City Council and Authorities Concurrent
February 25, 2025

City of Santa Clara
Agenda Report
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
santaclaraca.gov
@SantaClaraCity
25-183 Agenda Date: 2/25/2025

REPORT TO COUNCIL

SUBJECT
Action to Authorize the Use of City Electric Forces for New Dark Fiber Installations at Walsh Avenue at San Tomas Aquino Creek and Stevens Creek Boulevard at Cabot Avenue

COUNCIL PILLAR
Deliver and Enhance High Quality Efficient Services and Infrastructure

BACKGROUND
Section 1310 of the Santa Clara City Charter (Contracts on Public Works) states “that every contract involving an expenditure of more than one thousand dollars ($1,000) for the construction or improvement (excluding maintenance and repair) of public buildings, works, streets, drains, sewers, utilities, parks and playgrounds shall be let to the lowest responsible bidder.” The section further states that “the City Council may declare and determine that, in its opinion, the work in question may be performed better or more economically by the City with its own employees, and after the adoption of a resolution to this effect by at least four affirmative votes, it may proceed to have said work done in the manner stated, without further observance of the provisions of this section.” In 2014, Silicon Valley Power (SVP) developed a position called Fiber Splicing Technician as an in- house position to primarily perform maintenance and repairs to meet the performance standards of fiber customers, which includes City departments and commercial customers. Fiber Splicing Technician activities include basic splicing and distribution changes to fiber optic cables. The technician can also perform duties such as pulling, laying, aligning, and positioning fiber optic equipment for new connections to the fiber network. Fiber Splicing Technicians also perform fusion splicing at building entrances and in maintenance spaces. Currently, SVP employs two Fiber Splicing Technicians.

DISCUSSION
Currently, the SVP fiber optic network serves SVP, other City departments, and various commercial customers. The Fiber Splicer Technician performs a variety of specialized activities from maintenance and repair to new or re-spliced interconnections to the SVP Fiber Enterprise. Each interconnection can be unique involving different hours of labor depending on the number of fibers required to be spliced and the particular location within the network. Technician time is tracked hourly and not on a per fiber basis.

Large or extensive projects involving extending fiber cable being laid along new paths or significant distances or adding conduit or related infrastructure are performed by a construction contractor through a public works contract. SVP spends up to $1 million per year on these public works contracts.

City of Santa Clara Printed on 2/21/2025Page 1 of 3
powered by Legistar™
25-183 Agenda Date: 2/25/2025
Staff believes that the work described below is better performed with City forces based upon the following factors: (1) the work is limited in size and scope; (2) City forces have knowledge and training in operating, maintaining and repairing the fiber optic system that can be leveraged to more economically perform this work; and (3) bidding out the work and contracting with a private entity would not likely result in a lower overall cost or time savings.

Therefore, staff recommends that the City Council declare and determine that City forces can better perform the following fiber optic projects and approve the use of City forces for such projects:

Estimate Number: FWM#1708
Location: Walsh Avenue at San Tomas Aquino Creek and Stevens Creek Boulevard at Cabot Avenue
Type of Service: Fiber Decommission
Description of Work: Decommission existing dark fiber in hand holes located at Walsh Avenue at San Tomas Aquino Creek and Stevens Creek Boulevard at Cabot Avenue.

Estimated Cost: $1,399
Appropriation: Electric Utility Capital Fund (591) Project 2004 - Fiber Development Design & Expansion
Source of Revenue: Developer Contribution

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Staff recommends that the City Council determine that the action being considered is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to Section 15301 (Class 1 - Existing Facilities) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, as the proposed work involves the decommissioning of existing fiber facilities.

FISCAL IMPACT
The funds to support the staff time for work performed by SVP and related construction materials for the work detailed in this report, totaling $1,399, are included in the Fiscal Year 2024/25 Budget, Fiber Development, Design, and Expansion project in the Electric Utility Capital Fund. All referenced work will be performed with City Electric Forces (SVP staff). Some work associated with encroachment permits may be performed by the Department of Public Works (DPW). DPW costs are recovered through payment of permit fees.

COORDINATION
This report has been coordinated with the Finance Department and City Attorney’s Office.

PUBLIC CONTACT
Public contact was made by posting the Council agenda on the City’s official-notice bulletin board outside City Hall Council Chambers. A complete agenda packet is available on the City’s website and in the City Clerk’s Office at least 72 hours prior to a Regular Meeting and 24 hours prior to a Special Meeting. A hard copy of any agenda report may be requested by contacting the City Clerk’s Office at (408) 615-2220, [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> or at the public information desk at any City of Santa Clara public library.

RECOMMENDATION

1. Determine the proposed action is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15301 (Class 1 - Existing Facilities) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations; and

2. Declare and determine in accordance with Section 1310 of the City Charter that the public City of Santa Clara Printed on 2/21/2025Page 2 of 3
powered by Legistar™
25-183 Agenda Date: 2/25/2025

2. Declare and determine in accordance with Section 1310 of the City Charter that the public works located at Walsh Avenue at San Tomas Aquino Creek and Stevens Creek Boulevard at Cabot Avenue are better performed by the City with its own employees based on the information set forth in this Report to Council and authorize the performance of these public works consistent with this authorization.

Reviewed by: Manuel Pineda, Chief Electric Utility Officer Approved by: Jovan D. Grogan, City Manager
City of Santa Clara Printed on 2/21/2025Page 3 of 3
powered by Legistar™
City of Santa Clara
Agenda Report
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
santaclaraca.gov
@SantaClaraCity
25-212 Agenda Date: 2/25/2025

REPORT TO COUNCIL

SUBJECT
Action on Authorizing the City Manager to Execute Purchase and Sale Agreements for Easement Acquisitions for the 115kV Transmission Line for Silicon Valley Power

BACKGROUND
On March 19, 2024, the City Council received an informational Report to Council (RTC 24-1614) regarding the new 115 kilovolt (kV) transmission line from Northern Receiving Station (NRS) to Kifer Receiving Station (KRS). This informational report identified three possible routes that Silicon Valley Power (SVP) evaluated.

On November 12, 2024, the City Council approved Route A for a 115kV transmission line from NRS to KRS and adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) (RTC 24-1040). Route A begins at NRS exiting southeast toward Lafayette Street and continues southeast within the median of Lafayette Street to Agnew Road, where it transitions to the east side of Lafayette Street until Montague Expressway. From there, Route A shifts and enters Bassett Street proceeding southeast down the west side of Bassett Street to Bayshore Freeway, where the route crosses Bayshore Freeway and continues south along Duane Avenue interconnecting to KRS from the north side.

For the section south of Agnew Road to KRS, the 115kV project requires easements from 20 properties (Attachment 1).

DISCUSSION
The easement acquisition process will require the City to enter into Purchase and Sale Agreements (PSA) with the property owners along this route. On September 10, 2024, in closed session, the City Council authorized the City Manager to negotiate easements for the 115kV transmission line.

Negotiations with the property owners are ongoing and staff is requesting authority to enter into PSAs with the property owners within the purchase price authority which the City Council authorized in closed session. Any PSA’s exceeding the approved City Council authority will be brought back for additional City Council consideration.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The MND and MMRP were prepared for the 115kV Project in conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act. These documents and Notice of Availability were posted on the City’s website at <http://www.santaclaraca.gov/ceqa>
and circulated for 30-days review from July 31, 2024,
to August 30, 2024.

The MND examined environmental impacts associated with the Project. The MND identified City of Santa Clara Printed on 2/21/2025Page 1 of 2
powered by Legistar™
25-212 Agenda Date: 2/25/2025
potentially significant impacts to air quality, biological, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water, noise, and traffic/transportation. However, the MND and MMRP incorporates mitigation measures to reduce the potentially significant impacts to less-than -significant.

The MND and MMRP were approved by the City Council on November 12, 2024. No additional environmental review is required by the proposed action.

FISCAL IMPACT
There will be a fiscal impact that will vary on the final price of easements. The anticipated easements costs are currently budgeted within the Electric Utility Capital Fund in the NRS-KRS 115kV Line Project.

COORDINATION
This report has been coordinated with the Finance Department, City Manager’s Office, and City Attorney’s Office.

PUBLIC CONTACT
Public contact was made by posting the Council agenda on the City’s official-notice bulletin board outside City Hall Council Chambers. A complete agenda packet is available on the City’s website and in the City Clerk’s Office at least 72 hours prior to a Regular Meeting and 24 hours prior to a Special Meeting. A hard copy of any agenda report may be requested by contacting the City Clerk’s Office at (408) 615-2220, [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> .

RECOMMENDATION

1. Authorize the City Manager or designee to enter into Purchase and Sale Agreements for easements in connection with the 115kV Transmission Line Project, which aggregate acquisition costs shall not exceed the existing allocation of funds for such purpose, subject to review and approval by the City Attorney; and

2. Authorize the City Manager or designee to (a) take any and all actions as are necessary or advisable to implement and administer the Purchase and Sale Agreements, including, without limitation, acceptance of any associated deeds on behalf of the City of Santa Clara; and (b) approve and execute future amendments to the Purchase and Sale Agreements, subject to the review and approval as to form by the City Attorney.

