News

City pushes back against Verizon proposals

Telecom urged to build vaults for proposed wireless equipment

Facing a flurry of new applications for wireless antennas, Palo Alto officials are pushing back against proposed designs for the new equipment and considering a challenge to recently adopted federal rules that will make it easier for telecommunication companies to receive approvals.

Just this month, the city's Architectural Review Board had reviewed three different applications for new wireless equipment, two from Crown Castle on behalf of Verizon Wireless and another by Vinculums, also on behalf of Verizon. Meanwhile, the city's Planning and Transportation Commission endorsed changing local law on wireless equipment to comply with new federal regulations around "small wireless facilities."

The regulations, which the Federal Communications Commission adopted in September, create new "shotclocks" — time limits for reviews — for the types of wireless equipment typically mounted on local streetlights and utility poles. The new rules, which will take effect in January, give the city 60 days to review an application for wireless equipment that would be mounted on an existing pole or 90 days for an application that uses a new structure. Currently, the law includes a 150-day "shotclock" for such facilities.

Both the review process and the proposed code change come at a time when the city has applications for about 100 new wireless facilities going through the permitting process, Deputy City Attorney Albert Yang told the planning commission during its Dec. 12 discussion of the new rules. They also come at a time when wireless equipment is becoming an increasingly polarizing community topic, as evidenced by recent appeals from citizens whose neighborhood poles are being furnished with the new equipment.

The rash of proposals has created a tricky quandary for Palo Alto officials, who are trying to balance the city's demand for data with its desire to preserve neighborhood aesthetics. At the same time, local officials are navigating through a "highly litigated and regulated area," in the words of Architectural Review Board Chair Wynne Furth. Federal laws prohibit local jurisdictions from considering the health effects of new wireless equipment or from taking too long to review the proposals.

Even so, Palo Alto officials have done their part to slow down the Verizon projects. Of the three Verizon proposals that the board reviewed this month, it recommended rejecting one application, continued another to next month and approved the third.

Even the Dec. 6 affirmative vote was a mixed blessing for Verizon. In approving six street pole-mounted "nodes," the board included a key condition: that all equipment and associated wiring be located underground or completely concealed. Verizon has consistently resisted such directions in the past.

"I think we need to keep our eye on the ball that we want to keep equipment underground or out of site," said Architectural Review Board member Peter Baltay, who made the motion to require Verizon to build underground vaults for its downtown equipment.

The board's vote went further than the recommendation of planning staff, which had suggested approving four pole-mounted nodes (345 Forest Ave.; 248 Homer Ave.; 845 Ramona St.; and 190 Channing Ave.) and denying two others (at 275 Forest Ave., immediately adjacent to City Hall, and 345 Forest Ave., which would be adjacent to the historic Staller Court building).

Baltay faced a similar dilemma on Dec. 20, when the board considered the Vinculums proposal for seven cell nodes, one near Stanford Shopping Center and six in the Barron Park neighborhood. At that hearing, Baltay said he can't make the finding that the design would "enhance the surrounding area."

The board, he said, has in the past taken the view that utility poles are "ugly" and that placing new equipment on these poles is acceptable because "they're just making it a little bit more ugly."

"It's a bad situation. We're just making it a little bit worse," Baltay said.

Such logic, Baltay said, places the board on the slippery slope of allowing "incrementally worse" designs, rather than approving designs that "enhance" the area. In this case, the only way this can be achieved is through concealing equipment by building an underground fault, he said.

His colleagues generally agreed. Board member Osma Thompson said the new equipment "is not enhancing our surroundings." Board member David Hirsch was more blunt.

"We seem to be living in a world in which everything gets more cluttered and this effect is shown here as well," said Hirsch, referring to the Barron Park applications. "The light poles used to start out with just light on top and now they have all kinds of garbage," Hirsch said.

From Verizon's perspective, there's a good reason for that: People are using far more data than they had in the past. Rochelle Swanson, a consultant with the firm SureSite, told the Architectural Review Board on Dec. 6 that the goal of the new equipment is to improve both coverage and capacity.

