|
|
|
Uploaded: Monday, January 28, 2013, 10:45 PM
AT&T's sweeping antenna plan wins final OK
Palo Alto approves final two phases of proposal to mount cell antennas on about 75 utility poles
|
|
by Gennady Sheyner
Palo Alto Weekly Staff
A contentious plan by AT&T to mount dozens of antennas on utility poles throughout Palo Alto cruised to the finish line Monday night, Jan. 28, when the city approved the final two phases of the project despite complaints from residents who live near the proposed antenna sites.
With no debate, discussion or dissent, the City Council gave the green light to the third and fourth phases in AT&T's plan, which involves about 75 antennas mostly in residential areas. The quick approval came despite arguments from several residents that the proposed equipment would be loud and unsightly and would bring property values down.
The final two phases involve roughly 40 poles located mostly in the southern half of Palo Alto, including in Barron Park and Greenmeadow neighborhoods. The Planning Department had approved AT&T's plan for these poles in December, but the project returned to the council when the city received appeals from seven residents whose homes are near the proposed antenna sites.
One appellant, Elaine Keller, said the proposed antenna would be adjacent to her backyard and would interfere with the view from her home. She complained that AT&T hadn't offered any alternatives for screening its equipment.
"We don't think anyone should be subjected to it and we're dismayed and disappointed that AT&T and the City of Palo Alto think this is an appropriate site for this," Keller said.
Dorianne and Roy Moss also objected to AT&T's plan, which would include an antenna close to their two-story Eichler home. Dorianne Moss said the new antenna would tower over the existing tree line and urged the council members to "exert their oversight with regards to the aesthetics of that particular node."
"When I open my eyes in the morning I see a tree line," Dorianne Moss said. "The current proposal would be to put a box 9 feet above that."
Roy Moss said the company should be asked to pay for ways to screen its equipment.
"AT&T wants to install the antenna. Let them spend the money and install the planted tree there. It's their responsibility."
Not everyone panned the plan. Earl Caustin, who lives on Louis Road, said he would welcome the new equipment. Caustin said his phone reception dies as soon as he leaves the driveway of his Louis Road home. He called the cell phone coverage in his area "below third world."
"Palo Alto needs a working cell phone system," Caustin said. "It's probably not optimal for everybody in the city and we have to work through it best we can. ... The bottom line is we need a first-world cell phone system in Palo Alto."
AT&T's choice of equipment has changed considerably since the company first proposed bringing a wireless network to the city more than two years ago. Its plan to install a tall cell tower at St. Albert the Great Church in Crescent Park fizzled in the spring of 2011 after intense neighborhood opposition. The company's subsequent plan to install a network of smaller U-shaped antennas as part of a "distributed antenna system" (DAS) also met poor reception from local citizenry and city officials. The company then switched to a less conspicuous DAS system that involves one installation, rather than two.
In December 2011, the city's Architectural Review Board approved the company's latest equipment proposal and added a slew of conditions, including ones calling for AT&T to screen its equipment with trees wherever possible and to test noise and radio-frequency levels of the antennas after installation.
Paul Albritton, AT&T's counsel, told the council Monday that the company has already spent a long time with the architectural board refining the design of the proposed antenna system and coming up with guidelines for choosing poles. These include preferences for locations away from block corners and close to foliage. Albritton also noted that the poles selected by AT&T for the final two phases had already been evaluated and endorsed by the city's Utilities Department, an arborist and a third-party consultant. Changing the pole locations, he said, would prove difficult.
"These are like sprinklers on a lawn. You move one pole, you leave a brown spot and you have to relocate other poles," Albritton said.
The antennas would be installed at utility poles near the following locations:
747 Loma Verde Ave.
3284 Cowper St.
3412 Ross Road/3374 Ross Road
3132 David Ave.
3415 Greer Road
3539 Louis Road
2385 Waverley St.
3094 Greer Road on Maddux Drive
390 El Dorado Ave.
452 Loma Verde Ave.
3524 Waverley St. on East Meadow Drive
3706 Carlson Circle
3757 Corina Way
3915 Louis Road
631 East Meadow Drive
3901 Middlefield Road
412 Ferne Ave.
3945 Nelson Ave.
1772 Hamilton Ave.
109 Lois Lane
4131 El Camino Way
550 Georgia Ave
4101 Park Blvd. (on West Meadow)
4255 Ruthelma Ave.
669 Maybell Ave.
110 East Charleston Drive (on Alma Street)
493 West Charleston Drive
4298 Ponce Drive
429 Monroe Ave.
231 Parkside Drive
Opposite 106 Loma Verde Ave.
