the '80s. Everything's

1:50:26underground.

1:50:28Um, so when we have communication poles,

1:50:30it's like we've got one wooden pole you

1:50:32know, a block from my house that has the

1:50:34the tower on top very similar to this.

1:50:36Um, but our power lines are not

1:50:39above ground. It's only these specific

1:50:41items that have to be above ground or

1:50:42above ground.

1:50:43Is there any intention or any sort of

1:50:46committee that's working on

1:50:48undergrounding the above ground lines?

1:50:51>> Not that I'm aware of. In case of in

1:50:54certain cases,

1:50:56um, if there is new development coming

1:50:58in, there might be a reason why lines

1:51:01would be undergrounded, but there's no

1:51:03wholesale effort to underground all of

1:51:05the lines in Palo Alto. That would be

1:51:07incredibly expensive.

1:51:11>> Okay. There is such a project. I'm I'm

1:51:13sorry. I apologize. I can't speak it.

1:51:16Any length to it, but but in fact this

1:51:19has been a long-term goal in Palo Alto

1:51:21that's on the book

1:51:22books now for

1:51:24>> I believe the public comment period has

1:51:27>> Yeah.

1:51:27>> lapsed.

1:51:28>> Apologies. We cannot take

1:51:30public comment, but I would urge staff

1:51:33to look into this.

1:51:34>> Just

1:51:34>> Yeah, just for us to better understand

1:51:36because if this is something that's

1:51:37going to come up over and over again,

1:51:39it's something that's useful for us to

1:51:40know if there's I mean, understand maybe

1:51:42there's no committee that's

1:51:44doing this and and also understand it

1:51:45from our limited experience working in

1:51:47Palo Alto when a new development comes

1:51:49up, they do typically underground the

1:51:51poles. It's not you know, anytime I have

1:51:53a new house that's undergrounded, right?

1:51:55Um, that's a requirement. So, the

1:51:57question is if all of these poles are

1:51:59going to be going up in the downtown

1:52:00area because it's old wiring that

1:52:02happens to be overhead versus in some of

1:52:05the newer areas or newer development

1:52:06areas where it will have to figure out

1:52:09an underground solution,

1:52:11that's worth noting that this is

1:52:13something that's going to be in conflict

1:52:14down the road. So, obviously, it's not

1:52:15something we can assess today at this

1:52:17meeting per se, but again,

1:52:20for future, it'd be good for staff to be

1:52:21aware of that and that that the ARB

1:52:23could be aware of that as well.

1:52:25>> You know, I have

1:52:26a house that's recent recent enough, 10

1:52:29years old already and it I have a

1:52:32overhead

1:52:33um

1:52:34>> Was it a brand new?

1:52:36>> Brand new house, of course, yeah.

1:52:38>> The last I can't tell you how many

1:52:40houses I've built

1:52:41that have if it's a brand new house, it

1:52:43has to be undergrounded utilities. They

1:52:45will not connect it overhead anymore.

1:52:47>> I think that's just the service from the

1:52:48street to the house, but the pole

1:52:50itself.

1:52:51>> Oh, correct.

1:52:52>> Correct.

1:52:53>> That's different.

1:52:56>> If you if if you pay for it, you can get

1:52:59it.

1:52:59>> You can get it either way.

1:53:01>> But I made a decision actually perhaps

1:53:04that I wanted to actually see it since

1:53:06it's all over the neighborhood that way.

1:53:08>> But they allowed you to run from the

1:53:10pole and again I started a little off

1:53:11topic.

1:53:11>> from the pole directly to the house and

1:53:13you

1:53:14>> They have not allowed me to do that in a

1:53:16very long time.

1:53:17So maybe it changed 10 years ago, but

1:53:19every brand new house

1:53:20>> 10 years

1:53:20>> Yeah.

1:53:21>> It's possible.

1:53:21>> I mean I have a house that I have to

1:53:23have its own transformer on site.

1:53:25>> Which means you're underground, you're

1:53:26tunneling all the way to the house.

1:53:28>> That's not the case. I mean that could

1:53:30be the case only in a scenario where

1:53:32there wouldn't there's not enough

1:53:34capacity based on what you were

1:53:36proposing, but it's not a general

1:53:38requirement to put a transformer for

1:53:39every

1:53:39>> Exactly. It's sort of an exceptional

1:53:41situation and I understand that, but

1:53:43it's definitely one of those things

1:53:44where they're the overhead lines unless

1:53:45it's a remodel addition, we're not

1:53:47seeing that that you guys are sort of

1:53:48requiring from the pole to the house is

1:53:50at least underground. So again, just on

1:53:53the note of topic Yeah, so I'm trying to

1:53:55trying to bring it back to where we were

1:53:56is that the question is if this is

1:53:57something that's going to just be, you

1:53:59know, they've got large swaths that are

1:54:00going to be underground and it's good to

1:54:02know. And if that's not the case, great.