"Years back, it was really about coverage," said Swanson, whose firm is working with Crown Castle on the new application. "Now, it's really about capacity because of the ubiquitous use of wireless, not just for phones but tablets and laptops. The amount of people using data is in rapid increase."

Even so, some residents have pushed back against the idea that greater data usage should necessarily involve more pole equipment. In May, dozens attended a heated City Council meeting to voice opposition Verizon's plan to install 11 equipment nodes on poles in the Midtown area. Despite their appeal that Verizon should be required to install underground vaults, the council approved the project as proposed by the telecom giant.

Some of these arguments resurfaced last week. Jerry Fan, a resident of Whitsell Avenue, spoke on behalf of several of his Barron Park neighbors on Dec. 20, when he urged the board to either require an underground vault or a different location for the Verizon equipment.

In addition the aesthetic impact, the new equipment could pose a fire threat, Fan said. The proposed antenna, he noted, would be located immediately adjacent to a coastal redwood tree, creating a potentially dangerous situation.

"Since it's really close to the tree, I think the branches will be endangered on the tree, which would be a hazard to that tree," Fan said, shortly before the board voted 4-1, with member Alex Lew dissenting, to reject Verizon's proposal.

Immediately after the vote, Furth noted the challenge of reviewing applications from telecommunication companies for wireless equipment.

"From our point of view, they’re an oligopoly," Furth said. "They get to shape the rules in their favor against us. But we also appreciate the services they provide."

Palo Alto isn't the only city struggling with this issue. On Dec. 12, the planning commission heard about a legal challenge that more than a dozen cities — including San Jose, Los Angeles, Las Vegas and Portland, are mounting against the new FCC regulations. The planning commission ultimately agreed by a 4-1 vote to revise the local law to comply with the faster "shotclock" — a change that Deputy City Attorney Albert Yang said creates greater clarity about the local approval process. At the same time, commissioners agreed that the City Council should obtain a legal opinion on the ongoing litigation and decide whether Palo Alto should join the opposition.

Commissioner Doria Summa, the sole dissenter, was particularly skeptical about the new federal regulations and argued against conforming the city's regulations to the new FCC rules.

"It seems like there's a lot of moving parts to this and a lot that we don't know, including how many (wireless facilities) we can wind up with in the city," Summa said.

---

Follow the Palo Alto Weekly/Palo Alto Online on Twitter @PaloAltoWeekly and Facebook for breaking news, local events, photos, videos and more.

We can't do it without you.
Support local journalism.

Comments

24 people like this
Posted by resident
a resident of Community Center
on Dec 26, 2018 at 2:10 pm

We think "preserve neighborhood aesthetics" is kind of BS when these antennas are mostly on public streets that were once quiet and safe but now over-crowded with giant smelly SUVs. I don't think the antennas are any uglier than the traffic congestion.

However, I am concerned about only Verizon being involved right now. Do we have to go through all of this again with the other cell phone company's antennas? Is it possible for the different companies to share antennas?

Also, what happened to the proposals to put the antennas in the back of public parks where they are mostly invisible from home properties?


14 people like this
Posted by Shake Shake Shake
a resident of Palo Verde
on Dec 26, 2018 at 2:16 pm

Without a doubt, the tin foil hat crowd will chime in on how these things will give us all brain cancer. Setting this aside, lets look at a measurable effect of installing the cell towers on existing utility poles.

In all of my reviews into the provided documents, there have been no studies on how installing these things on existing wood utility poles will affect the seismic performance of the poles in a earthquake.

The utility poles were never designed to support this equipment. Poles have been tested for use with power and communication equipment. To the best of my knowledge, no independent testing agency has loaded the poles with expected power and communication cabling then added the cell tower equipment and subjected the poles to seismic shaking.

For Palo Alto, this is critical infrastructure. If instillation of the cell tower equipment to existing utility poles results in failure during an earthquake, we lose our power, telephone, cable TV, and internet services (at least in the bulk of PA where our utilities have not been installed underground).

Until some reliable third party testing results can be presented confirming that adding these additional loads (not to mention - lots of holes) will not result in weakening the utility poles, we cannot accept these micro-cell towers.