Reviewed by: Manuel Pineda, Chief Electric Utility Officer Approved by: Jovan D. Grogan, City Manager

ATTACHMENTS

1. List of Easements
City of Santa Clara Printed on 2/21/2025Page 2 of 2
powered by Legistar™
1 # Address APN
1 4090 Network Circle 097-08-114
2 4220 Network Circle 097-08-058
3 1515 Wyatt Drive 104-38-007
4 1500 Wyatt Drive 104-38-014
5 3800 Bassett Street 104-14-160
6 3750 Bassett Street 104-14-164
7 3720 Bassett Street 104-14-132
8 3730 Bassett Street 104-14-118
9 3670 Bassett Street 104-14-144
10 3610 Bassett Street 104-14-111
# Address APN
11 3550 Bassett Street 104-15-131
12 3540 Bassett Street 104-15-132
13 3530 Bassett Street 104-15-133
14 3520 Bassett Street 104-15-134
15 3508 Bassett Street 104-15-128
16 3500 Bassett Street 104-15-105
17 3400 Bassett Street 104-51-001
18 3205 Bassett Street 101-11-003
19 891 Laurelwood Road 101-11-004
20 881 Duane Avenue 224-36-039
RTC 25-212 Attachment 1
List of Easements
City of Santa Clara
Agenda Report
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
santaclaraca.gov
@SantaClaraCity
25-164 Agenda Date: 2/25/2025

REPORT TO STADIUM AUTHORITY BOARD

SUBJECT
Action on Stadium Authority Bills and Claims for the Month of December 2024

BOARD PILLARS
Enhance Community Engagement and Transparency
Ensure Compliance with Measure J and Manage Levi’s Stadium

BACKGROUND
Disbursements made by the Stadium Authority are based on invoices submitted for payment. Prior to payment, staff reviews all disbursement documents to ensure that the invoiced goods or services have been provided.

The Bills and Claims listing represents the cash disbursements required of normal and usual operations during December 2024. Budget control is set by the Stadium Authority Board through the budget adoption process.

DISCUSSION
At its March 12, 2024 meeting, the Stadium Authority Board adopted the Santa Clara Stadium Authority Fiscal Year 2024-25 Operating, Debt Service, and Capital Budget which runs from April 1, 2024 to March 31, 2025. Significant expenditures (greater than $5,000) paid in December 2024 include:
· Payments totaling $358,527.56 to the City of Santa Clara for the following:
o $309,650.76 for reimbursement of General and Administrative (G&A) City payroll costs (e.g., Executive Director’s Office (City Manager’s Office), Stadium Authority Counsel’s Office (City Attorney’s Office), and Treasurer’s Office (Finance Department)) o $48,876.80 for Senior/Youth Fees for NFL Games 6-7
· Payment totaling $843,900.44 to Forty Niners SC Stadium Company, LLC for CFD Advance Payment - Principal & Interest
· Payment totaling $1,429,023.67 to Forty Niners Stadium Management Company, LLC for December 2024 Stadium Manager Expenses, inclusive of Shared Stadium Expenses · Payment totaling $16,849.50 for Legal Services (October 2024) · Payment totaling $18,400.00 to KPMG LLP for SCSA 2023-24 Audit · Payments totaling $1,744,873.36 to Pivot Interiors for CapEx Project - Replace Furniture · Payment totaling $6,445.00 for Legal Services (September 2024) Names of law firms have been redacted from the Bills and Claims report. The Supreme Court of California in Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors v. Superior Court, (2016) 2 Cal.5th 282, held that invoices specifying the amounts billed by a law firm to a client fall within the scope of attorney- City of Santa Clara Printed on 2/21/2025Page 1 of 2
powered by Legistar™
25-164 Agenda Date: 2/25/2025
client privilege while the matters are active. In accordance with the Supreme Court’s ruling, the names of law firms retained by the Stadium Authority, and the specific amounts billed by each, have been redacted from the public report to maintain the confidentiality of billing records for specific legal services. The aggregate amount spent on legal services in the subject time period has been provided.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The action being considered does not constitute a “project” within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to section 15378(b)(4) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations in that it is a fiscal activity that does not involve any commitment to any specific project which may result in a potential significant impact on the environment.

FISCAL IMPACT
The fiscal impact to the Stadium Authority is $4,421,780.17

COORDINATION
This report has been coordinated with the Executive Director and Stadium Authority Counsel’s Office.

PUBLIC CONTACT
Public contact was made by posting the Council agenda on the City’s official-notice bulletin board outside City Hall Council Chambers. A complete agenda packet is available on the City’s website and in the City Clerk’s Office at least 72 hours prior to a Regular Meeting and 24 hours prior to a Special Meeting. A hard copy of any agenda report may be requested by contacting the City Clerk’s Office at (408) 615-2220, email [email protected] or at the public information desk at any City of Santa Clara public library.

RECOMMENDATION
Approve the list of Stadium Authority Bills and Claims for December 2024.

Reviewed by: Kenn Lee, Treasurer
Approved by: Jovan D. Grogan, Executive Director

ATTACHMENTS

1. December 2024 SCSA Bills and Claims
City of Santa Clara Printed on 2/21/2025Page 2 of 2
powered by Legistar™
Payment Date Vendor Invoice No. Description Fund Amount 12/9/2024 City of Santa Clara N/A B2422 SCSA Payroll Costs Operating 75,155.03$ 12/13/2024 City of Santa Clara N/A B2423 SCSA Payroll Costs Operating 88,097.52 12/18/2024 City of Santa Clara N/A Senior/Youth Fees for NFL Game 6 Operating 24,441.20 12/18/2024 City of Santa Clara N/A Senior/Youth Fees for NFL Game 7 Operating 24,435.60 12/23/2024 City of Santa Clara N/A B2424 SCSA Payroll Costs Operating 76,767.40 12/24/2024 City of Santa Clara N/A B2425 SCSA Payroll Costs Operating 69,630.81 358,527.56$
12/19/2024 Forty Niners SC Stadium Co, LLC N/A CFD Advance Payment - Principal & Interest Debt Service 843,900.44 12/2/2024 Forty Niners Stadium Management Co, LLC SLS-24770 December 2024 Stadium Manager Expenses - Security Operating 133,473.00 12/2/2024 Forty Niners Stadium Management Co, LLC SLS-24770 December 2024 Stadium Manager Expenses - Stadium Ops Operating 281,995.00 12/2/2024 Forty Niners Stadium Management Co, LLC SLS-24770 December 2024 Stadium Manager Expenses - Engineering Operating 327,933.00 12/2/2024 Forty Niners Stadium Management Co, LLC SLS-24770 December 2024 Stadium Manager Expenses - Guest Services Operating 51,714.00 12/2/2024 Forty Niners Stadium Management Co, LLC SLS-24770 December 2024 Stadium Manager Expenses - Groundskeeping Operating 26,374.00 12/2/2024 Forty Niners Stadium Management Co, LLC SLS-24770 December 2024 Stadium Manager Expenses - SBL Sales & Service Operating 203,970.46 12/2/2024 Forty Niners Stadium Management Co, LLC SLS-24770 December 2024 Stadium Manager Expenses - BNY Inclusive Operating 180,000.00 12/2/2024 Forty Niners Stadium Management Co, LLC SLS-24770 December 2024 Stadium Manager Expenses - Insurance Operating 158,878.01 12/2/2024 Forty Niners Stadium Management Co, LLC SLS-24770 December 2024 Stadium Manager Expenses - StadCo Tenant Improvements Ope rating 2,371.45 12/2/2024 Forty Niners Stadium Management Co, LLC SLS-24770 December 2024 Stadium Manager Expenses - Other G&A Operating 62,314.75 1,429,023.67
12/13/2024 Guidepost Solutions LLC 65932R Public Safety Consulting Services (April 2024) Operating 439.31 12/13/2024 Guidepost Solutions LLC 68095 Public Safety Consulting Services (September 2024) Operating 151.25 12/13/2024 Guidepost Solutions LLC 68795 Public Safety Consulting Services (October 2024) Operating 1,278.06 1,868.62
12/23/2024 1509276 Legal Services (October 2024) Operating 16,849.50 12/16/2024 JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. N/A Bank Fees Operating 12.02 12/13/2024 KPMG LLP 8005769441 SCSA 2023-24 Audit Operating 18,400.00 12/3/2024 Pivot Interiors PJIN-000105442 CapEx Project - Replace Furniture CapEx 1,738,204.00 12/13/2024 Pivot Interiors PJIN-000105442 (2) CapEx Project - Replace Furniture CapEx 6,669.36 1,744,873.36
12/13/2024 Wilson, Ihrig & Associates, Inc. 22161N13 Stadium Noise Monitoring Services (October 2024) Operating 1,880.00 12/11/2024 181295 Legal Services (September 2024) Operating 6,445.00 December 2024 Total 4,421,780.17$
Santa Clara Stadium Authority
Bills and Claims
Expenses Paid by Wire or ACH Transfer
For the Month of December 2024

City of Santa Clara
Agenda Report
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
santaclaraca.gov
@SantaClaraCity
25-163 Agenda Date: 2/25/2025

REPORT TO COUNCIL

SUBJECT
Public Hearing: Action on Appeal of a Conditional Use Permit (PLN23-00148) for a New Unmanned AT&T Telecommunication Facility with the Installation of Three 42’-6” Monopoles Located in the Parking Lot at 3111 Benton Street

COUNCIL PILLAR
Deliver and Enhance High Quality Efficient Services and Infrastructure

BACKGROUND
On January 15, 2025, following public testimony and deliberation, the Planning Commission approved a Conditional Use Permit (File No. PLN23-00148) for a new unmanned AT&T telecommunication facility with the installation of three 42’-6” monopoles located in the parking lot of the property at 3111 Benton Street.