1:54:05But either way we would want a firm

1:54:06answer on on knowing what our policy

1:54:07>> Again, I'm I'm not aware of anything. Um

1:54:10certainly we have

1:54:11uh you know, electrification work going

1:54:14on and we have fiber optic fiber to the

1:54:16premises project going on.

1:54:19Um and in some cases there might be

1:54:21areas where

1:54:23uh lines could be undergrounded, but

1:54:24it's

1:54:25I'm not aware of any wholesale effort

1:54:27effort to underground all lines in Palo

1:54:30Alto.

1:54:31But

1:54:32>> I

1:54:33Sorry, we can't take public comment.

1:54:35>> But uh related question. Because at this

1:54:38these streets

1:54:39um in question have light fixtures that

1:54:42are off of the wooden poles,

1:54:45is there a plan to have

1:54:47the as light fixtures get changed over

1:54:49time that they would be on their own

1:54:51independent metal pole?

1:54:53Is that

1:54:54uh

1:54:55the thing or not?

1:54:57>> Yes, I mean, you know, it it's just to

1:54:59add to that, it's pretty clear that when

1:55:02you have a metal pole,

1:55:03you can have internal connections of all

1:55:07the wiring

1:55:09through through the middle of the pole

1:55:10that, you know, in those neighborhoods

1:55:12you don't see

1:55:14any external

1:55:15uh wiring on on poles that are metal

1:55:18poles.

1:55:21In the downtown area, of course,

1:55:22everything is hidden.

1:55:25>> I I don't know the answer to that

1:55:26question. I'm sorry.

1:55:28>> Um no worries. So, um Nisha, another

1:55:30question for you uh also about the the

1:55:34radio

1:55:35box, which is very large and like within

1:55:38kind of just above fence lines of

1:55:40neighbors and very visible.

1:55:43Is that as

1:55:45the height of these radios, is that

1:55:48can they be any higher, do you know,

1:55:50like to be less visible and

1:55:53from people's windows, for instance?

1:55:56>> Um I believe AT&T can speak to that, but

1:55:58per my understanding from previous

1:56:00applications, um

1:56:02there is a distance wherein the radio

1:56:05the distance between the radio and the

1:56:06antennas has to be minimal um in order

1:56:09for the signals to get through to the

1:56:10antennas. And I think there's like a

1:56:12um

1:56:13preferred distance that they have. Um I

1:56:16don't know if maybe AT&T has like a

1:56:17specific number they can speak to, um

1:56:19but that's my understanding. Um

1:56:23>> And and the mounting height of those

1:56:25radio poles, so that the shutoff switch

1:56:27is 7 ft and then those radio shroud is 2

1:56:3114.

1:56:33And then basically it

1:56:35in theory, would people want it to go

1:56:37higher to get it out of the visual field

1:56:40or

1:56:41I mean, what's what's the goal of the

1:56:42question of the height of the height of

1:56:43mounting this? Is that are we trying to

1:56:45get it lower higher or higher? Like if

1:56:46they can be 30 ft off the ground, that

1:56:48would be outside of the visual range of

1:56:50um people outside of windows. Is that a

1:56:52possibility?

1:56:53>> I think there's also a structural

1:56:55component to this wherein we wouldn't

1:56:57want the weight of the pole to be

1:56:59heavier at the top. Um

1:57:01but that's something that utilities and

1:57:02AT&T would have to speak to. Um

1:57:07Yeah.

1:57:08>> Can we uh

1:57:10for staff, can we ask AT&T to respond to

1:57:13this or since we've closed Okay. Yes,

1:57:15please answer the question.

1:57:17>> So, typically on a utility pole, the

1:57:20space above 18 ft is reserved for

1:57:23communication carriers, fiber optic

1:57:25cables, um the AT&T wireline, Sonic, you

1:57:29name it. And the portion up to that is

1:57:33considered the structural zone where

1:57:35typically equip ancillary equipment to

1:57:38these poles is installed. So, at 14 ft,

1:57:41we extend up to the 18 ft, which is

1:57:44typically reserved above that for

1:57:45communication lines. So, that is the one

1:57:48of the restrictions in terms of the

1:57:49height.

1:57:51>> Thank you.

1:57:52That's helpful.

1:57:56All right. Um I think we will now close

1:57:59for

1:58:00comment for questions and other

1:58:03comments. So, that's final thoughts from

1:58:05the board.

1:58:08Who wants to start?

1:58:14Martin, do you want to start?

1:58:15>> Uh

1:58:17Not that I want to. Again, I can start.

