News

Residents appeal AT&T antenna plan

Critics of proposed antennas force city to reconsider approval of cell equipment

AT&T's plan to install 19 antennas on utility poles throughout Palo Alto will have to undergo an additional review after several residents filed letters appealing the city's approval of the company's application.

The city's Architectural Review Board (ARB) approved on Dec. 8 a proposal by AT&T to install the antennas -- the first phase in the company's plan to put up 80 antennas. The approval came despite opposition from dozens of residents, many of whom attended the meeting and protested the company's plan. Planning Director Curtis Williams had also signed off on the plan.

In the weeks after the ARB approval, several critics submitted letters appealing the AT&T plan. The appeals, which were widely expected, mean the AT&T proposal will now have to go to the City Council for approval.

Much like at the ARB meeting, critics of the AT&T plan urged the city in the appeal letters to pursue a more comprehensive approach for wireless equipment rather than approve applications on a case-by-case basis.

"This first application is part of a band-aid approach and does not represent the spirit of community and activism that Palo Alto is known for," Paula Rantz wrote in her appeal letter. "There is a reason that Palo Alto is such a beautiful community. It is because of the efforts of all that have come before us and we need to continue to be involved and have ownership of how our city grows. There is no reason why we cannot create a comprehensive plan for voice, video and data."

Stacey Bishop, a resident of Leland Avenue, also appealed the ARB approval and argued in her letter that the proposed tower at 1880 Park Blvd. would destroy the great view her family currently enjoys. Bishop noted that her family "purposefully placed second-story windows so that each window would have an unobstructed view of Peers Park" and had spent "several thousand dollars to bury the power lines outside our home for aesthetic reasons."

"The proposed cell tower at 1880 Park Blvd would negate all this investment," Bishop wrote. "Instead of seeing beautiful Peers Park when she looks outside her bedroom window, our 3-year-old daughter would be staring at a hideous antenna equipment box."

The City Council is tentatively scheduled to hold a public hearing on the AT&T proposal on Jan. 23.

Comments

Like this comment
Posted by member
a resident of Duveneck School
on Dec 30, 2011 at 10:33 am

Where are the 19 locations for the ATT installations?


Like this comment
Posted by Jared Bernstein
a resident of Professorville
on Dec 30, 2011 at 10:41 am

I'd like to join with the writers of Appeal letters, but to advocate taking down all the unsightly telephone poles and putting our utilities underground.

Adding some blob-box antennas on top of existing poles seems to be OK; these antennas are a small degradation to the pole'n'wire street aesthetics in many neighborhoods.


Like this comment
Posted by Seriously?
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Dec 30, 2011 at 10:44 am

NIMBYs out in full force! Palo Alto did not become a tech mecca and the epicenter of growth because NIMBYs got the last word. Wake up citizens and embrace the future. Will you be able to survive without your cell phone and wireless internet? Puhleez!


Like this comment
Posted by Paul
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Dec 30, 2011 at 11:06 am

This sad story of a 3 year old losing her view of the park - I'm confused, I thought this proposal is to put antennas on existing poles, not erect new ones as Stacey Bishop implies. When I look in Google maps at that address, it shows a telephone pole (assuming it is accurate location) - not a very pretty telephone pole, btw. Putting a small antenna on top of it should not materially affect this 3 year old's view of the world.

Get a grip, people.


Like this comment
Posted by palo alto mom
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Dec 30, 2011 at 11:08 am

I assume that all the people in opposition of the cell towers do not have or plan to get cell phones.


Like this comment
Posted by NIMBY
a resident of Crescent Park
on Dec 30, 2011 at 11:14 am

Why can't those people who are so disgusted with the so-called NIMBYs
understand that AT&T doesn't give a damn about anything but their own bottom line? If they thought they could get away with it, believe me, they'd install one directly 'up your back yard'. Critics of NIMBY's...
line up and volunteer for your own personal installation. Once it's on top of you and you have to listen to it 24/7, let us know how you feel. Oh, by the way...if there's an earthquake that shakes a transmitter down onto a powerline and catches your house on fire, just call AT&T.
I'm sure that they'll be happy to spring into action for you.