On January 18, 2025, Vignesh Vivekraja, a member of the “AT&T Tower Relocation Group,” a group of approximately 58 community members from the adjacent neighborhood, filed an appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval of the Conditional Use Permit (File No. PLN23-00148). As required by the code, the appeal is now being heard by the City Council and the appeal application is provided as Attachment 1.

The Conditional Use Permit (File No. PLN23-00148) was initially filed by Complete Wireless Consulting, the applicant, on March 23, 2023, requesting a new unmanned telecommunication facility for AT&T at 3111 Benton Street. The application was filed and deemed complete on December 25, 2023, prior to the adoption of the Updated Zoning Code, which now includes regulations for Wireless Facilities. The previous Code (or “Classic Code”) contained no regulations for Wireless Facilities, but did require a Conditional Use Permit for uses not specifically listed in the Code but which, in the opinion of the Planning Commission, would appropriately be placed in the zoning district.

The subject property has a General Plan land use designation of Public/Quasi-Public and is zoned PQP (Public/Quasi-Public). The project site is located to the northeast of Benton Street and Pomeroy Avenue. The property is about 3.15 acres and is currently built with an existing church, Santa Clara First Baptist, that includes two separate paved parking lots, and an existing cell site on the roof of the church.

This item was heard by the Planning Commission four times. All four Planning Commission staff reports are attached to this report as Attachments 2, 3, 4, and 5. It was first heard at the August 21, 2024, Planning Commission meeting, where there were three public speakers that spoke in opposition of the project with concerns related to the proposed diesel generator and the location of the new telecommunication facility. After the public discussion, the applicant requested a continuance City of Santa Clara Printed on 2/21/2025Page 1 of 8
powered by Legistar™
25-163 Agenda Date: 2/25/2025
to allow additional time for research and review of comments received during testimony.

At the October 23, 2024 meeting the applicant presented a revised plan that included the removal of the diesel backup generator, replaced with a battery backup cabinet. The Commission had concerns with the monotree design for which the applicant offered an alternative three monopole design. As such, the item was again continued to allow for the applicant to present the alternative three monopole design in a different location on the site.

At the December 4, 2024 meeting the alternative design was presented, but there were concerns from the community and the Planning Commission that not all possible locations for siting the wireless facility within the service area were explored, specifically, Central Park, and the item was again continued to allow time for staff to contact the Parks Department regarding the availability of Central Park for a wireless facility, as well as to confer with the City Attorney’s Office as to the process.

At the final Planning Commission meeting on January 15, 2025, staff presented the results of the thorough examination of the entirety of Central Park by the applicant and Parks Department to identify any other potential locations including those suggested by the public for siting of the wireless facility. Unfortunately, given the park's existing infrastructure, including the recreation center, veteran’s memorial, new playground along with main park pathways, as well as the two elementary schools located at the north and south of the park and future park entry construction project, it was not possible to site a wireless facility at Central Park. In addition, any proposed installation at a park would first need to be submitted to the voters at a municipal election in accordance with the City Charter (see more detailed discussion in the January 15 Planning Commission agenda report, Attachment 5, page 3).

Following public testimony and deliberation, the Planning Commission approved the Conditional Use Permit for a new unmanned AT&T telecommunication facility with the installation of three 42’-6” monopoles located in the parking lot with a vote of 4-2-1 (Bouza and Crutchlow dissenting; Bhatnagar absent).

DISCUSSION
The appeal application (Attachment 1) identifies 10 reasons for the appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval of the new wireless facility. A summary of each reason is provided below, followed by a response. Please see the attached appeal application for full details on each of the appellant’s reasons.

1. Impacts the entire neighborhood.

The towers will dominate the skyline since there are few trees.

There are other locations those opposed to this project have suggested; please consider a better location that is less conspicuous.

2. Aesthetic problems. Placing the towers on the church property so close to so many homes and so visible to neighborhood residents violates aesthetic considerations that are within the jurisdiction of the City Council.

Staff Response: Reasons number 1 and 2 both concern visual impacts to the neighborhood.

The applicant originally had proposed the three monopole design located in the eastern parking lot. Staff rejected this design as there was no way to visually screen the poles. This led City of Santa Clara Printed on 2/21/2025Page 2 of 8
powered by Legistar™
25-163 Agenda Date: 2/25/2025
to the monotree proposal, which was proposed in the western area of the property near existing trees, allowing the pole to blend in with the existing surrounding (See Attachments 16 and 17 for reference). This alternative was not approved by the Planning Commission. The current location approved by the Planning Commission in the parking lot at Moraga and Benton Streets addressed the neighborhood concern of being to close to the adjacent single- family rear yards. The applicant did consider other locations in the general area and presented information as to why the locations were not viable to the Planning Commission and staff. It is important to note that wireless companies identify an area where coverage is needed and then work with individual property owners and negotiate use of their property.

3. Potential property value loss.

AT&T's report claims no significant impact on neighboring property values. This report was not peer-reviewed. Recent articles from the National Association of Realtors, a more trusted source, indicate a substantial decrease (up to 20%) in property values for homes near cell towers.

Staff Response: The applicant provided a Real Estate Study completed by Joint Venture Silicon Valley in response to comments received from the public at the August 21, 2024 Planning Commission meeting. This is a professional analysis of the economic impacts to residential real estate from small wireless facilities and was submitted by the applicant as additional information and was not used to make any of the required findings to support the Conditional Use Permit and is included as Attachment 6 to this report. In summary, the study conducted an aggregate statewide level analysis, and found significant increases in residential real estate valuation after construction of wireless sites. Additionally, in response to comments received at the August 21, 2024 Planning Commission meeting, the applicant also provided a Noise Study and Monopole Shade Report which are included as Attachment 7 and 8 to this report, respectively. The Noise Study completed by Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc. assesses that the noise level exposure is expected to comply with City of Santa Clara Municipal code daytime and nighttime noise level criteria and no further mitigation measures are warranted. The Monopole Shade Report was completed by Honeydew Energy Advisors and assessed the impact on future solar panels on residential homes and concluded that a proposed 60’ monopole will not impact solar blockage from the existing home with solar and in addition future solar installations would access is at or above 97%.

4. Proper notification needed.

Pomeroy Green Cooperative Corporation, located directly west of the church, was not notified of the project. Only some of the shareholders in the complex received notices.

Staff Response: The City followed its Public Outreach Policy and City Code § 18.146.020 and notified property owners and tenants within a 500-foot radius of the project site. Pomeroy Green is a townhome development adjacent to the subject site with individual properties.

Those within the 500-foot radius were sent a notification for the initial Planning Commission meetings. After this concern was brought up at one of the Planning Commission meetings, staff expanded the mailing list as a courtesy to include the entirety of the Pomeroy Green townhome development, starting with the December 4 Planning Commission meeting.

5. Impacts to historic resource not reviewed.

Pomeroy Green Cooperative Corporation, located
directly west of the site, is registered in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) at the State and federal levels. The impact of the cell phone tower project should be reviewed the City's Historical City of Santa Clara Printed on 2/21/2025Page 3 of 8
powered by Legistar™
25-163 Agenda Date: 2/25/2025
and Landmarks Commission (HLC).

Staff Response: Santa Clara City Code (SCCC) Chapter 18.130, Historic Preservation, governs the identification and protection of historic resources in the City. SCCC 18.130.070 governs the referral of projects that are near an Historic Resource Inventory (HRI) property to the HLC. In this instance, Pomeroy Green is not on the City’s HRI and therefore the Project was not referred. The location of the three monopole design in the eastern parking lot of the subject site would be far enough away so as not to alter the historic character or viewshed of Pomeroy Green.

6. Health effects.

There is a growing body of scientific evidence that suggests that exposure to radio frequency radiation (RFR) from cell towers and other wireless devices can have negative health effects. This is a moral decision the City Council must make. While there are sufficient legal reasons, such as aesthetics, to reject this proposal on FCC grounds, each councilmember must seriously consider the health concerns when casting their vote.

Staff Response: The Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 provides that local agencies can regulate location and aesthetics of wireless facilities, but cannot regulate based on health effects. More specifically, the Telecommunications Act preempts all municipal regulation of Radio Frequency (RF) emissions to the extent that wireless facilities comply with federal emissions standards. 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(iv) (“No State or local government or instrumentality thereof may regulate the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the Commission’s regulations concerning such emissions.”). The proposed facilities will not exceed federal emissions standards; a detailed discussion can be found in the December 4, 2024 Planning Commission staff report (Attachment 4).