1:58:21So, yeah, I think

1:58:23um

1:58:26kind of our hands are, you know, a

1:58:27little tight here, you know, with this

1:58:29project. I I think

1:58:31you know, for the you know, for the

1:58:32neighbors, I think

1:58:35um

1:58:36you know, nobody likes these uh these uh

1:58:38these these posts, and I think you

1:58:40believe that, you know, the city has a

1:58:42lot of power to

1:58:44move locations and change uh you know,

1:58:46dimensions, things like this. I In

1:58:48reality,

1:58:49I think our ability to influence things

1:58:51is very limited.

1:58:53Um

1:58:56And

1:58:57um

1:58:59I think you know, over the past few

1:59:01meetings, I think

1:59:02uh you know, AT&T came back with kind of

1:59:05various improvements to their to their

1:59:08um to their setup, which

1:59:10I mean, you know, these drawings

1:59:13>> We got a 4.5 earthquake in Sacramento,

1:59:16so just in case things start shaking.

1:59:17This is the second time this has

1:59:18happened during an Arab conference.

1:59:24All right, sorry.

1:59:25>> So, yes, I think the the current setup

1:59:27they are showing is is you know, is is

1:59:30is better than what we have seen, you

1:59:31know, before and

1:59:34um

1:59:35you know, like while

1:59:39the best solution is no antenna and you

1:59:42know, no AT&T equipment,

1:59:44uh I I think

1:59:47you know, we are

1:59:48starting to move towards that is that is

1:59:50you know, that is that is better and

1:59:53I think we need to acknowledge to AT&T

1:59:55that they they did try to make an effort

1:59:57to

1:59:58um

2:00:00you know, to make these installations,

2:00:01you know, better.

2:00:04And um

2:00:07um you know, from the conversation

2:00:08today, I think that the one

2:00:12improvement that I could see is is is

2:00:14the conduit size.

2:00:16Um

2:00:18I think

2:00:19um

2:00:20you know, improve the documentation of

2:00:21the you know, of the project

2:00:24cuz even even for home, you know, for

2:00:26going down the street, you you are

2:00:27showing the

2:00:29the in the coax PVCs, all three of them,

2:00:33but you know, they are not drawn to

2:00:34proportion, like they are not, you know,

2:00:36drawn as you know, 3-in PVCs. They are

2:00:39more like

2:00:40maybe 2-in or you know, 1-in. So, I

2:00:42think it would be better to document

2:00:44better, not just in the

2:00:46the first in the drawing and second in

2:00:48the simulation.

2:00:50But then I was like really try to go

2:00:51back and and and and verify, do we

2:00:53really need a 3-in you know, coax PVC? I

2:00:56don't think so.

2:00:58Um

2:01:00And also for the fiber, 2-in PVC for the

2:01:03fiber I mean the fiber is so thin like,

2:01:05you know, maybe you can reduce that,

2:01:07too.

2:01:08Um

2:01:11So, I think uh you know, trying to you

2:01:13know, reduce those

2:01:15uh you know, would be would be good. And

2:01:17apart from that, like I appreciate you

2:01:19canceled, you know, that third uh pole

2:01:21that, you know, based on

2:01:24um

2:01:26on the public uh public comments. I

2:01:28think that's that's

2:01:30uh you know, that's good.

2:01:32Um you know, these these two

2:01:35um

2:01:37Yeah, I don't I don't I don't I don't I

2:01:39don't see an obvious way to you know, to

2:01:41make you make it better if you relocate

2:01:43it to any of the other locations that

2:01:46you've shown.

2:01:48Um you know, on the on the alternative

2:01:50maps.

2:01:52I'm I mean you know, I I know

2:01:54unfortunately you came here cuz you own

2:01:56the house

2:01:58in front of it. Now, if they relocate it

2:02:01in front of another house, there will be

2:02:02another resident here,

2:02:04you know, saying the same thing. So, I

2:02:06don't know how to choose like I don't I

2:02:08don't

2:02:09uh I don't think we have the power

2:02:11uh I mean you know, to to to to to weigh

2:02:13it uh even if it's put on the

2:02:16top of a of you know, of the commercial

2:02:19building on Middlefield, you know, that

2:02:21building has a neighbor, too.

2:02:23So, you know, whether the the antenna is

2:02:25on top of the commercial building

2:02:2715 ft away, you know, from the neighbor

2:02:30or whether it's on the on the pole,

2:02:32that's

2:02:33you know, it's going to be

2:02:36kind of very similar. So, I think

2:02:38uh the options are very limited.

2:02:41Um

2:02:43Practical options are limited. I think

2:02:45the legal options are limited.

2:02:48Um

2:02:50so I think all all all I think we can do

2:02:52is to ask AT&T to try to make it

2:02:55kind of you know, as pretty as possible.

