[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6464295,"mediaKeyId","5784028-de43d2b70a2e7ee6d8c90b3451cd264b","parentId",5784028,"title","ARB continues AT&T streetlight wireless permit after public and member concerns about size, concealment and missing data","audioSeconds",3794,"startMs",4407000,"endMs",8201000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5784028-de43d2b70a2e7ee6d8c90b3451cd264b&start=4407&end=8201","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5784028-de43d2b70a2e7ee6d8c90b3451cd264b/thumbnail_4407000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6464295/Palo-Alto/Santa-Clara-County/California/ARB-continues-ATT-streetlight-wireless-permit-after-public-and-member-concerns-about-size-concealment-and-missing-data","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6464295-99eea335ea2bc10ebb46729dfeced816/orig.mp4?Expires=1771065614&Signature=mzO2FKu89jrs2meFfcml5n15ZJGSHXwxAXRtazWZLT6B0ukltv8NTBy~QTVujiUv7uLRM-FlmC4GS76IX7mG8ZsSorrocfEtWzbeDba8EBRMuLU8LwTAPkoj-NVXloFJ1BycdJzItb7yCPkIlN1JdlIv3GHOAfd18iIPPajafl0BS9R5emrK0Id2CGRQctFWBU5Au751dzd54hNKFLmPGQhwQAYqGqxYydLY9SfYrCSQuIMlFQ~m6rfymmhsHjJk1n-Cxevow8Z83weEOZ0eGjTdxjUqw9T~9WvH9Qn2adLsmqGgqi4oLfKW3MqCKkMfqH04f2zuNC9DEmspV6~cZA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Palo Alto City","date","2025-09-19T07:26:39Z","article","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.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Architectural Review Board - September 18, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","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.","taxTitle","Palo Alto, Santa Clara County, California","taxId",3867,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6464300,"Palo Alto ARB reviews San Antonio Road area plan existing-conditions report; staff to use feedback for alternatives",4472,2593000,7065000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5784028-de43d2b70a2e7ee6d8c90b3451cd264b&start=2593&end=7065","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5784028-de43d2b70a2e7ee6d8c90b3451cd264b/thumbnail_2593000.jpg","/articles/6464300/Palo-Alto/Santa-Clara-County/California/Palo-Alto-ARB-reviews-San-Antonio-Road-area-plan-existing-conditions-report-staff-to-use-feedback-for-alternatives","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6464300-ab76e579c0ee6d227d49f4bdd05f94b7/orig.mp4?Expires=1771065614&Signature=evwhukMWRZPVbBWOyZag3zkG4P~EBULUXSODVb1I2yRUQN-HwiYXBHvE7IHh0mb2Moh~dmlC-EY6ozGpYNbzWImwEx9Po~zyzH~gUVftY1Ma35L9CewVKompbCY1wz5zGMeuxupWBz0XvJnlfaRlF4kTc2kYpgcyL77nUiSMSNWT6rNhQZFe0n5vx-T0ZxgJ-h9W~3fPw3IF9yTrvqLz5SYxk~ocZBHALa0Qm6~khcSP05CMat2-MaowlyTcoRv-em~VgpcbYCaU0jekomrghLsqQl74VX1YCyd8HUi9Dwz62G0w-ccf779JkD8f67UxScaIYLHYHZAkRkD8qRWr-w__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Palo Alto — City planners presented the existing-conditions summary for the San Antonio Road area plan on Sept. 18 and asked the Architectural Review Board for preliminary feedback to shape the next phase of alternatives work.

Senior planner Robert Kane and consultants from Raimi + Associates told the ARB that the study area covers roughly 275 acres of south Palo Alto along San Antonio Road, stretching to the Mountain View border. The work to date includes market and demographic analysis, a build-character study, open-space and hazard assessments and identification of 53 housing opportunity sites previously recorded in the city’s housing element.

Staff said the plan is in Phase 1 (existing-conditions analysis) of a five-phase process with community outreach and aims to reach a preferred plan alternative around June 2026 and to continue through early 2028. Consultants described findings in the packet: the plan area contains a mixture of industrial, commercial and residential parcels with no single coherent built form; about 800 housing units currently exist, many dating to the 1970s; recent zoning initiatives and the city’s Housing Infill Program are attracting development interest; and an estimated 750 additional housing units are already in the near-term development pipeline if current proposals proceed. The consultants also noted that the plan area contains about 40% of the city’s manufacturing jobs.

Planners highlighted several constraints and opportunities. The area has no large public park within many parts of the plan boundary and portions are park-deficient beyond a 10-minute walk to nearby open space. Traffic safety and multimodal connectivity are key concerns: staff reported 143 collisions recorded in the last 10 years within the plan area. Parts of the plan area are susceptible to sea-level-rise impacts and groundwater seepage. At the same time, private parcel consolidation and active development proposals create near-term opportunities to negotiate community benefits such as open space and neighborhood-serving retail.

Board members pressed staff and consultants on several topics: the likely near-term versus long-term redevelopment parcels (staff showed a map indicating near-term redevelopment potential), how to preserve industrial and manufacturing job opportunities and limit displacement, options for achieving additional open space (including land dedication, incentives, fee trades or city acquisition), remedies for multimodal safety and Caltrain access, and coordination with Mountain View and utilities for flood mitigation. Several commissioners emphasized bicycle and pedestrian connections as essential because many potential residents are beyond comfortable walking distance to transit.