7. Violation of new Zoning Codes.

The proposed site clearly violates the City’s Zoning Code in

18.66.060 Location Requirements, B. Facility Placement in Residential and Mixed-Use Zones.

Wireless communications facilities located within a Mixed-Use zone shall be separated by a minimum distance of 300 feet of any residential structure or any other existing wireless communications facility except as follows." Many single-family homes fall within 50-60 feet of the proposal and approximately 25 houses and a high school are within a 300 feet radius. It shouldn't matter that AT&T filed their petition a few months before the new code was implemented.

Staff Response: The application was filed on March 23, 2023 and deemed complete on December 25, 2023, prior to the adoption of the Updated Zoning Code. Section 18.02.070, Effect of Zoning Code Amendments on Projects in Progress, states that all planning permit applications that are active and that have been determined to be complete before the effective date of this Zoning Code or any amendment, shall be processed in compliance with the requirements in effect when the application was deemed complete, which applies to this project. Therefore, the wireless regulations in the updated Zoning Code do not apply to this project. Were the updated Zoning Code to apply to the proposed wireless facility it would also require the approval of a Conditional Use Permit along with adherence to development standards. The separation distance mentioned above however would not apply as this site is not located in a Mixed-Use Zoning district, but in the Public/Quasi-Public Zoning district, see City of Santa Clara Printed on 2/21/2025Page 4 of 8
powered by Legistar™
25-163 Agenda Date: 2/25/2025
further details in response 9.

8. Alternative locations not exhausted. Some alternative tower locations that should be explored and include city public right-of-way, Central Park, Saratoga Creek right-of-way, Earl Carmichael Park, and the commercial property at southwest corner of Kiely and Benton Street.

Staff Response: The applicant and Parks Department staff conducted a thorough investigation of Central Park as a location, and it was determined to not be feasible for AT&T nor the City.

Earl Carmichael Park and Central Park both have a significant impediment under Santa Clara City Charter § 714.1 which requires any proposed sale, disposal, lease, or change in use of City owned parkland lasting 180 days or more to be approved at an election by a two-thirds majority of City voters. Further details of this can be found in the January 15, 2025 Planning Commission staff report, Attachment 5. Any facility within a creek right-of-way would need to be coordinated with the water district and would likely not be feasible.

9. Lack of essential information and violation of new codes . Some information provided by staff was
misleading and needs to be clarified for reconsideration. Unfortunately, the City Planning did not inform our Group about the correct zoning standards (or lack thereof) that pertain to the proposed project when answering some questions. Specifically, Planning failed to tell our Group that the zoning codes found on the City's website are new and do not apply to this project when answering a question about the 300' clearance required between proposed cell phone towers and residences.

Staff Response: The question was if Section 18.66.060, Location Requirements, which states that wireless communications facilities located within a Mixed-Use zone shall be separated by a minimum distance of 300 feet of any residential structure applies to this site. The response was no as this site is not in a Mixed-Use zone. Staff agrees that Planning could have further clarified that the entire section of this code also does not apply to this project as it is being reviewed under the Classic Code and not the Updated Zoning code.

10. Environmental effects
. Operation of cell towers can have significant environmental consequences including habitat disruption, threaten local wildlife, aesthetic degradation of our natural landscape and fire hazard.

Staff Response: The subject site for the wireless facility is in a paved parking lot and not near any habitat area. Telecommunication facilities are a utility. Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) utility extensions are categorically exempt from environmental review.

Also, as previously stated in the report, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 limits the authority of local jurisdictions to regulate wireless facilities. Although the City retains the authority to regulate location and aesthetics, the City cannot regulate based on potential health effects. Installation of the wireless facility will also require the approval of building permits and adherence to all applicable building and fire codes.

Timeline for Making Decision
Local governments reviewing applications for wireless telecommunications facilities must make decisions within timeframes set by the Federal Communications Commission, known as the “shot clock.” The City must reach a final decision, including any appeal hearings, prior to the expiration of the shot clock, or the Applicant may be able to claim that the application has automatically been City of Santa Clara Printed on 2/21/2025Page 5 of 8
powered by Legistar™
25-163 Agenda Date: 2/25/2025
approved. The City and the Applicant can, however, mutually agree to extend the shot clock, and AT&T has already agreed to several extensions to allow for the multiple hearings on this Project. The shot clock is currently set to expire on Friday, February 28, 2025, unless the parties agree to another extension.

Project Analysis
Appeals of Planning Commission decisions are reviewed de novo, which means that the Council is essentially looking at the application as if it were being heard for the first time, without giving deference to the Planning Commission’s findings. Staff determines that the City Council may approve or conditionally approve the Conditional Use Permit in that all of the following required findings could be made for the approval of the three-monopole project.

A. The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan; B. The proposed use is allowed within the subject zone and complies with all other applicable provisions of this Zoning Code and the City Code;
C. The design, location, size, and operating characteristics of the proposed use are compatible with the allowed uses in the vicinity;
D. Operation of the use at the location proposed would not be detrimental to the harmonious and orderly growth of the City, or endanger, jeopardize, or otherwise constitute a hazard to the public convenience, health, interest, safety, or general welfare; and E. The subject site is:

1. Physically suitable in terms of design, location, operating characteristics, shape, size, topography, and the provision of public and emergency vehicle (e.g., fire and medical) access and public services and utilities; and;

2. Served by highways and streets adequate in width and improvement to carry the type and quantity of traffic the proposed use would likely generate.

As detailed further in the Resolution, Attachment 9, the proposal is consistent with the General Plan most specifically General Land Use policy (5.3.1-P17) and Energy policy (5.10.3-P10) in that the design will increase coverage for AT&T customers in this network area thereby expanding the existing network and improving call quality, signal strength, and wireless connection services in the City.
· 5.3.1-P17 Promote economic vitality by maintaining the City's level of service for public facilities and infrastructure, including affordable utilities and high-quality telecommunications. · 5.10.3-P10 Maintain the City's level of service for high quality utilities and telecommunications infrastructure.

The proposal is allowed within the subject zoning district and complies with all other applicable provisions of the Zoning Code and the City Code. The monopoles will be disguised as light poles within a parking lot and the operation of the monopoles is not anticipated to produce any additional trips, noise, vibrations, or harmful side effects to the parcel or surrounding parcels. The subject site is of a suitable size for the facility and access to the site is maintained for public services and utilities.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The proposed project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per section 15303(d) of the CEQA Guidelines (New Construction of Utility Extensions).

City of Santa Clara Printed on 2/21/2025Page 6 of 8
powered by Legistar™
25-163 Agenda Date: 2/25/2025

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact on the City from processing the requested application other than administrative staff time and expenses typically covered by processing fees paid by the applicant.

COORDINATION
This report was coordinated with the City Attorney’s Office.

PUBLIC CONTACT
Public contact was made by posting the Council agenda on the City’s official-notice bulletin board outside City Hall Council Chambers. A complete agenda packet is available on the City’s website and in the City Clerk’s Office at least 72 hours prior to a Regular Meeting and 24 hours prior to a Special Meeting. A hard copy of any agenda report may be requested by contacting the City Clerk’s Office at (408) 615-2220, email [email protected] or at the public information desk at any City of Santa Clara public library.

On February 13, 2025, a notice of public hearing on February 25, 2025 for this item was mailed to property owners within 500 feet of the project site. At the time of this staff report, Planning staff has received signed petitions (Attachment 16) from neighborhood residents of Pomeroy Green, Humbolt, Benton, Moraga, and Othello, in Santa Clara (the AT&T Tower Relocation Group). The signed petitions oppose the AT&T Cell Tower Proposal at 3111 Benton Street (File No. PLN23- 00148) and support the appeal (File No. PLN25-00029). Public comments received for the proposed project prior to the Planning Commission’s approval have been compiled in Attachment 17 and 18 Correspondence 1 and 2.

ALTERNATIVES

1. Overrule the Appeal and Adopt a Resolution upholding the approval of a Conditional Use Permit (PLN23-00148) for a New Unmanned AT&T Telecommunication Facility with the Installation of Three 42’-6” Monopoles Located in the Parking Lot at 3111 Benton Street, Subject to Findings and Conditions of Approval.

2. Sustain the Appeal in part, and Overrule the Appeal in part, by Directing Staff to Prepare a Resolution modifying the previously approved Conditional Use Permit (PLN23-00148) for a New Unmanned AT&T Wireless Telecommunication Facility by rejecting the Three 42’-6” Monopole design and instead approving the Installation of a single 60-foot-tall Monotree at 3111 Benton Street, Subject to Findings and Conditions of Approval.

3. Sustain the Appeal and Direct Staff to Prepare a Resolution disapproving a Conditional Use Permit for the Conditional Use Permit (PLN23-00148) for a New Unmanned AT&T Telecommunication Facility at 3111 Benton Street.

RECOMMENDATION
Alternative 1: Overrule the Appeal and Adopt a Resolution upholding the approval of -a Conditional Use Permit (PLN23-00148) for a New Unmanned AT&T Telecommunication Facility with the Installation of Three 42’-6” Monopoles Located in the Parking Lot at 3111 Benton Street, subject to findings and conditions of approval.