2:02:57And I think they have already

2:02:59you know, improved things over time. And

2:03:01there's still opportunity,

2:03:03uh you know, to go further. So, that

2:03:05would be my my my my request. So, as far

2:03:08as

2:03:09you know, uh as far as you can,

2:03:12um

2:03:14um

2:03:15I mean, try to try to further improve

2:03:18the design and the documentation.

2:03:23>> If I may through the chair. So, uh I

2:03:25just want to um we were able to get some

2:03:27information from our utilities to answer

2:03:29your question about undergrounding. So,

2:03:31there is no wholesale for across the

2:03:34entire city to underground, but there

2:03:36are areas where the

2:03:39um that have been identified as areas

2:03:42where we'd like to work towards

2:03:44undergrounding. The

2:03:46um

2:03:47uh and those there is a website that we

2:03:49have that shows those areas. These poles

2:03:52are not within an area that is planned

2:03:55for undergrounding. So.

2:03:58>> Thank you.

2:03:59Sorry.

2:04:00Comments from

2:04:02Closing comments from

2:04:04>> Okay. Thank Thank you again for your

2:04:05presentation and

2:04:07and the comments from the public. So, uh

2:04:10at first when when I saw the renderings

2:04:12and the information that uh we received,

2:04:17I do have to say that the the pole got

2:04:19really tall and the the radio shroud

2:04:23kind of bulky compared to the wood pole.

2:04:26Uh however, based on the information we

2:04:28received today, it seems like there is

2:04:31really limited things we can do.

2:04:34Uh

2:04:35first we we cannot lower the the antenna

2:04:39because of the general order 95 and also

2:04:44um based on the information we got, the

2:04:46radio

2:04:47uh

2:04:48is already one of the smallest and the

2:04:51shroud

2:04:52probably is about the same size.

2:04:55And so

2:04:59I feel just based on the information we

2:05:01got

2:05:03it's although it's not ideal, it's not

2:05:07that pretty, but

2:05:11do we have any other better choices? I

2:05:14I just don't see it.

2:05:17So

2:05:18yeah.

2:05:21>> It's okay, though.

2:05:22>> Um yeah, I have to admit that when I

2:05:25first saw this, I just was it was very

2:05:28neutral. It wasn't super offensive. Yes,

2:05:30it's taller, but there's of course, you

2:05:32know, physical restrictions that we're

2:05:33required to sort of abide by their

2:05:34safety concerns with power

2:05:37in my mind I looked at this and I was

2:05:38like, well, that's as basic as it gets.

2:05:41Um so kind of unoffensive in my mind out

2:05:43of the gate. Now, of course, we have

2:05:45questions about conduits and things like

2:05:46that. Yes, because there's little things

2:05:48that add up at the end, like the one on

2:05:50Page Mill, when there's a whole bunch of

2:05:51wires and spaghetti as they said

2:05:53sticking out of the top that's

2:05:54unexpected. That's that's a hard hard

2:05:57part for us. So if this really ends up

2:05:59looking the way that it does even in the

2:06:01one of the the photo renderings, I

2:06:03didn't even see the radio box at first

2:06:05cuz it blended in with the tree.

2:06:08So there's in my mind I just this was

2:06:10there's nothing so incredibly offensive

2:06:13um visually speaking. I think that the

2:06:15color choice is acceptable. I think the

2:06:17height is yes, it's taller, but

2:06:19in the grand scheme of things it's kind

2:06:21of arbitrary to begin with. We're seeing

2:06:22buildings that are coming in eight

2:06:23stories tall when we're used to being a

2:06:25four-story tall city. So the height

2:06:28limit in and of itself doesn't really

2:06:30offend.

2:06:31Um

2:06:33again, we want to make sure you guys are

2:06:34being complete and honest and as

2:06:35forthright as possible with things. Uh I

2:06:37did appreciate your comments regarding

2:06:39the sizing of the cubic square footage

2:06:41and things like that versus what it

2:06:43could be otherwise. And knowing that

2:06:44these are sort of a smaller situation

2:06:46than what it could be is definitely a

2:06:48benefit and I appreciate that. Um

2:06:51again, anytime it could be even smaller,

2:06:53we absolutely appreciate that. But I

2:06:55think that all things said and done,

2:06:57this is

2:06:58one of the lesser offenses of projects

2:07:00we've seen, so I don't really have a

2:07:02visual opposition to it.

2:07:04And to I do want to touch base on board

2:07:07member Joe George's comment that

2:07:09unfortunately, based on location,

2:07:13like he said, it's sort of this location

2:07:15will have

2:07:16these wonderful residents here. A

2:07:19different location will have another set

2:07:20of wonderful residents here. And another

2:07:22location will have another set of

2:07:23wonderful residents here. And And

2:07:25there's sort of It doesn't matter where

2:07:26it goes, there will be someone affected.