516 Barron Ave.
4257 McKellar Lane
320 Lambert Ave.
3989 La Donna Ave.
397 Ventura Ave.
3364 Emerson St.
820 Chimalus Drive
715 Barron Ave.
915 Matadero Ave.Are you receiving Express, our free daily e-mail edition? See a sample and sign-up for Express.
|
|
| Comments
|
Posted by Resident, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Jan 29, 2013 at 7:07 am Instead of a couple of cell towers on top of churches or at Ballparks, we get all these little ones all over town. I have nothing against these, but it just goes to show. When we start protesting against something, the solution is often just as bad if not worse than the original plan!
|
|
Posted by Anonymous, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Jan 29, 2013 at 8:45 am Dispersed small antennae are better because the transmitted power from any particular antenna should be a lot less than a few large tower antennas. Also, there should be less dead zones.
|
|
Posted by M9, a resident of the Palo Verde neighborhood, on Jan 29, 2013 at 9:09 am Palo Alto is dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century. Now that's big news.
Anonymous is right also -- from all points of view, many small antennae is a better solution than a few big ones. That goes for fewer dead zones, lower phone power (the phone power in weak signal areas overwhelms tower power if you're concerned about health issues), better bandwidth, more connections.
Thanks Council!
|
|
Posted by not an AT&T user, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Jan 29, 2013 at 9:24 am Why is only AT&T doing this? Have all the other companies found better ways to handle this problem?
|
|
Posted by senor blogger, a resident of the Palo Verde neighborhood, on Jan 29, 2013 at 10:25 am So, This is why the Utilities Department wants to stop undergrounding Utility Poles..... They are now a source of income.
|
|
Posted by frustrated, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Jan 29, 2013 at 11:01 am AT&T recently installed one of the new antennas on our street, 2 houses down from our house. It is up and running but it hasn't helped houses in the immediate vicinity! Apparently it works for people further out but not those of us in very close proximity. They removed a tree that was hiding the telephone phone to install the antenna. So, we now have the hum of the fan, the tower, removed landscaping and no better AT%T connections. Very frustrating.
|
|
Posted by Sylvia, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Jan 29, 2013 at 11:03 am I agree with not an AT&T User. I have Verizon and get close to zero reception at my home. A co-worker called with an important task for me one morning, and the call was dropped before he could complete his sentence. I had to call HIS working cell back on my land line.
When these antennas are installed, I will likely be switching carriers.
|
|
Posted by Elizabeth, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Jan 29, 2013 at 11:09 am I'd like to see a map of all these locations (much easier than mapping each). Anyone know if one has been published somewhere?
|
|
Posted by Robert Brown, a resident of the South of Midtown neighborhood, on Jan 29, 2013 at 11:15 am Can anyone provide a link to a map showing the new antenna locations?
|
|
Posted by KP, a resident of the South of Midtown neighborhood, on Jan 29, 2013 at 11:15 am I just hope it helps the reception around here!
@ Resident I agree - And...I believe, "be careful what you wish for"! (or in this case, against!)
The ballpark could have been collecting a nice little monthly rent from AT&T (min $1500 mo). Oh well.
|
|
Posted by sandy, a resident of the Barron Park neighborhood, on Jan 29, 2013 at 11:31 am So happy to have cell phone reception!
|
|
Posted by musical, a resident of the Palo Verde neighborhood, on Jan 29, 2013 at 11:46 am City's webpage from nine months ago -- Web Link -- "AT&T DAS Citywide Wireless Communications Project"
Has a link to AT&T's DAS FAQ for Palo Alto page -- Web Link
Which has a link to a 1.5MB pdf "Application for Development Review Permit" (April 26, 2012) -- Web Link
Maps are found on page 15, 16, 17 of this latter document.
Maybe someone here can find a better more convenient rendition.
|
|
Posted by Mr.Recycle, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Jan 29, 2013 at 11:56 am Here is an image I created with Google Maps. Can't guarantee all the plot points are exactly right, but I think they are.
Web Link
Anyone know why there are so few in PA North? The reception is just as bad or worse around here.
Also, anyone have a photo of what the antennas actually look like?
|
|
Posted by musical, a resident of the Palo Verde neighborhood, on Jan 29, 2013 at 12:09 pm Nice work Mr Recycle -- check out the following for more antenna locations, e.g. Phase 2.
My earlier reference was just phase-4 of the roll-out, South Palo Alto, Barron Park
The AT&T DAS FAQ page also has links to the other phases, with maps.