City of Santa Clara Printed on 2/21/2025Page 7 of 8
powered by Legistar™
25-163 Agenda Date: 2/25/2025
Reviewed by: Afshan Hamid, Director, Community Development Department Approved by: Jōvan Grogan, City Manager

ATTACHMENTS

1. Appeal Application

2. August 21, 2024 Planning Commission Staff Report

3. October 23, 2024 Planning Commission Staff Report

4. December 4, 2024 Planning Commission Staff Report

5. January 15, 2025 Planning Commission Staff Report

6. Real Estate Study

7. Noise Study

8. Shade Report - Monotree

9. Resolution to Uphold Approval - 3 Monopole Design

10. Conditions of Approval - 3 Monopole Design

11. Development Plans - 3 Monopole Design

12. Visual Simulations - 3 Monopole Design

13. Radio Frequency Study - 3 Monopole Design

14. Development Plans - Monotree

15. Visual Simulations - Monotree

16. Neighborhood Petitions

17. Correspondence 1

18. Correspondence 2
City of Santa Clara Printed on 2/21/2025Page 8 of 8
powered by Legistar™

. Cityof
Pfenning Division: (408) 615-2450
Email: g)[email protected]~,90:t:
~antaCl~ra
!Planning Aooeel Form
Instructions
Use this form to appeal a decision made at the Development Review Hearing or Planning Comm ission. All appeal• must be flied with the Planning Division within HV■n calendar days of the action being appealed.

Appeals from the Development Review Hearing are made to the Planning Comm ission (fOI' single-family residential projects) or to the City Council (for projects other than single ­ fam ily residential projects) and will be set for hearing on the next available agenda.

Appeals from the Planning Commi ssion are made to the City Council and will be placed on a subsequent City Council Agenda . Please contact the Planning Division at the number listed above with any inquiries about the process.

Applicat ions will be filed through the City 's Permittm g Oo)me Porta). You will need to register for an account to file. Applications may also be filed in person at the Permit Center , City Hall, 1500 Warburton Avenue, Santa Clara.

Information submitted on this form is public record.

Appeal F-
Appeal fees are set by the Municipal Code of the City of Santa Clara and are subject to annual review . Submitted appeals will be invoiced by staff for payment . Fee payment must be received by the City of Santa Ciani before this form 1ubmlttal can be certified as complete.

Appellant Declanitlon
Name, Vignesh Vivekraja, {AT&T Tower Relocation Group member) Street Address : 3086 Humbolt Avenue
City , State, Zip Code, Santa Clara, CA, 95051
Phone number: 408 981 7632
E-mail address: [email protected]
In accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Code of the City of Santa Clara, I hereby appeal the following action at the:

D Development Review Hearing [i] Planning Commission
at it's meeting of _1_11_5_1_20_2_5 ____ _
(date)
Agenda Item No.: File no: 24-1256
File No.Cs): PLN23 -00148
Adtlre ss:/APN(s): 3111 Benton Street, Santa Clara
(Rev. 10/23) Page 1

Planning Appeal Form
Appellant Statement
(If more space is requ ired, attach a separat e sheet of paper.) Action being appeal ed:

Planning commlnee approval ol tll8 condilional pem,lt for new Unmanned AT&T Telecommunlaiflon Facility with Three 42 -6 monopoles located in the Parking Lot at 3111 Benton Street and aJso opposing other alternative location In same site Including 60-Foot-Tall Monotree Reason for Appeal :

Concerns abo<A following lbolA ATT cell-sle lo sunouncliog residential 1ooes. wlh many residents in 30 fOOl radius 1 . Bad Neighborhood Aesthetics

2. Negative Property Value Impact

3. Health ettects esp kids,elderty in surrounding residential houses (many within 30-300ft radius)

4. Preceden t for future towers in same site

5. Health effects to kids in neighbouring Santa Clara High School Certification of Authenticity
Beware, you are subject to prosecut ion if you unlawfully subm it this form . Under penalty of law, transmission of this form to the City of Santa Clara is your certification that you are aut horized to submi t it and that the informat ion presented is authentic . 1/18/2025
Signature of Appellant Date
(Rev. 10/23) Pagel

Addendum to Appeal filed by Vignesh Vivekaja in behalf of AT&T Tower Relocation Group
(Supporting Residents - Pomeroy Greens, Humbolt, Benton, Moraga, Orthello) Appeal to City Council to Consider the Planning Commission Decision of January 15, 2025

Action being appealed:

Decision by Planning Commission to allow cellphone towers to be installed at 3111 Benton Street, the First Baptist Church.

Reason for Appeal:

Summary
We believe the planning commission's decisions were unjust, seemingly influenced by a few members and cherry-picking information, resulting in an incorrect acceptance of the proposal. According to FCC regulations, the commission had the authority to reject this proposal before the shot clock expires; there was no legal obligation to approve it. Aesthetics alone, along with numerous other compelling reasons outlined below, were sufficient grounds for rejection. We respectfully urge the esteemed City Council members, elected by the people and whose decisions are closely scrutinized, to consider the impact on residents and vote against this cell tower. It is crucial to weigh moral and ethical considerations alongside legal subtleties, especially for a council of publicly elected positions. This decision will set a precedent for the future.

Firstly, the planning commission and city council have the full authority to reject AT&T’s proposed towers. Based on our understanding, the only requirement from the FCC is to make a decision before the shot clock expires; approval is not mandatory. We, as residents, strongly believe there are ample reasons to reject this tower proposal on legal grounds, which are entirely within the city's control, including:

1. Aesthetics

2. Potential property value loss

3. Violation of the latest city code

4. Impact on Historic Pomeroy Green

5. Impact on Santa Clara High School students
Additionally, there are ethical and moral reasons, such as:

1. Health impacts

2. Violation of the latest city code and regulations in neighboring cities, where towers cannot be placed close to residential houses
There are several viable alternatives for AT&T to find a new site that aligns with city regulations, such as parks. Although this process might require more time, many alternative sites have been thoroughly vetted and proposed by residents. Unfortunately, these options have not received adequate consideration, as the church site presents a more convenient choice for AT&T. Notably, there has been no AT&T tower in this site to our knowledge, and they have operated successfully without it. It is unjust to inconvenience local residents merely for the sake of convenience for AT&T , the city and financial interests of landlord.
"Where there is a will, there is a way." We are confident that AT&T can identify alternative locations if this proposal is rejected. This should be handled as an independent case to our appeal. Please do not inconvenience residents for the sake of another party's convenience, especially given that AT&T has continued to operate effectively without a tower in this location, with many opposing residents being long time AT&T customers. If additional time is needed to find the right location with the City’s approval, so be it, as demonstrated by the city of Cupertino in the past to locate in park with public vote(details below). We humbly request, the city council to prioritize long-term community interests over short-term convenience.

Details

1. Impacts entire neighborhood. Homeowners on Humbolt Avenue, Moraga Street, Benton Steet, Orthello St, as well as homes in Pomeroy Green and all neighboring homes within view of the towers will have to look at these ugly towers. The towers will dominate the skyline since there are few trees the height of the proposed towers.

There are other locations those opposed to this project have suggested; please consider a better locations that are less conspicuous to residents of the neighborhood that have not been thoroughly investigated to date (see below).

Other impacts such as fire hazard, collapsing hazards and health hazards are also concerns of the neighborhood residents and evidently Santa Clara High School since the Santa Clara School District has declined, according to Mr. Proo, the AT&T representative for this project, locating the tower on their campus.

2. Aesthetic problems. Placing the towers on the church property so close to so many homes and so visible to neighborhood residents violates aesthetic considerations that are within the jurisdiction of the planning commission and city council. In other words, it is within the power of the Planning Commission to recommend the City Council deny AT&T's request to site a cell phone tower on the 3111 Benton Street, the church site, on aesthetic grounds. It is also in power of city council to reject ATT’s proposal purely based on aesthetics.

If the project goes through as proposed, the homeowners on Humbolt Avenue will have three towers situated just beyond their backyard fences, within 50 feet of their homes, making them visible whenever they relax outside in their backyards. Residents of the Humbolt houses opposite to these houses, will see those towers from their front-yards, while residents of the homes on Moraga Street wil see the towers from their front yards.

Similarly the alternate tower location negatively affect aesthetics of the Pomeroy Green community and Humbolt Avenues. Both the tower proposals will also be an eye sore for residents and the public alike while walking around the neighbrohood.

3. Potential Property Value Loss
● AT&T's report, claiming no significant impact on neighboring property values, relies on a non-peer-reviewed source.
● In contrast, recent articles from the National Association of Realtors, a more trusted source (link - See reference section), multiple studies, indicate a substantial decrease (up to 20%) in property values for homes near cell towers. Notable quotes from linked articles/studies include:
● “We find that homes close to towers sell for a discount of up to 7.6%.” ● “The negative price impact of 9.78% is much more severe for properties within visible range of a tower.”
● “If purchasing or renting a property near a CPBS [cellular phone base stations], over a third (38%) of the control group respondents said a CPBS would reduce the price of their property by more than 20%.”
● The existence of a cell tower near a home must be included in the disclosure packet upon the sale of a property, based on query on chatgpt (See Appendix5 inlined in doc).