2:07:28And that's the hard part. Cuz these do

2:07:30need to go someplace or we just don't

2:07:32have cell coverage and that's, you know,

2:07:33is what it is.

2:07:36So there's a little bit of that where

2:07:37it's a little bit of a rock and a hard

2:07:38place where

2:07:40trying to find the best solution is is

2:07:43we're never going to fully win in that

2:07:45regard. We're never going to find the

2:07:47most ideal perfect situation for where

2:07:49these poles are located. Now, we do have

2:07:52a significant amount of trust in the

2:07:53city and in the um AT&T community for

2:07:58finding the ideal situations for these

2:07:59pole locations um based on coverage. Um

2:08:03and I do appreciate the fact that you

2:08:05actually reserved the third pole based

2:08:08on community feedback. The fact that you

2:08:10guys are listening to our residents is a

2:08:12big deal for us. Um

2:08:14so I did want to point that out and say

2:08:16thank you for that.

2:08:18Um

2:08:19I don't really have any further

2:08:20objections or questions, so I'm going to

2:08:23pass this along. Thank you for your

2:08:24time.

2:08:26>> Uh

2:08:30This is a

2:08:31We're all caught between a rock and a

2:08:33hard place, frankly, here.

2:08:35Uh the poles are

2:08:37filled with

2:08:39additional garbage, really, to be honest

2:08:42about it.

2:08:43Um

2:08:45I've been thinking about this for quite

2:08:47a while. I'm the only I'm the only

2:08:49member here who's been on this committee

2:08:51since

2:08:5219 when the when we all split on this.

2:08:56And there was a lot of discussion about

2:08:57ingrounding and the problems that had

2:09:00would happen if you had to inground a

2:09:02whole facility.

2:09:04>> [clears throat]

2:09:05>> Uh but we were at the time trying to

2:09:07figure out a way to to lessen the impact

2:09:10of this on on a pole that's already

2:09:13filled with years of changes that have

2:09:17caused it to really be a kind of an ugly

2:09:20situation in

2:09:22very nice residential neighborhoods.

2:09:25Seemed to me that

2:09:26uh

2:09:28way off way out of the scope of this

2:09:31particular consideration.

2:09:33It would have been maybe nice to look to

2:09:35imagine that you have a whole new

2:09:37technology here that you're bringing in

2:09:39or increase in technology that allows us

2:09:42to get better signals throughout the

2:09:44city.

2:09:46And actually not lose your

2:09:49phone on

2:09:50in the middle of a conversation. Um and

2:09:54uh

2:09:55this side of the street

2:09:57where the electrical and everything else

2:09:58is may not be the best place. If you had

2:10:02a pole a metal pole on the opposite side

2:10:05of the street and you

2:10:07brought power to it so that you could

2:10:10make it work for the city.

2:10:12That would be a better way, though. Of

2:10:14course, the installation's going to be

2:10:16significantly more expensive, new poles,

2:10:18new concept, cross the street in with

2:10:22the electrical that's going to be an

2:10:24issue.

2:10:26But at least you'd have one clean, you

2:10:28know, you have the old poles on one side

2:10:30and new pole new pole in very limited

2:10:33areas getting your service out through

2:10:36out the city.

2:10:38Uh I don't want to talk about it anymore

2:10:40because it's not a possibility right

2:10:42now.

2:10:43But this is rethinking

2:10:45upgrading the city in some way here.

2:10:49Um the

2:10:51the existing poles would have to come

2:10:53down at some point when the new concept

2:10:57of moving the facility basically.

2:11:02Um

2:11:03But it it's almost come to the point now

2:11:05I think where

2:11:07we just have too much stuff on the pole.

2:11:10You know, and it's frankly we're going

2:11:12to get to the end of this and

2:11:14aesthetically I think everybody here is

2:11:16not happy on this board that nobody's

2:11:19happy with what we're going to end up

2:11:21with.

2:11:22Because it isn't it isn't going to be

2:11:24really an aesthetic decision and we want

2:11:27to make an aesthetic decision.

2:11:30That's my feeling about it. It's

2:11:33there are minor changes and I think in

2:11:35actuality

2:11:36you've come a long way, you know, that I

2:11:39don't think Ericsson and those smaller

2:11:42elements were really thought of in the

2:11:45very beginning. But now the

2:11:48radios are capable of doing what what

2:11:51the Ericsson is allowing there and I

2:11:53think you've minimized it as best you

2:11:56can.

2:11:57And to that extent I think you're

2:12:00I thank you for

2:12:01going this far.

2:12:03But in my opinion it doesn't really

2:12:05solve the problem aesthetically for us

2:12:08as a board and it doesn't it really

2:12:11solve it aesthetically for

2:12:13where we're going with this in the the

2:12:15itself.