Staff said the project’s outreach program includes a community advisory group, a technical advisory group and a public workshop scheduled for Oct. 23 and a series of pop-ups. Staff also promised meetings with the school district to clarify neighborhood school capacity and said economic and fiscal analyses are underway.

Kane and Raimi + Associates asked the ARB for guidance on priorities (open space, connectivity, retaining light-industrial uses, mixed use, etc.) and said they will return with alternatives later this winter. No formal ARB vote or action was taken; the item was a study session. Staff said they will use the ARB feedback to refine alternatives to be presented for public review.

Key figures and data noted in the presentation: study area ~275 acres; currently ~800 housing units; 53 housing opportunity sites identified in the city’s housing element; an estimated ~750 housing units in the development pipeline if pending proposals proceed; 143 recorded collisions in the last 10 years within the plan area; many parcels privately owned and not contiguous, complicating creation of large public open space.

The ARB and staff identified follow-up points: create a clearer parcel-ownership and redevelopment-probability map for the board and public; assess displacement risk for light industrial employers; analyze school capacity at the neighborhood level; explore small-parks versus single large-park trade-offs; and bring back refined alternatives for ARB comment in early 2026.","Palo Alto — City planners presented the existing-conditions summary for the San Antonio Road area plan on Sept. 18 and asked the Architectural Review Board for preliminary feedback to shape the next phase of alternatives work.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6464305,"Palo Alto ARB names representatives for Urban Land Institute review of downtown transit center",875,1155000,2030000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5784028-de43d2b70a2e7ee6d8c90b3451cd264b&start=1155&end=2030","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5784028-de43d2b70a2e7ee6d8c90b3451cd264b/thumbnail_1155000.jpg","/articles/6464305/Palo-Alto/Santa-Clara-County/California/Palo-Alto-ARB-names-representatives-for-Urban-Land-Institute-review-of-downtown-transit-center","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6464305-e9ffc2448ca92138cc20cae2603b57d3/orig.mp4?Expires=1771065614&Signature=B4oJCqGiOpT~XS6-SD1HHfAaPzhqqN3XWYPhIg-0fqGG7WZI6F0QcTrnvYBLbiYTreXcCVM68nRMdr0iw9~SFJHA9bnjS-LrtX~jW5Wwm2OoMXEpM487EtLY4DjIUkQKFSdGSQ8UW9gy2i7l4lP5I8Te6bnfeP9MWK1D2EoEsovQhjaby4ra1Czri7sAhRHYBZOE67soU2bdV1B2jaGE5rKHYyRFfNg5tIdpJeKbIszlW8UiQTomQCpxI4tBQpv-lQceRa4CQWiPyVLUOLwcsTVJFIUipTqdhKWbBCFGPkecI-ScrspvFZOKjfbJQ6HfKy9rYQ1C~9dTyTwMH9muVw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Palo Alto — The Architectural Review Board on Sept. 18 appointed two board members to represent the ARB in stakeholder interviews for an Urban Land Institute study of the Palo Alto Transit Center.

The board designated Board Member Hirsch and Board Member Georges as ARB representatives to participate in the ULI stakeholder interviews scheduled for Oct. 21, part of an intensive ULI study week Oct. 19–24. ULI will interview roughly 100 stakeholders, then work through Oct. 24 to prepare recommendations and present results to the City Council that Friday.

Chantelle Cotton Gaines, deputy city manager, told the board the Urban Land Institute engagement is intended to produce an actionable short-, medium- and long-term strategy for the downtown Palo Alto Transit Center, the second-busiest Caltrain station on the corridor. The study will focus on site features and uses that could make the station a stronger gateway to downtown and to Stanford, improve non-vehicular access, identify funding and phasing options, and examine successful mixed-use transit center models elsewhere. Gaines said ULI panelists will be supplied a briefing book of past studies and current plans to inform their analysis.

Board members and staff discussed the study’s geographic scope and immediate questions for interviewees. Board members asked ULI to consider: pedestrian and bicycle connectivity to the station, sheltered and visible waiting areas or mixed-use retail to improve the rider experience, accessibility and compliance with historic-designated elements near MacArthur Park, and short-term reactivation options the transit mobility hub ad hoc committee is pursuing. Staff said the study area includes the transit center, MacArthur Park, the VTA bus depot and nearby parcels, and confirmed that 400 Mitchell Lane (the building behind MacArthur Park) is included in the study scope and that MacArthur Park’s structure is a designated historic resource.

The board heard one public speaker, a nearby property owner who asked to be added to stakeholder outreach lists and offered to participate as a resident with property adjacent to the station.

Staff said they will follow up with the two ARB representatives to share the stakeholder questions and visuals before the Oct. 21 interviews so those board designees can carry the ARB’s priorities into the ULI sessions.

The ULI engagement will culminate with a public presentation of ULI’s recommendations at City Council chambers on Oct. 24.

Notes: The ARB’s appointment was made during the study-session item; no formal vote roll call naming a mover or seconder was recorded in the transcript.","The Architectural Review Board agreed to designate two members to represent the board in stakeholder interviews for an Urban Land Institute (ULI) study of the Palo Alto Transit Center; ULI will hold an intensive study week Oct. 19–24, with stakeholder interviews Oct. 21 and a public presentation Oct. 24.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

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

Palo Alto ARB reviews San Antonio Road area plan existing-conditions report; staff to use feedback for alternatives

Palo Alto ARB names representatives for Urban Land Institute review of downtown transit center