In Appendix1(inlined with doc), with pictures referenced later, the proposed three towers from AT&T are shown, along with an approximate 300-foot radius (indicated by an orange border) based on Google Maps measurements. Within this radius are the following structures: over 25 single-family and duplex houses on Humbolt Ave, Moraga, and Benton.

Assuming a conservative property value of $1.7 million for each of these units, based on approximate estimates from Zillow (link), the total property values are roughly $40 million. This could result in up to an $8 million (20% loss) decrease in property value for homeowners. This estimate is conservative, as lots in this area are much larger, close to 10,000 square feet, so the financial impact might be greater.

Will the city, AT&T, or the landlord compensate for these losses to homeowners? There is a similar economic loss, probably larger, for the other alterate location which was previously considered closer to Pomeroy Green. This reduction in property values also impacts the city through reduced property taxes, taxes that benefit the city.

It seems unfair for residents near the Santa Clara First Baptist Church to bear this potential economic impact while AT&T and landlords benefit. Residents should be given the benefit of the doubt and not bear the brunt of the economic impact, and conclusions should not be based on non-peer-reviewed sources.

4. Proper notification needed. Pomeroy Green Cooperative Corporation, located directly west of the church, was not notified of the project. Only some of the shareholders in the complex received notices of the public hearing for the cell phone project.

Pomeroy Green Cooperative includes a playground on site and other areas that are contiguous to the church property (against, on the west side of the church property).

5. Impacts to historic resource not reviewed. Pomeroy Green Cooperative Corporation, located directly west of the church, is registered in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) at the State and federal levels. The impact of the cell phone tower project on the historic Pomeroy Green housing complex should be reviewed by the City's Historical and Landmarks Commission (HLC) because Pomeroy Green is adjacent to the church site. The HLC, in its advisory capacity to City Council, routinely evaluates impacts to historic resources by projects located on adjacent properties.

Because Pomeroy Green Cooperative housing complex is registered in the NRHP, the tower project may be required to be reviewed by higher government agencies in addition to the City's HLC for environmental impacts, particularly aesthetic impacts. The tower project may require a permit from the FCC, making the project subject to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.

Both the 3 pole design and the alternate 60-foot monopole design may have significant impact on historic Pomeroy Green and, therefore, the cell phone project needs to be properly reviewed by the appropriate agencies.

6. Health Effects
There is a growing body of scientific evidence that suggests that exposure to radio frequency radiation (RFR) from cell towers and other wireless devices can have negative health effects, including cancer, brain tumors, and reproductive problems. The World Health Organization has classified RFR as a "possible human carcinogen," and the National Toxicology Program has found that exposure to RFR can cause cancer in rats. We are concerned about the potential health risks of living near this cell node, especially for children who are more vulnerable to the effects of RFR. We urge the city to reconsider its decision to allow the installation of this node until more research is done on the health effects of RFR.

Here are instances where cell phone towers had to be decommissioned due to the formation of cancer clusters among students and teachers attending nearby schools and residents, despite initial claims that the towers emitted low levels of radiation.
link1: https://www.modbee.com/news/article228538324.html link2: https://ehtrust.org/fourth-student-has-cancer-parents-demand-removal-of-cell-tower-from-ripon-school/ link3 :
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-6886561/Cell-phone-tower-shut-elementary-school-eight-kids-diagno sed-cancer.html
Some Quotes :
● “Four students and three teachers at Weston have been diagnosed with different forms of cancer since 2016. In addition, two preschool-age children living near the school have been treated for a malignant tumor and leukemia, and a Modesto family says a 22-year-old former student of Weston underwent surgery last year for a brain tumor” ● “Sprint, which owns the tower, has shut it down despite insisting the radio frequency levels are 100 times below the federal limit”
Is the city council willing to take the risk of exposing residents with kids, elderly and Santa Clara High School students (as shown in Appendix1 inlined in doc, the school is within the immediate range of the proposed towers) to potential hazards? Santa Clara High School seems to be disinterested in the cell phone tower as well since the Santa Clara School District has declined, according to Mr. Proo, the AT&T representative for this project, locating the tower on their campus.

This is a moral decision the city council must make that will be closely followed by community. While there are sufficient legal reasons, such as aesthetics, to reject this proposal on FCC grounds, each councilmember and planning commission member must seriously consider the health concerns when casting their vote.

7. Violation of new Zoning Codes

The proposed site clearly violates the lines highlighted in yellow in the attached word doc source from City's code link (https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/SantaClara/html/pdfs/SantaClara18.pdf. The applicable section, on cell phone towers, starts on page 340). The most significant one being following lines in 18.66.060 – Location Requirements :

"B. Facility Placement in Residential and Mixed-Use Zones. Wireless communications facilities located within a Mixed-Use zone shall be separated by a minimum distance of 300 feet of any residential structure or any other existing wireless communications facility except as follows. "

Please note that many single-family homes fall within 50-60 feet of the proposal and approximately ~25 houses and high school are within a 300 feet radius (see Appendix1 inlined at bottom of doc)

The public and our Group was informed during the the planning commission hearing that this zoning code does’nt apply because church is zoned quasi-public and not residential. Regardless of zoning codes, there is a reason for the new requirement of a 300-foot clearance, likely due to health effects and property values. Legalities aside, it is common sense that it shouldn't matter whether the cell phone tower is on quasi-public land, like a church, or in a residential area; the tower is still within 300 feet of other single-family homes. The city council should take this into account and reject the ATT cell tower proposal.

Additionally, it shouldn't matter that AT&T filed their petition a few months before the new code was implemented (our understanding is that AT&T's petition was submitted in the first half of 2023, and the new code came into effect in the first quarter of 2024). Since it is now the first quarter of 2025, and the tower has not yet been constructed and is still under review, it is time for the city to consider the latest code when making their decision, update the zonning code to prevent these loopholes, and avoid using legal or code technicalities to approve this project.

8. Alternative locations not exhausted. Locations to site the proposed cell phone towers were not exhausted. Some alternative tower locations that should be explored by the planning commission include:

A. City public right-of-way. Placing the tower(s) on a city street light as suggested by one of the planning commissioners, Mr. Crutchlow, at their meeting of January 15, 2025 or other location in the public right-of way should be explored. The batteries and associated electronic equipment could also be placed in the city right-of-way, in an above ground cabinet or in an underground vault along with the associated electronic equipment.

One location in particular that was not examined in detail is the idea of locating the tower and associated equipment in the city right-of way along Kiely Boulevard in front of the Central Park, north of Kaiser Drive. According to the City's Engineering Department, that city right-of-way includes a 10' wide landscape area that runs along that side of the street.

That landscaped area should be investigated for the proposed cell phone tower and its associated equipment. If the towers can be placed there, they will be approximately 130' to 160' from the residences in the multi-family complexes located on the other side of Kiely.

Putting cell phone towers in the city right-of-way is possible. The City of Cupertino has three (3) cell phone towers in the public right-of way according to the City of Cupertino Parks and Recreation report, “Cell Phone Towers in Parks,” to the City of Cupertino's Information, and Communication Commission (see Appendix 3 and 4 inline doc below; unsigned report).

B. Central Park (frontage along Kiely) The City needs to have the applicant fully research the idea of placing the tower in Central Park along the frontage with Kiely Boulevard and consider holding the required referendum on locating that facility in the park.

Placing the tower in Central Park will require a referendum on locating the facility in the park.

The City of Cupertino has done this in order to place a cell phone tower in their Memorial Park; that referendum was approved by voters in 2020 according to my search on Ecosia, an online artificial intelligence website (see Appendix 3 and 4 inline doc below, “Cell phone tower in Cupertino's Memorial Park--ballot measure” and the attached City of Cupertino's Parks and Recreation report, “Cell Phone Towers in Parks,” to the City of Cupertino Information, and Communication Commission [unsigned]).

Require the Parks Department to release the proposed improvement plans for the Central Park entrance area on Kiely Boulevard in order to investigate new locations for the tower. City to hold citywide election to allow installation of the cellphone tower and associated equipment in the park. The City of Cupertino has a cell phone tower in their Memorial Park.

C. Central Park (east of Saratoga Creek). Placing the tower in Central Park east of the creek and removing the existing tower near Homestead Road and San Tomas Expressway. A new tower in Central Park could be taller in order to cover a greater area, area, perhaps inlcuding the areas that were served by the removed tower. Placing the tower in Central Park will require a referendum on locating the facility in the park.

The City of Cupertino has a cell phone tower in their Memorial Park; a referendum was approved by voters in 2020 to install ace that tower according to my search on Ecosia, an online artificial intelligence website (see Appendix 3 and 4 inline doc below, “Cell phone tower in Cupertino's Memorial Park--ballot measure” and the attached City of Cupertino's Parks and Recreation report, “Cell Phone Towers in Parks,” to the City of Cupertino Information, and Communication Commission [unsigned]).

D. Saratoga Creek right-of way. The possibility of locating the cell phone tower in the Saratoga Creek right-of-way, managed by the Santa Clara Valley Water District (Valley Water), should be explored.