24 people like this
Posted by Resident
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Dec 26, 2018 at 3:08 pm

We have had signs on polls saying they were coming for some time, I would estimate over a year at least. Still they have not appeared. Cell phone coverage in certain parts of town are abysmal. Third world countries have better coverage.

Palo Alto can't underground its utilities and it can't get good cell phone service. One would never know we were in Silicon Valley where some of the brightest and most innovative people in the world live!


10 people like this
Posted by DANGER Will Robinson
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Dec 26, 2018 at 5:04 pm

> Without a doubt, the tin foil hat crowd will chime in on how these things will give us all brain cancer.

To many (especially Millennials and those younger) a smartphone is a lifeline to their seemingly petty universe.

As far as the health hazards are concerned...who knows? Probably no worse than eating a fast-food burger 3-4 times per week.

Cell phones initially came into existence to satisfy people's self-importance...as if everyone you see yakking on one has something really critical or important to convey.

It's just a sign of the times. Besides, there are no more payphones and to make a long-distance call you need to carry a $10 roll of quarters. Who wants to do that?


13 people like this
Posted by Rick
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Dec 26, 2018 at 5:17 pm

We have AT&T microcells around Adobe-Meadow/Meadow Park. They are unobtrusive, don't appear to put much of an extra load on the pole, and have fans that can be heard on quiet days if you are right next to the poles. Any pushback out of a "desire to preserve neighborhood aesthetics". is laughable given the horrible "traffic calming" and bike boulevard atrocities that have been visited upon us, not to mention the overbuilding to support the extra employees that Facebook, Google, Palantier, and others have been dumping on our infrastructure without paying for it. No different from Walmart limiting their employees to minimum wage, 30 hours/week so they are forced to get public assistance while Walmart adds the money saved to their bottom line. It is the Tragedy of the Commons and our CC is too feckless to push back.


8 people like this
Posted by PV John
a resident of Portola Valley
on Dec 27, 2018 at 10:09 am

What about the concern of these antennas failing and landing on the power lines below. These old wood power poles are not designed for this type of equipment sitting precariously on the top of the power pole 7ft-10ft in the air. Why in the world would we allow something we know is inherently dangerous and could compromise the energized power lines in residential communities? Lets use some common sense here.


11 people like this
Posted by Paul
a resident of Barron Park
on Dec 27, 2018 at 11:02 am

It is odd to claim that the cell phone equipment is ugly and damages the aesthetics of the neighborhood. How about the poles themselves, and the tangle of wires and cables? And the butchering of trees needed to keep the wires safe? (The distribution voltage is around 12,000V). We should get the power, phone, and cable TV wires underground! The city used to be working to a 100 year plan for utility undergrounding, but lately it seems to be a 1000+ year plan.


26 people like this
Posted by What a joke
a resident of Downtown North
on Dec 27, 2018 at 11:18 am

Whining about 11 boxes on light poles - seriously??!! There are 50 dilapidated RV's creating a huge eyesore on El Camino we've decided are just fine and we are focused on this? We need efficient wireless service - how many calls get dropped because the coverage is poor. They are not so large or unsightly that the implementation outweighs the benefit. (Certainly no proof of them being a fire hazard...!)

The ARB has gone overboard on this and needs to be performing their review in a more balanced manner. Baltay's strict interpretation of the design not enhancing the surrounding is just wrong. The enhancement is in the better service and safety the improvements provide. The aesthetics are not so bad as to require them to be denied. These nodes are used all over the country and are just fine for our fair city as well.


13 people like this
Posted by Resident
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Dec 27, 2018 at 11:42 am

We could definitely make a long list of things more unsightly in Palo Alto than cell towers.

Green paint, blue road crossings with fish that are getting dirtier by the week, abandoned vehicles, RVs parked, construction that lasts forever, utility poles with huge numbers of tangled wires, etc. etc. etc.