Like this comment
Posted by member
a resident of Evergreen Park
on Dec 30, 2011 at 11:27 am

There is also a front-page article in today's (12/30/11) "Daily News".

<http:www.mercurynews.com/ci 19644689#>


Like this comment
Posted by Jim H
a resident of Community Center
on Dec 30, 2011 at 11:31 am

Cell phones are an entrenched part of society today. I'm sure that most if not all of the opponents of the new boxes use cell phones.

My question to opponents of this approved system is what exactly do you propose that would provide an equal level of service and would be acceptable to you?

No - moving the box down the street to be in front of someone else's house is not a solution.

Please make your proposal specific. Not something like
"a comprehensive plan for voice, video and data".



Like this comment
Posted by Steve
a resident of Professorville
on Dec 30, 2011 at 11:33 am

"Seriously?" Please define "survive"....

Besides are you really serious enough to belive that AT&T is the only game in town?

"Rethink PUH-LEEZZZZ!"


Like this comment
Posted by JA3+
a resident of Crescent Park
on Dec 30, 2011 at 11:38 am

I strongly urge the City Council to deny the appeals and uphold the prior ruling.


Like this comment
Posted by Resident
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Dec 30, 2011 at 11:40 am

My oh my. Now we see why nothing is ever achieved in Palo Alto.

I assume the Bishop family do not have cell phones and do not wish to ever sell their home, after all, they will have to give a disclosure about cell phone reception in their home to any prospective buyer.

Mind you, I would like to get rid of all the utilities poles in Palo Alto also, then maybe all of us can have more pleasant views - I can see several from where I am sitting in my home at the moment and it would be much nicer not to see them.


Like this comment
Posted by Alice
a resident of Addison School
on Dec 30, 2011 at 11:41 am

Antennas should be installed in commercial and industrial zones, not
in residential neighborhoods where they will have an adverse effect
on individual homeownwers. They can be placed on tall buildings and
in certain cases, towers may be approved where voters feel it would
be most appropriate.


Like this comment
Posted by JA3+
a resident of Crescent Park
on Dec 30, 2011 at 11:48 am

"purposefully placed second-story windows so that each window would have an unobstructed view of Peers Park"

But, existing telephone & power lines appear to run along the Peers Park side of this home, near or just above the second story of this home. In addition, telephone &/or power lines appear to run overhead from the nearby pole -- its roughly located near the corner of the home, at the street -- over to the Park itself.

Thus, the view from the second story of this home is not unobstructed. Instead, existing utility lines run overhead along this side of the house and from the nearby pole over to the Park.


Like this comment
Posted by the_punnisher
a resident of Mountain View
on Dec 30, 2011 at 12:01 pm

the_punnisher is a registered user.

I don't own a cell phone..when I use wireless types of communication, they stay at arm's length and are much lower than 2 Watt transmitters.

You see the effects on cell phone user's BRAINS every time you drive or go to grocery store.

Much like technology helped destroy the Roman Empire, the same effect is destroying our "civil" ization. You roll the dice every time you put a cell phone to your ear. Tissue is destroyed by radio waves, that is a proven fact.

True science deals with an effect AFTER it happens, not PREDICTING an effect. I hope you like being voluntary test subjects for AT&T...


Like this comment
Posted by the_punnisher
a resident of Mountain View
on Dec 30, 2011 at 12:07 pm

the_punnisher is a registered user.

P.S. I have worked with " radio transmitters " all my life. From the high power " transmitters " that helped build ICs to the " footwarmers " for CB radios, I've seen them all...Early computers were excellent transmitters too. A Cray is good for 3/4 of a mile....then TEMPEST came along....


Like this comment
Posted by Unbelievable!
a resident of another community
on Dec 30, 2011 at 12:26 pm


Subscribing to Palo Alto Online is soooooo entertaining - and these comments really illustrate why. Wow! If you people only had some REAL problems to complain about... ridiculous.