Phase 3 -- Web Link -- maps page 9-12, Midtown to Mountain View border
Phase 2 -- Web Link -- maps page 9-12, North Palo Alto
Phase 1 -- Web Link -- maps page 9-12, Embarcadero-Oregon area
|
|
Posted by Go Gators!, a resident of the Palo Verde neighborhood, on Jan 29, 2013 at 12:17 pm I vote they place all of the antennas in Larry Magid's front yard.
Remembering that ATT wanted to install one lone disguised tower at the back of the Eichler Swim and Tennis Club. The tower was to back up onto the adjacent industrial site. A certain Merc News mouth breather, who makes a living off jawing about technology, came out with "Health Concerns" that inflamed the neighborhood with junk science.
The ATT proposal was a win for Eichler (rent) and a win for the neighborhood as there would not be multiple birds nest antennas erected all over area.
Again, pleas dont forget his brilliant reporting and insightful analysis. Please thank Larry for the telephone pole porcupines springing up all over our neighborhood.
Thanks Larry! Great work.
|
|
Posted by Elated, a resident of the Ventura neighborhood, on Jan 29, 2013 at 1:05 pm Hurray for every iPhone user in South Palo Alto, and boy, are there A LOT of us. I'm sick of getting dropped calls in my own home, so I'm tremendously excited that we're finally going to get proper coverage!!!
|
|
Posted by Gracie, a resident of the Old Palo Alto neighborhood, on Jan 29, 2013 at 1:39 pm Two new AT&T antennas were recently installed within two blocks of my home. My AT&T cell phone reception didn't improve one bit!!
My bar strength remained the same. I feel sorry for Steve Job's widow. She has a very noisy, buzzing antenna on the utility pole in front of her house. The noise is surprisingly loud. Are any of the new antennas going to be placed in front of any city council member's homes? Just wondering.
|
|
Posted by Gail, a resident of the Old Palo Alto neighborhood, on Jan 29, 2013 at 1:49 pm It is just a matter of time before Verizon and the other carriers request similar towers in our neighborhoods. Apparently the various carriers don't share the towers. Soon, we will have a proliferation of these unsightly, buzzing edifices all over our town.
|
|
Posted by Verizon user, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Jan 29, 2013 at 2:08 pm Our reception with Verizon improved a LOT several years ago and I did not have any explanation at all - though my recollection is the PA shop later said it was because they put antennas and/or other related equipment on the Stanford campus. I also thought it was stated that Stanford was getting $$$ for this. We are near 101, not near Stanford, though.
I feel for homeowners who are near theis awful-sounding AT&T equipment - doesn't appear to be any near us according to the list and I have not seen it to my knowledge, and I hope they don't get the idea to install it near us. There ought to be technological improvements so the equipment is smaller/more aesthetic. It truly does sound terrible - are homeowners in other cities subject to this, too?
|
|
Posted by MzMiranda, a resident of Menlo Park, on Jan 29, 2013 at 2:56 pm Look at what the Europeans think about the health risks....T-Mobile put up a huge one across from our house last year, and it is very unsightly and can be seen from all around the neighborhood. This is a real slippery slope. And we don't even use T-Mobile. Why put it in the middle of Allied Arts?
LIke a drug company advertising a new drug and ten years later admitting they knew it would hurt people. I wonder what the health effects of all this will be.
|
|
Posted by David Slone, a resident of the Leland Manor/Garland Drive neighborhood, on Jan 29, 2013 at 2:57 pm Leland Manor has underground utilities, so our household is not directly affected (no poles to hang the equipment on).
But as an accommodation, AT&T could ease the pain by giving the impacted people free cellular service for as long as the equipment is within X feet of their houses. Of course that adds the pain of having AT&T as your cellular service provider, but some might consider that a decent trade-off.
|
|
Posted by Palo Alto native, a resident of the Charleston Meadows neighborhood, on Jan 30, 2013 at 10:31 am Finally I will be able to pick up a cell phone signal inside of my house.
|
|
Posted by whatajoke, a resident of the Palo Verde neighborhood, on Feb 12, 2013 at 10:32 am 1. Why do people think that they have a right to good cell phone coverage, regardless of where they live or what carrier they subscribe to? I'd like better access to an airport serving NYC; so let's build one parallel to Alma Street.
2. How much money is Palo Alto City getting for this from ATT? Is it a fixed amount (i.e. annual fee) per site? Why is it not a fee based upon the traffic (i.e. number of connections, length of call, etc) that is going through those sites? That way the revenue would go up with usage growth and improved technology. If there is this much demand, then we (the city) should get the maximum amount we can.
|
|
|
| |
Best Website
First Place
2009-2012
|
Send this story
Print this story