7 people like this
Posted by Wes
a resident of Green Acres
on Dec 27, 2018 at 1:17 pm

Nobody looks at power poles. They're not mean to to be aesthetic! Smelly SUVs zomg... Who cares the poles will be less seismically sound? Major earthquakes happen like every 30 years. You deal with the damage then. Every comment I see is by some bluehair homeowner that Palo Alto has already passed by and they don't even realize it. Find a new town to keep down! When my friends come to visit they laugh at our city -- the heart of silicon valley and they can't get full bars. Real people care more about cell reception than aeathetics of a silly telephone pole lmao


17 people like this
Posted by Curious
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Dec 27, 2018 at 1:27 pm

Why not simply place them atop the taller buildings in Palo Alto?


11 people like this
Posted by Kya
a resident of Palo Verde
on Dec 27, 2018 at 1:50 pm

Kya is a registered user.

Underground the utilities lines for the whole city, not for a few lucky neighborhoods. Beautify Palo Alto, dont make it uglier!


6 people like this
Posted by Anonymous
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Dec 27, 2018 at 2:28 pm

To a poster above on this subject, I saw a crew power washing the “fish” decorated street crossings on Louis recently. They had become quite dirty. Seems like kind of a specialty thing to maintain - are ither intersections slated for this art?
Note: I am generalky in favor of art, just wonder about the wisdom of using it on street surfaces in PA.


6 people like this
Posted by Not a Fan
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Dec 27, 2018 at 4:46 pm

Would be nice if they could make the fans quieter, or not run 24x7.

In some cases the boxes are in side yards, less than 6 feet from a home.


3 people like this
Posted by Random
a resident of Barron Park
on Dec 27, 2018 at 5:56 pm

@Curious -- "why not put them atop the taller buildings": because they're not traditional cell service antennas, which cover a large area with a pretty high output power. These are "small cell" antennas, which are lower powered and have limited range. When you do the small cells you have to put up a lot of them to get the coverage. This makes it possible to support many more cell phone users at the same time and improves the service in areas that are far from a traditional large cell service antenna.


3 people like this
Posted by Random
a resident of Barron Park
on Dec 27, 2018 at 5:59 pm

@Not A Fan: yeah, the units with newer designs, and without battery backup are, according to Verizon, fanless. A certain percentage of the units can be without battery backup, but they need enough to get at least some coverage everywhere during a power outage.


4 people like this
Posted by Curiouser
a resident of Community Center
on Dec 27, 2018 at 7:30 pm

"@Curious -- "why not put them atop the taller buildings": because they're not traditional cell service antennas, which cover a large area with a pretty high output power. These are "small cell" antennas, which are lower powered and have limited range."

Then why not let people rent out their rooftops for these antennas? Paint them in themes: barber pole, cigar, London chimneypot, ... . Great signal for their personal cell service as a bonus. Also for the neighbors.


6 people like this
Posted by Anon
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Dec 27, 2018 at 7:44 pm

These "antennas" sound blase' and like a subjective aesthetic issue, but, having seen and heard one, they must have large power supplies, are noisy, must generate quite a bit of heat (to need fans &etc), and are much more than just an "ugly antenna". Frankly, now that I have seen one of these babies, I don't want one right outside my kitchen window. Or near vegetation or anything that could catch fire in case of fan trouble/overheating.

In short-- they -require- establishing a -noise standard- to which they should conform, as well as a minimum distance to the nearest dwelling and nearest vegetation, so that they don't become a -nuisance-.


6 people like this
Posted by Random
a resident of Barron Park
on Dec 28, 2018 at 5:16 am

@Curiouser: "why not let people rent out their rooftops for these antennas?" because the structural standards for your (or your neighbor's) roof preclude mounting the (heavy) antenna and shroud. And why would they want to rent on private property when they can rent in the public right-of-way for $270/year, with direct access to the (metered) power, and access to a copper or fiber communications line to connect them to the rest of the infrastructure. There's also the issue of the supporting electronics (in the Verizon pictures, the big brown rectangular box on the side of the pole) which go on the pole, in a largish underground vault, or disguised as for example, a fake trash bin or fake USPS service point (the green not-a-mailbox thing).