Like this comment
Posted by JR
a resident of Barron Park
on Dec 30, 2011 at 12:40 pm

Dear "Unbelievable",
So...you like to be entertained, and you are a critic and judge. May I suggest 'Dancing with the Stars' or something along those lines for you? Or maybe a better question, What's YOUR problem? Perhaps we of the ridiculous persuasion can help. Have a "soooooo..Wow!" day!!
Oh! Please excuse us while we confur... and Deepest thanks for your thoughtful consideration. Your 2 cents has been absolutely priceless! xojr


Like this comment
Posted by Unbelievable!
a resident of another community
on Dec 30, 2011 at 12:46 pm


JR, happy to oblige! Glad you noticed my post. I simply think it's ridiculous for PA residents to spend so much time on triviality when there are so many critical and real problems present in this country (not to mention the state or the Bay Area) right now. Too many to list. If I were really investing so much time in fighting wireless antennas, I'd be embarrassed - truly. Look in the mirror! I'm being totally serious!


Like this comment
Posted by Richard
a resident of College Terrace
on Dec 30, 2011 at 1:06 pm

AT&T should provide public demonstrations of their equipment undergoing seismic safety testing (with assistance from the USGS) as the transmitters are designed to be installed above the power lines.

Additionally, residents deserve an audio demo which will accurately create the equipment noise which homeowners will be forced to endure once the transmitters are operational.


Like this comment
Posted by JR
a resident of Barron Park
on Dec 30, 2011 at 1:16 pm

"Unbelievable", From your response, you sound like someone who may have the analytical potential to have chosen a cause which you believe to be truly important to you. Why waste your time nosing in and criticizing the "ridiculous" concerns of others? If you're not sure what deserving
non-profit to serve , just skip the mirror, and ask the people that love you what they think you should do.


Like this comment
Posted by Sprint_diy
a resident of Midtown
on Dec 30, 2011 at 1:53 pm

Sprint will allow customers to install a wave unit at no cost to boost reception of your cellphone and it plugs into existing DSL or cable modems! A thin wire runs into the attic and the box runs on 2.5 A 12 volts and is totally silent. Looks like a small easy solution for me. When I am outside I have no recepton problems anywhere in Palo Alto and I get 4G at lightning fast speeds on my Android. Cheap, no radiation issues with blasting long range signal (300 ft radius) and annoying ATT transformer buzzing and I get great reception. Has ATT thought of this? Maybe all the complainers should switch to Sprint! Toss the contracts and complain to the BBB. Problem is you are all locked into IPHONE ATT CONTRACTS!!! JOIN THE NOW NETWORK...SPRINT 4G...


Like this comment
Posted by rem
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Dec 30, 2011 at 2:17 pm

rem is a registered user.

AS I SAID in the 21 Dec 11 article.

"HOT DOG, I will be able to walk around my house with out losing a signal..

By the way I have been using a cell phone since 1995..."

Wonder what the STAFF will delete this time...?????!!!!!

Folks - get a life!! Cell phone are here to stay


Like this comment
Posted by Important for cell towers
a resident of Midtown
on Dec 30, 2011 at 2:24 pm

It always happens....Just Get it Done. cell phone reception is very important.


Like this comment
Posted by JA3+
a resident of Crescent Park
on Dec 30, 2011 at 2:28 pm

"Has ATT thought of this?"

Yes; AT&T markets a Femtocell; it's branded '3G MicroCell'. I have two (2): one (1) here at work and one (1) at home; they work well. But, as with nearly all standard-issue femtocells, they have a very limited range.
_____

"no radiation issues with blasting long range signal (300 ft radius) "

Sprint's latest femtocell -- the latest version of the Airave -- has a coverage area of approximtately 5,000 square feet; see here:

Web Link

5,000 square feet might be roughly a radius of 40 feet, not 300 feet as stated in your post.

Radiation at the handset is a far, far bigger issue than radiation emitted by DAS units or cell towers. Even with a femtocell, the user needs to keep the handset away from his or her head


Like this comment
Posted by iphony
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Dec 30, 2011 at 4:18 pm

Be honest, almost all of the opposition to these antennas are because you think they are ugly. You face a tremendously larger health risk from automobile pollution and no one is trying to ban those.