2:12:16That uh uh

2:12:18it has to be it should be rethought.

2:12:21Um

2:12:22the concept of how to provide the

2:12:24service for

2:12:25Palo Alto.

2:12:29>> Thank you, David.

2:12:31Um yeah, just final thoughts. Thank you

2:12:33to staff and applicants for bringing

2:12:35this forward.

2:12:37Um

2:12:38and yeah, we've all kind of echoed the

2:12:41rock and hard place that we are in and

2:12:43honestly, when I look at you before and

2:12:45after pictures, what's offensive is

2:12:47before to start with, right? We have

2:12:49these

2:12:50um like look at the pole at Homer um

2:12:53with

2:12:55all the stuff before you guys even touch

2:12:57it is absolutely hideous to start with

2:13:00and that's what we're working with and I

2:13:02appreciate your effort to do the

2:13:05least amount of damage to already pretty

2:13:09terrible site in on our

2:13:11in our city.

2:13:13Um but I do urge you to, you know, work

2:13:15on if we can get the conduit any smaller

2:13:18cuz bend radius is another thing as

2:13:19David pointed out there are other

2:13:21equipment on the pole that you may have

2:13:23to bend around and that's going to add

2:13:25to the ugliness. Let's not make it

2:13:26worse.

2:13:27I appreciate your painting it to make it

2:13:30as close to the wood pole color which

2:13:32obviously the other utilities

2:13:34on the same poles are not doing. Um and

2:13:38so

2:13:39I would say just, you know, do the best

2:13:41you can and cleanest installation and to

2:13:44the neighbor's point as close to what

2:13:46you're submitting. So, if it means you

2:13:48have to revise the drawings to get

2:13:51closer to, you know, including other

2:13:54equipment, bend radii, and including

2:13:57conduit sizes accurately on both. So,

2:14:00that what is submitted and approved is

2:14:02as close to final installation as you

2:14:04can make it. So, um we do the best we

2:14:07can for our community. Thank you for

2:14:10your presentation.

2:14:12All right, with that uh do we want to

2:14:14have a

2:14:15motion to offer a

2:14:18vote?

2:14:20>> I move to approve the project as

2:14:21presented.

2:14:25>> Second.

2:14:29>> Uh board member Chen.

2:14:32>> Yes.

2:14:33>> Uh board member Jojarth.

2:14:35>> Yes.

2:14:36>> Board member Hirsch.

2:14:38>> Yes.

2:14:39>> Uh vice chair Rosemer.

2:14:41>> Yes.

2:14:42>> The chair Adcock.

2:14:43>> Yes.

2:14:44>> Motion carries 5-0.

2:14:46>> Thank you.

2:14:50All right.

2:14:54So, uh our next item is approval of

2:14:57minutes. We have two um draft minutes to

2:15:00approve. One from

2:15:02August 20th. Do we Does anybody have any

2:15:04comments on minutes?

2:15:09>> And to the chair, uh no one was absent

2:15:11for this meeting, so no need to abstain.

2:15:17>> No corrections?

2:15:18>> Yeah, I have one.

2:15:19>> Okay.

2:15:22>> Um

2:15:26You know, the word bloom should have

2:15:28been blew.

2:15:32>> And board member Hirsch,

2:15:34what packet page?

2:15:36>> I I got the wrong one.

2:15:37>> No, it's

2:15:38>> No, what packet page is it?

2:15:40>> Uh page one.

2:15:41>> Page 68.

2:15:42>> Okay.

2:15:44>> And then for the record, um

2:15:46what was the correction?

2:15:48>> Bloom.

2:15:49>> Bloom?

2:15:49>> And the word was blew.

2:15:51>> Bloom?

2:15:52>> Which paragraph?

2:15:56>> Mr. Soles, chair Adcock, Mr. Soles, vice

2:15:59chair Rosemer, Clay Rabold, Mr. Soles,

2:16:01board member Hirsch.

2:16:02Mr. Soles, Ms. Rabold, board member

2:16:05Chen.

2:16:06>> Which paragraph is it in? Dial us in a

2:16:08little bit here.

2:16:09>> Okay.

2:16:10Fourth paragraph.

2:16:12Board member Hirsch requested more

2:16:13information about the land situation why

2:16:15there's no below grade parking. Board

2:16:16member Hirsch also inquired whether a

2:16:17study had been conducted to determine

2:16:18how much of the site is covered by the

2:16:20flume area.

2:16:21>> Flume. All right.

2:16:22>> Flume.

2:16:23>> All right. Thank you.

2:16:24>> Thanks, Dave. Good catch.

2:16:26>> Okay. We'll search the document for

2:16:29that.

2:16:33>> All right, then I shall

2:16:35motion to approve the minutes with the

2:16:37minor correction.