@Anon -- you can bet that the drive electronics have a thermal cutout, just as your PC does (which in most cases also has a fan). The city *has* noise standards, and these boxes are very likely to comply with them. There *are* also minimum distances *between the antenna and the residence*, but the drive electronics aren't emitting RF signals like the antenna. The antennas are directional, and the owner has to show that the emission pattern does not expose anyone to excessive field strength in the *specific place that the antenna is to be installed* (it's not a generic X-feet minimum clearance). But, this is also why the antenna is mounted high up -- the field strength would be too great if you were able to walk a few feet away from it.


8 people like this
Posted by Neal
a resident of Community Center
on Dec 28, 2018 at 6:55 am

Aesthetics = red herring

Fire danger = red herring

Earthquake danger = red herring

Health hazard = red herring


4 people like this
Posted by Anon
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Dec 28, 2018 at 8:04 am

@Random: you say the newer units are quiet and compact? I don't know-- maybe they are. Let's see a show of good faith and swap out the existing older, bigger, noisy ones.


14 people like this
Posted by Ex Palo Alto
a resident of Downtown North
on Dec 28, 2018 at 9:40 am

Haven’t lived in PA for years, but it’s somehow reassuring (and hilarious) to see that the town is working against the very technology that provides the vast majority of its employment and wealth. PA can export massive amounts of technology that destroy jobs and disrupt most of the world, but goddess forbid that a telecom company installs a couple of hotspots in town to provide decent cellular service!


4 people like this
Posted by Anon
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Dec 28, 2018 at 10:14 am

Posted by Ex Palo Alto, a resident of Downtown North

>> it’s somehow reassuring (and hilarious) to see that the town is working against the very technology that provides the vast majority of its employment and wealth

Just to be clear: -I- am not opposed to reasonable installations. I'm opposed to noisy, intrusive installations. I'm fortunate that I'm not next to one, and, I want to stay that way. If small, silent configurations are available, then the carriers should replace the existing large, noisy setups first to demonstrate how unobtrusive and inaudible they are. Should be very simple, right?


6 people like this
Posted by Rick
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Dec 28, 2018 at 10:24 am

Hey Wes,

PA may be the "Heart of Silicon Valley", but if you want nightlife you are going to have to go further afield. PA is still basically a bedroom community with a small, underparked, retail downtown. You should have paid attention to your compatriots when they decided to live in San Francisco and ride the GBus to work. CC doesn't care about retail or livability so you're not going to see anything "vibrant" (except people quivering in frustration over traffic) on this end of the Peninsula, ever.


2 people like this
Posted by Shake Shake Shake
a resident of Palo Verde
on Dec 28, 2018 at 10:48 am

@Neil -

Aesthetics = red herring - subjective...agreed

Fire danger = red herring - objective...if it passes UL and other fire testing...agreed.

Earthquake danger = red herring ... Strongly disagree until they can provide objective testing that cutting new holes and adding additional weight to wood utility poles does not impact their ability to resist an earthquake. Nothing presented to CPA as of this writing addresses this concern.

Health hazard = red herring: if it falls on your head...then very possibly quite a health hazard. Want to test this theory for us?


4 people like this
Posted by Anon
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Dec 28, 2018 at 11:51 am

Posted by Shake Shake Shake, a resident of Palo Verde

>> Fire danger = red herring - objective...if it passes UL and other fire testing...agreed.

UL ?!?! UL tests toasters for safety. Power pole overloading is a serious issue, and has been a major problem in some areas:

Web Link

Plenty via Google if you are interested.

>> Earthquake danger = red herring ... Strongly disagree until they can provide objective testing that cutting new holes and adding additional weight to wood utility poles does not impact their ability to resist an earthquake. Nothing presented to CPA as of this writing addresses this concern.

You have it backwards. Pole configurations are different in different neighborhoods. It is up to the utilities and telecommunications providers to prove that each pole configuration is safe; ie, not overloaded.

Web Link

>> Health hazard = red herring: if it falls on your head...then very possibly quite a health hazard. Want to test this theory for us?

The "theory" has been tested already. See above articles regarding Southern California Edison.