Like this comment
Posted by stretch
a resident of another community
on Dec 30, 2011 at 5:07 pm

I've heard sad stories before, but this one is a bit over the top. Destroying a 3-year-old's view by adding an antenna to the top of a telephone pole? Please. Having an antenna fall on power lines, catching a house on fire? Unlikely. And I'm still trying to figure out why anyone would want to "confur"! Sounds scarier than all rest of the dripping sarcasm from JR.


Like this comment
Posted by JA3+
a resident of Crescent Park
on Dec 30, 2011 at 5:57 pm

[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]


Like this comment
Posted by Bill
a resident of Barron Park
on Dec 30, 2011 at 6:38 pm

All known cancer agents act by breaking chemical bonds in DNA, creating mutant strands that may multiply to become cancers. Microwave photons are orders of magnitude short of being able to break chemical bonds. The Federal Communications Commission, the Food and Drug Administration and the American Cancer Society recognize this.

It was Einstein who pointed out in 1905 that microwave radiation is not ionizing, for which he was awarded the 1921 Nobel Prize in Physics. Microwave photons are not energetic enough to break a chemical bond in DNA, so mutations (cancer) cannot occur from this method. It's true microwaves can heat tissue. However, the very large blood flow in the brain serves as an effective coolant.


Like this comment
Posted by the_punnisher
a resident of Mountain View
on Dec 30, 2011 at 7:20 pm

the_punnisher is a registered user.

Nice deflection, Bill...

Bottom line, WE DO NOT KNOW what happens at the lower levels when excitation of electrons and molecules are involved, especially when QUANTA are involved.

The THEORIES quoted are already proven to have " discontinuities " in them, which the LHC is working on...and why it was built in the first place..

You see, I can throw out the technical jargon ( known as HS by the common folk ) as well as anyone. There are far too many unanswered questions to become test subjects for a for-profit company..

Or do you LIKE what PG&E did to a certain group of people just north of you?

Again, REAL SCIENCE deals with OBSERVED FACTS FIRST, then tries to create a THEORY based on the observed facts, NOT SPECULATE ON CAUSE AND EFFECT.

I made a good living at using this simple distinction when it comes to staying on the " bleeding edge " of technology.




Like this comment
Posted by Anonymous
a resident of another community
on Dec 30, 2011 at 9:25 pm

The other cellular service providers have much better coverage than AT&T without 19 residential antennae. Why can't AT&T buy their way onto their towers?

Looking at the map, a tower at Caltrain on California, one near Paly HS and another on the main library should cover the same area. But real towers, not micro-antennae.


Like this comment
Posted by Sprint_diy
a resident of Midtown
on Dec 30, 2011 at 9:30 pm

I believe that ATT has EMI signal blasting range issue in the city due to getting on the ball too late. There may be an issue with my area...we have what I think is a Sprint tower as a huge blast signal flagpole at the Fire station corner of middlefield and east meadow. Now I think ATT wants to put one at the little league ballpark to compete...or is it some other carrier that was late to the game? Regardless, no one asks to remove the flagpole and no one wants the little league tower. If it is only cosmetic then ATT could put these little ugly alien looking buggers all over the place instead of a blast tower that is camoflaged (tree, flagpole etc.) My point is that I get coverage and my carrier is Sprint and I get indoor coverage with the wave.beyond 40 feet. It is about a two house radius. You can tell because of the warning beep that says you are hooked to the wave. After two houses it links with a blast tower.


Like this comment
Posted by Sprint_diy
a resident of Midtown
on Dec 31, 2011 at 4:19 am

Maybe the title should be "Caught in the Wind" Does anyone remember the Tacoma Bridge disaster?

Web Link

Thank God I have Sprint!