2:16:39>> Seconded.

2:16:41>> Um Board member Jojarth.

2:16:44>> Yes.

2:16:45>> Board member Chen.

2:16:46>> Yes.

2:16:47>> Board member Hirsch.

2:16:49Chair Rosenberg.

2:16:50>> Yes.

2:16:51>> Um Vice Chair Rosenberg.

2:16:53Uh Chair Adcock.

2:16:55>> Yes.

2:16:55>> Motion carries 5-0.

2:16:58>> All right, next we have

2:17:00um

2:17:00meeting notes from September 3rd. Any

2:17:03corrections, edits?

2:17:05>> And uh I did want to note that Board

2:17:07member Jojarth was absent, so I would

2:17:09need you to abstain when we do that.

2:17:12Vote.

2:17:16>> No corrections?

2:17:17All right, then I

2:17:19move to uh approve as written.

2:17:21>> I'll second.

2:17:24>> Board member Hirsch.

2:17:25>> Yes.

2:17:26>> Board member Chen.

2:17:28>> Yes.

2:17:29>> Board member Jojarth.

2:17:32>> I abstain.

2:17:33>> Uh Vice Chair Rosenberg.

2:17:34>> Yes.

2:17:35>> Um

2:17:37uh Chair Adcock.

2:17:38>> Yes.

2:17:39>> Motion carries 4-0-1.

2:17:43>> Thank you.

2:17:44Um any Board member questions, comments,

2:17:46announcements, or future meetings and

2:17:49agendas?

2:17:52No.

2:17:54All right, so last item um is virtual

2:17:57comments. Do we have any requests to

2:17:59speak on non-agenda items?

2:18:03>> And Miss Miss Perillo from AT&T, you can

2:18:05jump off at any time. You don't have to

2:18:08stay on board until the end of the

2:18:09meeting. Thank you.

2:18:11>> Uh if there's any members of the public

2:18:13that would like to speak on two virtual

2:18:15public comments, uh please raise your

2:18:17hand now.

2:18:20Um

2:18:21it looks like there is one person.

2:18:24Uh observer, you may now speak.

2:18:29>> Hi, good morning. This is Ariel Roth,

2:18:32Council of United Neighbors. I I want to

2:18:35point out that I I have some some very

2:18:37serious concerns about the I think the

2:18:39level of familiarity and awareness about

2:18:42applicable

2:18:44uh telecommunication laws that constrain

2:18:47or in fact much less constrain the

2:18:49board's discretion.

2:18:51And I think this goes far beyond the

2:18:53current applications. I think it's

2:18:54appropriate for general public comment.

2:18:57I I want to point out that there are a

2:18:58lot of open questions here. For

2:19:00instance, the extent to which GO 95

2:19:02applies, the extent to which PG&E rules

2:19:04apply to

2:19:06uh

2:19:07to the city and assumptions about what

2:19:10actually is possible.

2:19:11There are cities that are applying

2:19:13underground. There are cities that have

2:19:16completely stealth facilities.

2:19:18And so I want the board to understand

2:19:19prospectively what's at stake here. And

2:19:22what that is is that a what was called

2:19:256409 by by AT&T's representative is the

2:19:28right of an applicant AT&T now that any

2:19:31other applicant to add

2:19:33multiple additions to this pole or any

2:19:35other pole that's already been built if

2:19:37it is not stealth.

2:19:39That means they can add up to 10 ft in

2:19:40height and 6 ft out of additional

2:19:42attachments as well as ground

2:19:44attachments, and there's no room for any

2:19:46type of discretionary design review.

2:19:50And that's what's called in in in the

2:19:52city's code a tier one application.

2:19:55And so I think what needs to be thought

2:19:57of whenever one of these applications is

2:19:59reviewed, an application for a stealth

2:20:01type attachment, is whether the facility

2:20:03can be made to be stealth. If there

2:20:05aspects of it that can be hidden, so

2:20:07that the discretion of the board going

2:20:09forward can be preserved. Because even

2:20:11if there is a view that this particular

2:20:12site is pretty vanilla or standard,

2:20:16that actually uh has significant

2:20:18ramifications for the next

2:20:21the next application. And that will

2:20:22depend partly on the pole loading

2:20:25capability. So, it can this pole uh

2:20:27physically

2:20:29house this equipment structurally, but

2:20:31most applications, I don't think

2:20:32applications require this, do not detail

2:20:34what whether that is the case or not.

2:20:37And so, there's a lot of uh unaddressed

2:20:38assumptions here. And I think that if

2:20:41those assumptions continue to be

2:20:42accepted, which they should not be,

2:20:44uncritically, there's going to be a

2:20:46proliferation of sites. And those

2:20:47proliferation of sites are going to be

2:20:49added on by other carriers that are

2:20:51going to appreciate the ease of doing

2:20:52so. And it basically is sort of scouts

2:20:55honor on whether they do something that

2:20:57complies or not, because they're

2:20:58entitled to disregard under federal law,

2:21:00they're entitled to disregard all your

2:21:01design preferences, all the the goodwill

2:21:03that you may wish them to to exercise.