E. Earl Carmichael Park. Earl Carmichael Park, located on Benton Street between Pomeroy Avenue and Lawrence Expressway, should be investigated as another potential location for the tower. Mr. Proo, the AT&T representative, mentioned this location as being too close to homes across the creek (Calabazas Creek); however, if the tower is placed in the grove of tall trees near the center of the park, the tower will be approximately 200' feet from those homes.

Placing the tower in Earl Carmichael Park (or any city park for that matter) will require a referendum on locating the facility in the park. The City of Cupertino has done this in order to place a cell phone tower in their Memorial Park; that referendum was approved by voters in 2020 according to my search on Ecosia, an online artificial intelligence website (see Appendix 3 and Appedix4 inline below; attached “Cell phone tower in Cupertino's Memorial Park--ballot measure” and the attached City of Cupertino's Parks and Recreation report, “Cell Phone Towers in Parks,” to the City of Cupertino Information, and Communication Commission [unsigned]).

G. Commercial property at southwest corner of Kiely and Benton Street. The neighborhood residents brought up this less conspicuous location that has not been explored. That property is within the red circle of optimum signal distribution provided by Mr. Proo, the AT&T consultant on this project.

The tower(s) could be placed in the parking lot of that commercial property; if located there the tower(s) would approximately 160' from the closest homes across Benton Street and approximately 300' from the homes across Kiely Boulevard as well as 200' from the east property line shared with Santa Clara High School (where the high school track is located).

The back side of that commercial site also has not been explored. The backside of the property is adjacent to the Santa Clara High School's track to the west and the USPS post office to the south. This would place the proposed project further from the homes on Benton, approximately 350', and approximately 400' from the homes across on Kiely Boulevard and approximately 300’ from the large apartment complex at 1000 Kiely Boulevard.

9. Lack of essential information and Violation of new Codes: Some information provided by staff was misleading and needs to be clarified for reconsideration of the proposed cell phone tower project by the planning commission:

A. Misleading Info: Unfortunately the Planning Department representative, Lesley Xavier, during the planning commission meeting held on January 15, 2025, incorrectly stated the diameter dimension of the mono-tree after being questioned by commission member Huang at 28:58 minutes into the video taped meeting
(https://santaclara.granicus.com/player/clip/2259?view_id=1&redirect=true).

Ms. Xavier stated at that meeting that the proposed mono-tree tower was twenty-five feet (25') in diameter when in fact the tower is approximately five feet (5') in diameter according to the plans submitted by the applicant and shown at the meeting. The twenty-five feet (25') the planner was referencing I think is the diameter of the 25.5' lease area surrounding the mono-tree. Again, you can find that statement at 28:58 minute mark in the video of the Planning Commission meeting held on January 15, 2025.

Had correct information about the diameter of the tower been provided (approximately 5' diameter), other locations for the proposed tower in the neighborhood may have been considered by the planning commissioners.

B. Violation of New Codes : Unfortunately the City Planning Department Manager, Lesley Xavier, did not inform the Group about the correct zoning standards (or lack thereof) that pertain to the proposed project when she answered some questions about the project posed by a member of our Group prior to the Planning Commission meeting (see Appendix2 in-line text below). That failure delayed the Group's investigations into other aspects of this controversial project.

Specifically, the planning department manager failed to tell the Group that the zoning codes found on the City's website are new and do not apply to this project (the applicant’s submittal predates the new code) when the Manager answered a question about the 300' clearance required between proposed cell phone towers and residences found in the new zoning code.

This oversight prevented our Group from investigating and forming additional objections to the project, particularly the Group's search for alternative sites for the cell phone tower (i.e., more sites need to be investigated since there are no separation requirements in the old code).

10. Envirnomental Effects

The construction and operation of cell towers can also have significant environmental consequences.

These include habitat disruption, threatens local wildlife, aesthetic degradation of our natural landscape and fire hazard. The proposed site for the cell tower is home to various species and vegetation that could be adversely affected by the construction activities and the continuous operation of the tower.

Additionally, the visual impact of a cell tower can alter the character of our community, potentially affecting property values and the overall quality of life and well being of its residents.

The risk of fire is a significant concern, especially in areas prone to dry conditions or where the local fire department's response capabilities might be stretched thin. The addition of such a structure could potentially increase the fire risk to nearby homes and natural areas.

(Appendix1)

Properties within 300ft radius of the 3-pole tower proposal (Approved in Jan15’25) :

This picture shows the proposed 3 towers from ATT and an approximately 300 feet radius (Orange border) based on Google Maps measurements. Please note shape is spherical due to 3 towers and these are approximate. The following structures fall in this radius :

1. >25 Single Family and Duplex Houses in Humbolt Ave, Moraga and Benton

2. Significant portions and structures/buildings of Santa Clara High school in bottom of the end picture.

Alternate 60foot Monotree considered in past (Rejected in Jan15’25 meeting) :

This picture shows the proposed monotree towers from ATT and an approximately 300 feet radius (Orange border) based on approximate Google Maps measurements. Multiple Single family homes and townhouse community in Pomeroy Green are in approximately 300 ft radius.

(Appendix2)

Email exchange between Yongli Wen, a neighborhood resident and Lesley Xavier. City of Santa Clara Planning Manager (manager's reply highlighted in yellow):

Yongli Wen
From:[email protected]
To: Lesley Xavier,Planning Public Comment,PlanningCommission,Sandy Le Cc:Eric Crutchlow,Nancy Biagini,Priya Cherukuru,Qian Huang,Lance Saleme Tue, Jan 14 at 9:19 PM

Hi Lesley,

Thanks a lot for your feedback!

I still have some questions:

1. The residential zone or mixed used zone has the 300 feet rule, what's the reason for having such a 300 feet rule? We think there should be some concerns like negative health impact, property value decrease, etc., right? If such kind of concerns exist, we should also have concerns for all other kind of zones, right?

2. Now for a public or quasi-public zone, what's the rule for it? Doesn't the city planning department also have to take account of some concerns like negative health impact, property value, etc. for nearby residential houses?

3. Now for our case, let's first assume the church is in quasi-public zone, but our houses are in the residential zone, not in the public area, the only thing is that we are the immediate neighbors of the church, we share the same fence with the church, even though, does anyone
still think it really makes sense to install a cell tower with only 15 feet distance to our backyards? Does anyone think it really won't have any negative impact to our health and property value with such short distance?

4. Also for the church, it is not a normal public area like a shopping mall, a plaza, a city park, etc. which have enough buffer area between residential zones, the church is just part of our community, already integrated into our neighborhoods, does anyone think the church is really a a normal public or quasi-public area?

We still strongly oppose the plan to install cell tower in the church area, because we think the plan doesn't make any sense, please seriously consider our opinion and suggestions.

Sincerely,

Yongli

On Tuesday, January 14, 2025 at 08:21:53 AM PST, Lesley Xavier <[email protected]> wrote:

Hello – Yongli
Thank you for your email. Unfortunately your reading of the code section is incorrect.

The section of the code that you are referencing below applies to properties where the cell facility will be located on a residentially zoned or mixed use zoned site. In this case the site where the cell facility will be located on is zoned public quasi-public and this section does not apply.

Lesley

Lesley Xavier | Planning Manager
Community Development Department | Planning Division
1500 Warburton Avenue | Santa Clara, CA 95050
D: 408.615.2484 | email:

[email protected]
www.SantaClaraCA.gov

From: Yongli Wen <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2025 12:35 AM
To: Planning Public Comment <[email protected]>; PlanningCommission <[email protected]>; Lesley Xavier <[email protected]>; Sandy Le <[email protected]>

Cc: Eric Crutchlow <[email protected]>; Nancy Biagini <[email protected]>; Priya Cherukuru <[email protected]>; Qian Huang <[email protected]>; Lance Saleme <[email protected]>; Mario Bouza <[email protected]>; Yashraj Bhatnagar <[email protected]>; Steve Proo <[email protected]>

Subject: Re: AT&T telecommunications tower proposal for 3111 Benton Street: 2nd request by AT&T Tower Relocation Group to locate tower in Central Park (more alternative locations for the Planning Commission's consideration at their meeting scheduled for Januar...

Dear Sir/Madam,
FYI, I'm attaching the copy of CSC zoning Code, Chapter 18.66 - Wireless Telecommunications Facilities with our highlights to indicate our doubts regarding the current plan.

Thanks,
Yongli Wen

On Monday, January 13, 2025 at 08:55:04 PM PST, Yongli Wen <[email protected]> wrote:

To: City of Santa Clara Planning Commission (for January 15, 2025 meeting) From: Yongli Wen
Re: AT&T telecommunication tower proposal for 3111 Benton Street (PLN23-00148) Date: January 13, 2025

Dear Planning Commission:

This is Yongli lives in 3190 Humbolt Ave, Santa Clara, the immediate neighbor of the church at 3111 Benton Street.

From city zone coding document at
https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/SantaClara/html/pdfs/SantaClara18.pdf, we just found the proposed AT&T cell tower locations in the church violate the city code, please check the screenshot of the document in section 18.66.060 as below, we can see that the distance of cell tower location to any residential structure is minimum 300 feet. The current proposed locations obviously can't meet the requirement. Please explain this to all nearby neighbors.