Like this comment
Posted by Larry
a resident of Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Dec 31, 2011 at 6:17 am

I worked for 10 years on the 96th floor of the Sears Tower in Chicago, mere feet below 1,000,000 watt broadcast antennas. Sorry, but my brain wasn't fried and I haven't developed cancer. None of my limbs has atrophied and fallen off. For you freaks that still think that cell phones are dangerous- get an education. I assure you that if many lawyers have tried to tap into that paranoia but have never been able to come up with anything.
The transmitting power of cell phones automatically drops to the lowest level possible to extend battery life. In many cases they are transmitting in milliwatts. The more towers, the lower power they use. In addition to which radiated energy drops logarithmically based on distance. A few feet, much less inches, drops your received energy to nil. Do you wear a tinfoil hat to protect the small amount of brain you have left from all the radio and TV stations broadcasting, and wifi and GPS signals? Oh my, the sad state of education today.


Like this comment
Posted by A-Strong-Wireless-Signal-Is-Good
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Dec 31, 2011 at 8:24 am

[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]


Like this comment
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis
a resident of Midtown
on Dec 31, 2011 at 8:26 am

Walter_E_Wallis is a registered user.

For a 10% discount on my cell bill they can stack several towers on my ute poles. [2 in front of my house]


Like this comment
Posted by JA3+
a resident of Crescent Park
on Dec 31, 2011 at 8:31 am

"The other cellular service providers have much better coverage than AT&T without 19 residential antennae."

In part, it's AT&T's use of GSM, rather than CDMA; and, in part, it's AT&T's first-mover advantage with Apple's iPhone, with many subscribers here switching to the product from other carriers.

Whatever the reason, though, Palo Alto needs many, many more cell towers and DAS units; for a City of its size, Palo Alto has far, far too few towers and DASs.

Robust cell coverage will reduce handset radiation, with concomitant health benefits to the end-user.


Like this comment
Posted by JA3+
a resident of Crescent Park
on Dec 31, 2011 at 8:34 am

"For a 10% discount on my cell bill they can stack several towers on my ute poles. [2 in front of my house]"

Great idea; I'll take a twist on your concept here, Walter: I'll sign a ten (10) year subscriber contract with AT&T to install several Tyco DAS units on light poles on my street, including one right across from our house.


Like this comment
Posted by JA3+
a resident of Crescent Park
on Dec 31, 2011 at 8:37 am

"The more towers, the lower power they use. In addition to which radiated energy drops logarithmically based on distance. A few feet, much less inches, drops your received energy to nil. "

These statements are really the key to understanding why so many engineers in Palo Alto are so concerned with the efforts of a certain few to stop the installation of cell towers and DAS units in our City. As an engineer, I urge the City to overturn the appeals filed against the prior City approval.

We need more towers; we need more DAS.


Like this comment
Posted by KJ
a resident of Charleston Meadows
on Dec 31, 2011 at 10:24 am

Two points:

1) A cell tower does not "blast" an area with radiation. Cell transmission is symmetric, so a cell tower produces the same power as a cell phone, but multiplied by the number of connections. Because power rolls off with radius squared, your body receives thousands of times more radiation from using a single cell phone than standing near a cell tower with hundreds of connections.

Similarly, walking through a crowded Starbucks produces much more radiation exposure than standing near a cell tower.

2) If Palo Alto is truly concerned about reducing radiation exposure, then they would put cell towers on *EVERY* pole. This would allow every phone and cell to operate at lowest possible power, and radiation levels would be reduced everywhere.

But limiting the number of towers increases transmission distances, which requires more power and exposes everyone (including NIMBYs) to increased radiation.


Like this comment
Posted by John
a resident of Evergreen Park
on Dec 31, 2011 at 10:38 am

Why is it that so many people seem to lump "AT&T's DAS Proposal" with "Cell Phones are here to stay"? And, have the "volunteers" who have professed their willingness to "host" installations near their homes checked with their neighbors for their opinions on the proximty?

Most opponents to the proposal seem to have concerns regarding protection of the views from their windows and yards, concerns regarding annoying noise, various safety concerns, and according to homeowners, the depreciating resale value of their homes. AT&T has so far refused to offer any accurate demonstration that duplicates the noise that the amplifier cooler fans will make and Palo Alto's Planning Director has not shown any interest in this being an issue.