2:21:06And I think that perspective is lacking

2:21:08at this point.

2:21:10I also want to point out that their

2:21:11arguments or contentions about different

2:21:13types of uh coverage do not need to be

2:21:16taken uh as gospel. And there needs to

2:21:19be that backup, so that the city can

2:21:20decide, do we want to in fact accept

2:21:23that this constrained single site is the

2:21:25only site. And I think that's going to

2:21:28continue to become much more theoretical

2:21:30going forward if there aren't some

2:21:31changes in the perspective. Thank you.

2:21:35>> Our next speaker is Henry E. Henry E,

2:21:37you may now speak.

2:21:41>> Uh thank you. I'd like to follow up on

2:21:44the last speaker. Uh this time I'll put

2:21:46on my hat as uh

2:21:48uh

2:21:49head of the

2:21:51institute, the Triple Helix Institute, a

2:21:54think tank located in Menlo Park that

2:21:56looks at technology and social

2:22:00organization

2:22:01across the globe.

2:22:04So,

2:22:05here we are in Silicon Valley, where

2:22:07we're known globally as the leading

2:22:09technology site in the world. We're the

2:22:12leader

2:22:13Well, we're the leader in the private

2:22:14sector, but in the public sector, we are

2:22:17well behind.

2:22:19We are not the leader. We have this

2:22:21robust private sector and a

2:22:23poverty-stricken public sector. Not in

2:22:25terms of money, because we have a huge

2:22:28amount of public resources that are

2:22:31wasted in city of Palo Alto,

2:22:34uh and they're not put to good use. But,

2:22:37the bigger point is that our

2:22:40public sector is behind the private

2:22:43sector.

2:22:45Our public sector is back somewheres in

2:22:47the early 20th century. In this

2:22:50technology, in this area, was our

2:22:52private sector? Well, they're up in

2:22:56things like uh Starlink and beyond.

2:22:59So, there's a huge gap. How can we fill

2:23:03this gap between the public and the

2:23:05private sector? Well, clearly, uh

2:23:08we need to change the way that we're

2:23:11organized. Uh we're not connected to the

2:23:14leading technology forces in our region.

2:23:17For example, uh we're separated from

2:23:19Stanford University, which is We grew up

2:23:22together, but now we're separated. We

2:23:25must cure that. We must use the

2:23:27knowledge resources of the university in

2:23:29our city. How can we do that if we're

2:23:31separate? We must unify. We must uh

2:23:35annex Stanford and make them part of

2:23:37Palo Alto, and so we can solve problems

2:23:40together. That's step number one. Uh

2:23:42step number two, we must change the

2:23:45organization of our of our government.

2:23:48We must sit together all of us

2:23:51as a city, the polis.

2:23:55The New England town meeting is the

2:23:56current is still left behind from that.

2:23:59Where I lived in Nantucket, we would

2:24:01come together once a year and we'll set

2:24:03the basic values and priorities of our

2:24:05city. Surely we can do that both in

2:24:08person and virtually using the available

2:24:11technologies and then uh during the year

2:24:14we can have those wishes of the public

2:24:16carried out. So all members of our city

2:24:1916 years or older should sit together

2:24:22for a day or two, even three if it takes

2:24:25that, to do the public business, set the

2:24:28values of our city, and then have that

2:24:30carried out. Right now, we have a city

2:24:33council that carries out the wishes of

2:24:35developers and

2:24:37they're destroying our city.

2:24:39They're doing builders remedies.

2:24:41They're they're making they're making us

2:24:44into the Bronx. Whereas the Bronx has

2:24:47now advanced beyond where we are. They

2:24:49have no telephone poles and the

2:24:51telegraph poles in the Bronx, but we

2:24:53have them here in Palo Alto. That's just

2:24:56the sign of what's wrong that we're

2:24:58having this discussion today. We need to

2:25:01change drastically. That's why I'm

2:25:03running for city council to bring new

2:25:05ideas to Palo Alto, old ideas to Palo

2:25:08Alto, shall we say.

2:25:12>> This concludes public comment.

2:25:14>> Thank you. Um just for the record, I do

2:25:18want to state that

2:25:19uh we are

2:25:21architecture review board's purview is

2:25:23limited to aesthetics and design

2:25:26in within the framework of what is

2:25:28presented to us.

2:25:30Um all right.

2:25:33Uh with that we will adjourn

2:25:36and we will be back in 4 weeks since the

2:25:38next one's canceled. Thank