7 people like this
Posted by Grumpy Old Guy
a resident of Palo Alto Orchards
on Dec 28, 2018 at 11:56 am

It's all about the infrastructure and the costs. Verizon and the other carriers all have the ability to spread the costs of the improvements to all of their customers. Otherwise, their profits are just subsidized by the community. It's time that corporate businesses pay their true costs of operation versus the local communities.


2 people like this
Posted by Resident
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Dec 28, 2018 at 12:36 pm

Talking about innovative technology, I recently heard that one local operation has gone back to pagers rather than trust local cell phone coverage. It must look really good to visitors that in the heart of Silicon Valley we have to resort back to 20th Century technology. Pagers? In this day and age? Really???


Like this comment
Posted by Anon
a resident of Evergreen Park
on Dec 28, 2018 at 9:15 pm

@ resident......

exactly what "operation" are you referring to???? We would need much more detailed information to evaluate your comment.

Can one even still purchase a pager?

thanks


2 people like this
Posted by Anon
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Dec 28, 2018 at 9:30 pm

It may come as a shock to some of you, but, pagers are still useful and used. e.g. most hospital-based doctors still have them (pagers work better when signal attenuation is greater and interference is higher-- ie, inside hospitals). Likewise, operations-oriented IT staff in cloud facilities, internet gateways, server rooms, etc. Satellite pagers are also used by workers who frequent rugged terrain with poor cell reception. And, satellite-based "two-way pagers" (messengers) are used by some outdoors people for safety or convenience. REI sells about 5 models or so: Web Link.

So, depending on what kind of "operation" you are talking about, medical, IT, remote power/telecomm maintenance, etc., pagers will likely be there.



7 people like this
Posted by David Moy
a resident of Barron Park
on Dec 29, 2018 at 4:48 pm

It all boils down to a simple question: Why should I sacrifice my health/aesthetics/quiet/peace/etc so that the CEO of Verizon can make a few more bucks? Where is my benefit in this? It's like saying "I don't want to pay for my trash pickup service, so I'll dump all my garbage in your living room." Sure, it's a good deal for me, but would you be ok with that deal?


8 people like this
Posted by cellPhoneUser
a resident of Midtown
on Jan 3, 2019 at 11:49 pm

Verizon signal is very weak in some Palo Alto neighborhoods. T-mobile has nonexistent signal. Any solution to expand the cell phone coverage is welcome. The aesthetics is a secondary issue given the existing ugly electrical poles around the town.


Like this comment
Posted by Edith
a resident of Downtown North
on Jan 28, 2019 at 12:25 am

Electromagnetic Radiation Safety Issues in PA
City Council is meeting Feb 4th, 8:15 PM, regarding aesthetics of power poles, however they need to consider safety.

Web Link

Letter
Gil Amelio (former president of Apple)
5940 Lake Geneva Drive, Reno NV 89511 gil@amelio.com Office: 775.849.1133

December 5, 2016

The Honorable Tom Wheeler, Chairman
Federal Communications Commission 445 12th St., Southwest
Washington, D.C. 20554