Many people have agreed that, given a choice, they would not buy a home that exists in the shadow of an AT&T installation as it is currently designed. We all seem to agree that we want improved wireless reception but why at the expense of unlucky homeowners who feel very strongly about the individual imposition?

If AT&T really respected Palo Alto's homeowners, they would offer alternatives which are available, and which are less intrusive and offensive. It seems that AT&T is determined to force this proposal down the throats of people who do not want it. It must be challenging
for them when they're receiving the support of those who aren't being so adversely effected, and who only want better reception regardless
of who it might undermine in terms of investment security and peace of mind.

The divide and conquer strategy that AT&T is using is admittedly brilliant considering how of many of their users are constantly complaing about poor reception, a result of AT&T over- selling their service without supplying the necessary support to be successful. Is this the Trojan Horse or the cart before the horse? Either way, it's difficult to trust this company considering the way that they have presented themselves.

We already know that if this proposal passes, it includes a current plan for a total of installations, 71 of which AT&T has refused to disclose the addresses. Do you think that's because they don't want to offer you a chance to disagree? If this is their strategy for getting things done, how many more will there really be in the end and what design and accompanying noise will be forced upon us in the future?

Do you like surprises? When our home was chosen for a front door installation we went into defense mode for the reasons previously mentioned. Will you feel differently than you do now if you have one of these installations placed within 6 feet of your property?





Like this comment
Posted by ATT User
a resident of Leland Manor/Garland Drive
on Dec 31, 2011 at 11:03 am

It is truely amazing how bad palo alto cellphone coverage is compared to the rest of the world and the fact that our community cannot resolve this is a sad.

If this is just about putting antena on existing structures, then it is tragic our government just continues to delay what is clearly needed.

Cellphone coverage is more than a convinence but a public safety issue as it enable people to report crimes and track their children. Our government should work much harder to ensure we have adequate coverage instead of preventing it.








Like this comment
Posted by cellphone coverage
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Dec 31, 2011 at 11:15 am

Cell phone coverage is not bad in Palo Alto. AT&T is bad in Palo Alto. There is a big difference. If you want better coverage, choose any other carrier. That's how capitalism works.


Like this comment
Posted by Jim H
a resident of Community Center
on Dec 31, 2011 at 12:14 pm

cellphone coverage

You're right. AT&T has bad coverage in Palo Alto. Verizon has better coverage.

But you're wrong that I should have to switch carriers because AT&T has bad coverage here. I prefer AT&T because it's a world phone unlike Verizon. Also, If I happen to be in Belmont and AT&T has better coverage and Verizon should I then change to AT&T?

AT&T is trying to improve it's coverage here just as all cell phone companies are trying to increase coverage in markets that require it. They are doing what they should.

I'm glad you are happy with a different carrier. But to deny AT&T the ability to improve there coverage to equal what another carrier already has would be a non fair playing field for a capital company no?


Like this comment
Posted by John kvam
a resident of Midtown
on Dec 31, 2011 at 3:22 pm

I have a pole in my backyard, and I'd be absolutely happy to have ATT put a cell tower on it. I'm tired of poor cell phone reception.


Like this comment
Posted by JA3+
a resident of Crescent Park
on Dec 31, 2011 at 6:33 pm

"If Palo Alto is truly concerned about reducing radiation exposure, then they would put cell towers on *EVERY* pole."

Agree in full; +1.


Like this comment
Posted by JA3+
a resident of Crescent Park
on Dec 31, 2011 at 6:37 pm

"If AT&T really respected Palo Alto's homeowners, they would offer alternatives which are available ..."

Please identify such alternatives; and, if possible, please point to technical specs for each. Thank you in advance.


Like this comment
Posted by puzzled
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Jan 1, 2012 at 10:15 am

What is the noise issue with the antennas? The visual impact seems to be very slight and no scientific study has shown a health impact. What kind of noise do they transmit?


Like this comment
Posted by JA3+
a resident of Crescent Park
on Jan 1, 2012 at 1:21 pm

"What kind of noise do they transmit?"

