Skip to main content
City of Palo Alto sealPalo Alto Civic
  • Architectural Review Board

Architectural Review Board - October 15, 2026

Palo Alto’s Architectural Review Board voted 5-0 to approve two AT&T wireless facilities on utility poles in the University South neighborhood.

Architectural Review Board Regular Meeting video thumbnail

Listen to this AI-generated audio version

Board approves two pole-mounted AT&T facilities

Side-by-side Street View and map showing the captioned location

670 Guinda Street, Palo Alto, CA

The Architectural Review Board voted 5-0 to approve AT&T’s proposal for two wireless facilities on existing city-owned wood utility poles at 670 Guinda Street and 754 Homer Avenue in the University South neighborhood. Each installation includes a seven-foot fiberglass pole extension, an omnidirectional antenna, two radio units, a power supply, conduits and associated equipment. The equipment is to be painted a non-gloss sable color intended to blend with the wood poles.

Residents opposed the facilities’ proximity to homes and raised concerns about taller poles, additional visual clutter, possible equipment noise and construction impacts. Commenters also urged consideration of other pole locations, rooftops, equipment sharing, stealth designs and underground installations. Staff said the applicant’s report found radio-frequency emissions within federal limits and that the two poles are not in areas identified for utility undergrounding.

Board members focused on the visual bulk of the equipment, particularly the proposed three-inch coaxial conduit, and questioned whether project drawings and photo simulations fully depicted the installations. Staff said the board’s review was limited to aesthetics and design standards, and members generally acknowledged that their ability to change the sites was limited.

The applicant said two radios require at least eight coaxial cables and that routing them inside the extension could expose more cable or affect its structural integrity. The applicant agreed to evaluate whether the conduit could be reduced to the smallest feasible size and to improve the depiction of conduits and other equipment in future submissions. Those requests were not described as conditions of the approval.

Primary sources

Watch the meeting on YouTube · Read the official meeting agenda

Comments

You may comment anonymously.