Dear Chairman Wheeler,
I’m writing to follow up on our meeting of April 25, 2016. I was encouraged that we agreed that our goal must
be to both support the continued growth of our Nation’s wireless infrastructure and protect American workers
whose jobs require them to come in close proximity to RF transmitters. Because of changes in the wireless
infrastructure environment more and more roofers, painters, firefighters, and telecommunications technicians
find themselves working within the restricted zone of RF transmitters every day, often without any knowledge
that they are doing so. But, unfortunately, neither the FCC nor our industry has addressed the implications of
this change.
The law is clear. FCC rules prohibit all but specially trained workers from working close to RF transmitters
while they are operating. But the extraordinary growth in the number, type, and placement of transmitters has
rendered the 20th Century approach to complying with this rule—the use of nothing more than faded signs with
outdated contact information on rooftop doors and fences around increasingly rare stand-alone towers—to be
unreliable and therefore non-compliant. Transmitters are now everywhere. They are in church steeples, lamp
posts, building facades, and anywhere else an enterprising wireless company can place them. Often companies
design them to be invisible to comply with regulations or for esthetic reasons. As a result, signs and fences
simply no longer reliably protect the tens of thousands of third-party workers repairing shingles, changing light
bulbs, or applying paint in situations when they don’t even know they are being overexposed.
When we met, I requested that the FCC recognize and address this problem in a way that protects American
workers, supports continued industry investment, and takes advantage of 21st Century tools. As we discussed, I
do not support new regulations and I requested that the FCC should convene a meeting between the key wireless
carriers and the National Antenna & Tower Safety Center (NA&TSC) to discuss the implementation of their
technology that ensures: (1) communications between all stakeholders (multiple co-located licensees,
government RF users, building owners, workers, and others); (2) provision of site-specific RF safety
information prior to coming in close proximity with RF transmitters; and (3) administered by a neutral and
independent third party. Unfortunately, the meeting between key wireless carriers and the NA&TSC was never
convened while every day more and more American workers face risk of injury from RF exposure.
Since our meeting the NA&TSC has been working diligently with some of the world’s largest insurers to
develop a product which will provide no-cost coverage against RF injury claims at all wireless sites for carriers,
tower operators, site owners, and contractors who follow the NA&TSC safety protocol. The ability to be vetted
by prominent insurers speaks volumes of the effectiveness of NA&TSC model. With this extraordinary event
now a reality, I again request the FCC convene a meeting between key wireless carriers and NA&TSC.

Sincerely,
Gil Amelio


3 people like this
Posted by to What a Joke
a resident of College Terrace
on Jan 28, 2019 at 1:18 am

What a Joke said "There are 50 dilapidated RV's creating a huge eyesore on El Camino we've decided are just fine and we are focused on this?"
That's because the dilapidated RVs (1/3 of which are partially on the sidewalk, making it difficult for those with strollers and wheelchairs to traverse) impact the residents of College Terrace and Ventura, who apparently have less clout than those in Old Palo Alto and Downtown North.


2 people like this
Posted by Resident
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jan 28, 2019 at 8:47 am

It is a joke and an embarrassment.

We are the technology capital of the world here in Silicon Valley but we have such poor infrastructure. Good cell phone coverage is something we must improve. Having to stand outside to make phone calls is beyond credibility to Overseas visitors.


Like this comment
Posted by Mark Weiss
a resident of Downtown North
on Feb 1, 2019 at 8:42 am

Mark Weiss is a registered user.

No, the 50 RVs are people’s homes. What are you suggesting is the final solution there, neighbor?

I’m with Doria: push back against the federal shi-t clock. “Shot” clock, rather. (Stupid cell phone!!!)


Like this comment
Posted by Anon
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Feb 1, 2019 at 10:42 am

Posted by Mark Weiss, a resident of Downtown North

>> No, the 50 RVs are people’s homes. What are you suggesting is the final solution there, neighbor?

Relocating the willing occupants to the now-partially-vacant President Hotel, and, hauling the RVs to the scrapyard. If we have any vacant land anywhere, which we pretty much don't, let's build real dwellings there are 30-40 units/acre.

>> I’m with Doria ... “Shot” clock, rather.

Who is Doria, and, what "shot clock" applies to cell infrastructure?


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Email:


Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: * Not sure?

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields


Be the first to know

Get the latest headlines sent straight to your inbox every day.

Downtown Palo Alto gets new Vietnamese eatery
By Elena Kadvany | 4 comments | 5,007 views

More Stupid Plastic Food Things
By Laura Stec | 14 comments | 2,549 views

Operation Varsity Blues
By John Raftrey and Lori McCormick | 8 comments | 1,768 views

State Legislature on Housing: Getting the Demos out of Democracy & with it, Accountability
By Douglas Moran | 6 comments | 1,569 views

Environmentalists will soon be fighting housing advocates over what to do with the SF Bay locally
By Diana Diamond | 19 comments | 895 views

 

Short story writers wanted!

The 33rd Annual Palo Alto Weekly Short Story Contest is now accepting entries for Adult, Young Adult (15-17) and Teen (12-14) categories. Send us your short story (2,500 words or less) and entry form by March 29. First, Second and Third Place prizes awarded in each category.

Contest Details