From AT&T's 6 Sept 2011 submittal to the City for ASRB review:

"Two of the cabinets produce measureable acoustical results. Both have theoretical maximum acoustical performance of 46dB, without isolating ambient noise from the environment, at a distance of 20 feet, which is a rough approximation of the typical distance from a user on the ground. AT&T Mobility expects the actual acoustical performance of the cabinet to be quieter than these theoretical maximums."

Source here:
Web Link

See middle of page 7.

As I understand, the noise is generated by a fan at each cabinet; I've searched Tyco/ADC/TE's web sites and do not find any noise data.


Like this comment
Posted by JA3+
a resident of Crescent Park
on Jan 1, 2012 at 1:29 pm

Here's a link to a brochure for Tyco's FlexWave Prism product:
Web Link

See page 10 for mention of the fan.

AT&T is proposing to use a Tyco FlexWave Prism Quad-Band product; see the plans here:
Web Link


Like this comment
Posted by JA3+
a resident of Crescent Park
on Jan 1, 2012 at 1:32 pm

When is the public hearing on the appeal?
_____

On a related note, is anyone else having trouble obtaining a copy of the latest City Council agenda? See here:
Web Link

On my computer, I see quite a few unreadable characters; anyone else getting a clean, readable copy?


Like this comment
Posted by puzzled
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Jan 1, 2012 at 1:33 pm

@JA3+ - Thanks.


Like this comment
Posted by Jerryl
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Jan 1, 2012 at 8:30 pm

I contacted the FCC about poor cellular coverage in Palo Alto and, later, was put in touch with someone in the office of an AT&T VP. I offered to let them put a cell tower in my back yard.

AT&T was criticized for trying to put a larger cellular site on a church property. Verizon was blasted for proposing a cell site next to the Little League outfield. It seems as if this DAS proposal ought to satisfy those critics. But, NO. Now they are told that they ought to be putting up more high powered sites.

All the criticism I have seen seems like so much grasping at straws in delaying actions with little basis in fact or logic.

CITY COUNCIL: Deny these appeals and let's get these projects moving.


Like this comment
Posted by power lines here to stay
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Jan 3, 2012 at 10:27 am

Good luck ever undergrounding our unsightly power lines once they have cell transmitters on them. How ridiculous that our property values and taxes are so high and we have to put up with aerial power lines at all.


Like this comment
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis
a resident of Midtown
on Jan 3, 2012 at 4:04 pm

Walter_E_Wallis is a registered user.

I have power lines in both front and back. In 40 years they have never harmed me. They have shed no leaves, nor have their roots deformed my sidewalk.
All the high voltage is safely over head, not lurking below grade waiting for some gardener or plumber to bring up a shovel full of sparks.
There are a lot more things I would like to spend $10,000.00 on that a shovel full of sparks.


Like this comment
Posted by Kevin
a resident of Menlo Park
on Jan 4, 2012 at 8:58 am

Poor Stacy Bishop and her spoiled 3 year old.. .they clearly have a case of "1st world, white people problems"


Like this comment
Posted by Robert
a resident of Charleston Meadows
on Jan 9, 2012 at 4:20 pm

I fully agree with whoever the helicopter mother of the 3-year-old is. In fact, my unborn children are going to have severe eyesores because of the ugly architecture of many sections in Palo Alto. We should raze all them buildings to the ground so they can see Baylands from El Camino.


Like this comment
Posted by Resident
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jan 9, 2012 at 5:01 pm

There is a huge banner on a house near Ohlone school saying no antennae near Ohlone school. I hope they are also getting rid of all the microwave ovens in the school and the school wifi, as well as all the teachers cell phones, etc.


Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

Populism: A response to the failure of the elites: Palo Alto edition
By Douglas Moran | 10 comments | 1,478 views

Let's Talk Internships
By John Raftrey and Lori McCormick | 1 comment | 1,361 views

Couples: Sex and Connection (Chicken or Egg?)
By Chandrama Anderson | 1 comment | 1,091 views

Zucchini Takeover
By Laura Stec | 2 comments | 897 views

Mountain View's Hangen Szechuan to close after 25 years
By Elena Kadvany | 0 comments | 781 views