The Palo Alto Architectural Review Board on Thursday recommended that the director of Planning and Development Services approve AT&T’s application to modify an existing small wireless facility on a city light pole near 1661 Page Mill Road, following public comment, technical questions and board conditions.

Staff said the application is for a tier‑2 small wireless facility that would remove an existing ground equipment cabinet, place three convection‑cooled radio remote units (RRUs) and two antennas on the pole, and underground existing fiber connections. Claire Raybould, manager of current planning, told the board the applicant submitted updated volume calculations showing the equipment on the pole would stay under the 28‑cubic‑foot threshold used to classify the project as tier‑2 and keep it subject to the 60‑day timeline for small wireless facilities.

The application drew about 50 emailed comments from residents and several in‑person speakers at the hearing. Ariel Strauss, an attorney at Green Fire Law representing United Neighbors, urged the board to review the site as a unique location and said regulators determine whether an application qualifies as a small wireless facility at the time it is submitted: "the small cell designation is made at the point in time when [the] application is submitted," she said, arguing that the application originally included a ground cabinet and therefore should have started on a 90‑day shot clock.

Representing AT&T, Marc Grabisch outlined technical reasons the company prefers pole‑mounted, convection‑cooled radios to ground cabinets. He said the company removed the adjacent cabinet and will underground fiber and, in coordination with Palo Alto Utilities, place the disconnect switch in a below‑grade vault. "We respectfully request that you do recommend this to be approved to the director," Grabisch said.

Public commenters raised design and process concerns. Jamie Fleming, speaking for United Neighbors, told the board AT&T had not followed the board’s earlier direction to fully conceal pole‑mounted radios and questioned the company’s shot‑clock calculation: "Rather than adhere to your directives, AT&T has instead returned with a design that does exactly what you told them not to do," Fleming said. Another speaker, Herb Borak, asked the board to set limits on how equipment could be swapped later without additional review.

Board members pressed the applicant on multiple technical and aesthetic points: whether the disconnect switch would be undergrounded (staff and the applicant confirmed it would), the spacing and cooling needs for three stacked radios, the visual impact of the shrouds, and whether the radios could be mounted at a single elevation or moved to the pole’s rear to reduce visibility. The applicant said spacing and internal cable bend radii inside the light pole limit how the radios can be arrayed and that the proposed configuration balances concealment and ventilation.

After deliberation the board voted 5–0 to recommend approval with conditions. The board’s motion — introduced by Vice Chair Adcock and seconded (second not specified on the record) — included these requirements: (1) the disconnect switch shall be installed in an underground vault with a cover no higher than adjacent grade; (2) the lowest radio shroud shall not be installed lower than a board‑specified minimum height from the adjacent sidewalk (the board stated a preference for mounting the radios as high as feasible on the existing pole and expressed a goal of minimizing visibility from the sidewalk); (3) the applicant should seek to mount the radios so they are less visually prominent (the board expressed preference that, if technically feasible, all three radios be at the same elevation or be placed on the pole face away from the street); and (4) all wiring between pole and shrouds must be concealed and the shroud design should meet a high level of architectural quality and allow required convection cooling. The board also recorded a written condition that the applicant had offered a 45‑day tolling agreement to allow additional review time if needed.

By the board’s account, staff will forward the ARB recommendation and the record to the planning director, who will make the final decision under the city’s administrative process; the director’s decision may be appealed to the City Council.

Why it matters: the decision affects how small‑cell wireless hardware will be configured along public roadways in Palo Alto and sets a precedent for concealment, cooling and pole‑attachment design. The case also highlights ongoing tensions between municipal design standards and federal/industry rules governing wireless siting timelines and replacement of pole hardware.

The board’s recommendation and its conditions will be part of the administrative record for any later appeal or follow‑up application by the carrier. The transcript shows the board carefully separated technical constraints (cable bend radii, structural limits of the pole, ventilation needs) from policy and aesthetic judgments and memorialized their preference to reduce visibility where technically feasible.