Typical action from our ARB. Does anyone remember anything the ARB actually liked? Judith Wasserman is usually the ringleader in denigrating other's design work and she does not disappoint here.

However the "best" part of the story is something the Weekly chose not to report on, but the Daily News did on Friday:
Web Link
"However, neighborhood residents who spoke said they don’t want to see any version of a cell tower because its radio frequency emissions could cause health problems and its presence could lower property values. Tru Love, a Channing Avenue resident, said she jokes that the “city of Palo Alto should rename themselves ‘Antenna Alto, a wholly-owned subsidiary of AT&T.’ “Mommies like me, we’re not going to buy houses in Palo Alto,” Love said. “We’re going to go somewhere else where they protect our children and they protect our property values.”

Isn;t it about time that the city and it's various committees demand proof of some of the outrageous claims that these naysayers repeat ad nauseam?
despite the abundance of studies to the contrary, these negative individuals constantly put forth the claim of "health risks" from cell phone antennas. Let's see the studies they are using to make those claims.

Second the comment about "reduced property values"--this is a generic scare tactic,w here you come out against something because you claim that it will decrease your property value. Let us see the proof for that claim also. Also does the city have the obligation to maintain your home's value if it means not doing something for the good of the public.

Finally Ms Love's comments ("‘Antenna Alto, a wholly-owned subsidiary of AT&T." and "We’re going to go somewhere else where they protect our children and they protect our property values.”") our ridiculous comments with no basis in fact whatsoever. How anyone can take these comments seriously is beyond belief. Love and her husband have shown their true colors with their comments and actions. It is now time for the city to stand up to these bullies and demand that they provide proof for their outrageous, inaccurate and false claims.

This is unneeded barratry. I saw the rendering of the tower and see nothing wrong with it. It is consistent with the base building construction and even makes it look more "Churchy." The only thing better would have been a straight electronic tower unadorned. I believe it is time for Tru Luv to make good her threat and go to some towerless town.
It is past time to reduce the authority of the architectural review board to nails and paint.

A "rendering" by AT&T is worth nothing. They did not submit complete plans to the ARB so there is no way of knowing whether it was accurate. Or accurate from a block away, or partly fictitious. It is 8x8 feet square.
Walter, you came to a conclusion from a developer's "rendering," their hoped for look. That's not an intelligent way to judge.
Are you sure you went to engineering school?

I formed an opinion based on the evidence. While I would have preferred a plain electronic tower, as long as we are playing this childish hidey hidey, the tower proposed looks O.K. Hey, it's just a church, not the Vatican. At any rate, we know the real reason behind the rejection, don't we?

"At any rate, we know the real reason behind the rejection, don't we?"

Wasn't ugly enough?

Ugly? Only if you consider the rest of the building ugly. The tower was consistent with the rest of the structure.

Regard that church as you will, it is much too pretty to be approved by the ARB today, and the same for a matching tower.

Verdict: not near ugly enough. Add some zinc here, some red stone there, emphasize the articulation of the fenestration, and come back in a month.