ARB continues AT&T streetlight wireless permit after public and member concerns about size, concealment and missing data

Palo Alto — The Architectural Review Board on Sept. 18 held a public hearing on AT&T’s request to modify an existing wireless communications site on a city-owned streetlight pole near 1661 Page Mill Road and voted to continue the item to Oct. 16 with direction to the applicant to provide additional information.

City planner Nishida (project planner) presented the application as a Tier 2 wireless-collocation request to modify equipment on an existing metal streetlight pole in the public right-of-way. The proposal would remove older equipment and install two panel antennas, three radio units mounted in shrouds on the pole, associated cabling, safety signage and one disconnect box. Staff’s report recommended that the director of planning and development services approve the application subject to the wireless development standards and the ARB findings supplied in the staff packet.

Assistant City Attorney Aylin Belier reviewed federal and state legal constraints governing wireless siting, including the federal limitations in 47 U.S.C. §332(c)(7), FCC rules on shot-clock timelines and the FCC 2018 small-cell order; she noted local review must avoid decisions that would be based on RF emissions (the FCC is sole authority on RF safety). Staff said an application completeness review had triggered a notice of incomplete earlier in the process and that the project’s federal shot clock (for a Tier 2 action) would run to Oct. 28 unless extended by agreement.

The applicant (Justin Jurita, project manager for NextEdge Networks, representing AT&T Mobility) said the proposal reflects equipment upgrades to improve local coverage and capacity — including new mid-band (“C-band”) capacity — and argued the proposed pole-mounted shrouds and radios matched AT&T’s other upgraded small-cell sites in Palo Alto.

Three public commenters urged the ARB to require better concealment and additional documentation before approval. Architect and former ARB member Peter Balte said previous ARB reviews favored concealment and advised against pole-mounted radio cabinets and visible equipment. Jeanne Fleming, representing a neighborhood group called United Neighbors, asked the ARB to direct AT&T to provide the checklist items missing from the submittal and to conceal non-antenna equipment either in the pole shaft or an underground vault. Attorney Ariel Strauss (United Neighbors’ counsel) reviewed the municipal definition of a “small wireless facility” and said the application had not provided a full equipment-volume calculation; Strauss’ measurement of the existing above-ground cabinet indicated the project might exceed the ordinance’s 28-cubic-foot threshold for small wireless facilities and therefore may not qualify for the shorter tier-2 shot clock the staff cited.

ARB members asked technical and design questions about the proposal: whether the cabinet on the ground will remain and, if so, whether the pole-mounted radios should be added to the calculation of total above-ground equipment; whether all three radio units could be concealed in a single shroud or within a ground vault; whether the disconnect switch could be left in the ground cabinet rather than moved to an accessible pole-mounted box; and whether alternative treatments (a single larger pole, consolidated shrouds, underground vaults or different mounting heights) had been examined. The applicant said the proposed radios are lighter than earlier generations, which makes pole mounting feasible, and that the ground cabinet also contains AT&T wireline/fiber equipment that is not part of the wireless upgrade and would not necessarily be removed without a separate wireline application.

After discussion the ARB voted 5–0 to continue the application to the Oct. 16 ARB meeting and directed the applicant to return with the following, for staff and ARB review before the next hearing:

• A complete equipment-volume calculation and a clear explanation of which pieces of above-ground equipment are included (applicant to show whether the ground cabinet’s wireless components are being abandoned or reconfigured, and include measured cubic-foot totals that support whether the installation qualifies as a ‘‘small wireless facility’’ under the municipal definition).

• One or more design alternatives that reduce visible above-ground mass, including but not limited to: (a) an option that consolidates radios into fewer shrouds (single contiguous shroud), (b) an option that shows feasibility of placing radio/cabinet components in an underground vault or otherwise removing them from public view, and (c) an option that demonstrates whether pole-mounted components can be repositioned to reduce visual impact (different mounting heights or side placement) and still meet radio-safety and maintenance requirements.

• Clarification about the disconnect switch: options for keeping the disconnect in the existing ground cabinet (if feasible per utility/PG&E rules) and details on required signage and locks if a pole-mounted switch remains the proposal.

• Structural and electrical documentation confirming the pole can safely support any additional equipment and, if multiple carriers request collocation at this pole in the future, how the city’s structural and aesthetic review would be applied.

Staff will coordinate submittal dates with the applicant so packet materials are available in advance of the Oct. 16 ARB meeting. The ARB did not adopt a final determination on the ARB findings (compatibility/aesthetics) at the Sept. 18 hearing.

Notes: transcript records differing characterizations of the shot clock and public commenters’ assertions that the installation may exceed the municipal ‘‘small wireless facility’’ volume threshold; staff noted the application had once received a notice of incomplete and that the current Tier 2 shot-clock expiry was Oct. 28 absent an agreed extension, but public commenters argued the shot clock could be longer if the installation does not qualify as a small wireless facility.