Thanks,
Yongli Wen

(Appendix3) Ecosia Search

(Appendix4) Cell phone tower in Cupertino's Memorial Park--ballot measure

~
-CUPERTINO
Agenda Item No. __
Subject

PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT

QUINLAN COMMUNITY CENTER
10185 NORTH STELLING ROAD • CUPERTINO, CA
95014-5700
(408) 777-3120 • FAX (408) 777-3137

STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: December 2, 2010
Consider the Technology, Information, and Communication Commission (TICC) request for the Parks and Recreation Commission to evaluate which parks might be suitable for cell towers.

Recommendation
The Park and Recreation Commission to offer guidance and guidelines for the TICC Commission to consider for possible cell towers in parks.

Description
This item is in front of the Commission due to a joint Commissions' meeting on August 17, 2010.

At that meeting, the TICC Commission requested information from the Parks and Recreation Commission about possible sites for cell towers in City parks. Presently, south and west Cupertino lack cell coverage and the TICC Commission would like to improve these areas. The parks that are located in this region of Cupertino are Jollyman Park, Hoover Park, McClellan Ranch Park, Linda Vista Park, and Monta Vista Park.

When a communication company wants to install a cell tower within the City of Cupertino, they must apply for a discretionary permit approved by the Planning Commission or the Director of Community Development , depending on the visibility of the facility. Presently, if the decision is appealed, the applicant pays all hearing noticing costs for a 1,000-foot noticing radius. Attachment A is the City's Wireless Facilities Master Plan that explains the sitting and design of these personal wireless service facilities.

Currently, there are 18 cell towers within Cupertino, three are in public rights-of-way, and one is being built in Memorial Park. There are no cell tower applications for city parks currently in process.

Sustainability Impact
Staff researched professional associations and other state and city governments for best practices for locating cell towers in parks. To ensure sustainability within parks, the following guidelines should be considered in conjunction with the policies from the Wireless Facilities Master Plan before granting personal wireless service facilities permits.

The telecommunications company should :

1. Build and maintain their ground space in City parks.

2. Renovate any City property including , but not limited to turf, irrigation systems, utilities , and pavements which were disturbed or adversely affected during construction .

3. If appropriate , provide public art as part of the structure (example - sculpture attached to the monopole facility at Memorial Park).

4. Purchase an appropriate amount of trees to use as screening at the park .

5. Upon abandoning of wireless facility , remove tower/pole (or relevant structure) and restore the park area to its fom,er condition .

6. Reference Policy 8-2 of the Wireless Facilities Master Plan and forfeit the ownership of the tower at the conclusion of the permit if park amenities have been built into, on top of, or within the proximity of the tower, if the removal of the tower should adversely affect the fore mentioned park amenity.

Fiscal Impact
The City collects planning, building and public works application fees from the applicant , but this is true of any private development. The Wireless Facilities Master Plan states a lease to locate personal wireless service facilities on an existing City-owned facility or structure is typically negotiated with Public Works Department staff and approved or disapproved by the City Council at a public hearing . Coordination with affected departments , such as the Parks and Recreation Department for City Parklands , will be necessary to ensure their financial concerns are met.

Prepared by:

Justin Cecil, Recreation intern
Approved for Submission by:

Julia Lamy, Senior Recreation Supervisor
Attachment
A. Wireless Facilities Master Plan
Appendix5 : Chatgpt query on seller disclosure

City of Santa Clara
Agenda Report
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
santaclaraca.gov
@SantaClaraCity
24-325 Agenda Date: 8/21/2024

REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION

SUBJECT
PUBLIC HEARING: Action on Conditional Use Permit (PLN23-00148) for a New Unmanned AT&T Telecommunication Facility with the Installation of a 60-Foot-Tall Monotree at 3111 Benton Street

REPORT IN BRIEF
File No.: PLN23-00148
Project: Conditional Use Permit for a new unmanned AT&T telecommunication facility with the installation of 60-foot-tall monotree.

Applicant: Steve Proo, Complete Wireless Consulting
Owner: Santa Clara First Baptist Church
General Plan: Very Low Density Residential
Zoning: Public or Quasi Public (B)
Site Area: 3.15 acres
Existing Site Conditions: The project site is built with an existing church and a paved parking lot.

There is an existing cell site located on the roof of the church.

Surrounding Land Uses
North: Single-family uses
East: Multi-family and single-family uses
South: Single-family and public uses (Santa Clara High School) West: Multi-family uses
Issues: Consistency with the City’s General Plan and Zoning Ordinance Staff Recommendation: Adopt a resolution approving the Conditional Use Permit for a new unmanned AT&T telecommunication facility with the installation of a 60-foot-tall monotree, subject to findings and conditions of approval.

BACKGROUND
On March 23, 2023, Complete Wireless Consulting, applicant, filed an application requesting a Conditional Use Permit (File No. PLN23-00148) for a new unmanned telecommunication facility for AT&T at 3111 Benton Street.

The subject property has a General Plan land use designation of Very Low Density Residential and is zoned B (Public or Quasi Public). The project site is located to the northeast of Benton Street and Pomeroy Avenue. The property is about 3.15 acres and is currently built with an existing church, paved parking lot, and an existing cell site on the roof of the church.

According to Santa Clara City Code (SCCC) Section 18.66.040.A, Conditional Use Permit approval is City of Santa Clara Printed on 8/15/2024Page 1 of 4
powered by Legistar™
24-325 Agenda Date: 8/21/2024
required for all new wireless telecommunication facilities.

DISCUSSION
The proposed new unmanned telecommunication facility would include the installation of an AT&T 60 -foot-tall monotree design. A monotree is a wireless telecommunications facility camouflaged to resemble a tree. The proposed monotree will be equipped with fifteen antennas and twelve remote radio units (RRUs) on a 511 square foot lease area enclosed by a new 6-foot-tall wooden fence. The antennas are grouped towards the top of the tower, flanked with broadleaf designed material (See Plans sheet A-3.1). The tower is located 37’-1” from the north property line. There are also existing trees that will surround the fenced area where the monotree will be located. The equipment, inclusive of a 30 KW diesel generator, will be within a 366 square foot lease area enclosed by an existing wood fence, located 15’ from the north property line.

Pertaining to safety concerns, local governments, including the City of Santa Clara, are preempted from regulating wireless telecommunication facilities based on concerns regarding the health effects of radio frequency emissions. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 ("TCA"; 47 U.S.C §332(c)(7)(B) (iv)) limits the local zoning authority over wireless telecommunication antennas for personal wireless service:
“No State or local government or instrumentality thereof may regulate the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the [Federal Communication] Commission's regulations concerning such emissions.” Consistency with the General Plan
The General Plan designation for the project site is Very Low Density Residential.

The proposal is consistent with the following General Land Use and Energy Policies of the General Plan:
• 5.3.1-P17 Promote economic vitality by maintaining the City's level of service for public facilities and infrastructure, including affordable utilities and high-quality telecommunications. • 5.10.3-P10 Maintain the City's level of service for high quality utilities and telecommunications infrastructure.

The proposal is consistent with these policies in that the project is proposing to install a new wireless telecommunication facility to provide increased coverage for AT&T customers in this network area.

The project will expand AT&T’s existing network and improve call quality, signal strength, and wireless connection services in the City.

Zoning Conformance
The zoning designation for the project site is Public or Quasi Public (B) under the “Classic” Zoning Code. Pursuant to Section 18.66.040, Conditional Use Permit approval is required for all new wireless telecommunication facilities. Pursuant to SCCC Section 18.114.050, the Planning Commission may approve or conditionally approve a Conditional Use Permit only after first making all of the following findings:

A. The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan; B. The proposed use is allowed within the subject zone and complies with all other applicable City of Santa Clara Printed on 8/15/2024Page 2 of 4
powered by Legistar™
24-325 Agenda Date: 8/21/2024
provisions of this Zoning Code and the City Code;
C. The design, location, size, and operating characteristics of the proposed use are compatible with the allowed uses in the vicinity;
D. Operation of the use at the location proposed would not be detrimental to the harmonious and orderly growth of the City, or endanger, jeopardize, or otherwise constitute a hazard to the public convenience, health, interest, safety, or general welfare; and E. The subject site is:

1. Physically suitable in terms of design, location, operating characteristics, shape, size, topography, and the provision of public and emergency vehicle (e.g., fire and medical) access and public services and utilities; and;

2. Served by highways and streets adequate in width and improvement to carry the type and quantity of traffic the proposed use would likely generate.

All of the above findings are able to be made as detailed in Attachment 3 - Resolution to Approve the Conditional Use Permit.

Conclusion
:

The proposal is consistent with the General Plan policies and Zoning Ordinance, and meets the height requirements. The proposed project is desirable to the public convenience and will provide coverage objectives for the proposed wireless facility and improve service/coverage for the general area. The proposed project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed ancillary use.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The proposed project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per section 15303(d) of the CEQA Guidelines (New Construction of Utility Extensions).

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no impact to the City for processing the requested application other than administrative staff time and expense typically covered by processing fees paid by the applicant.

COORDINATION
This report has been coordinated with the City Attorney’s Office.

PUBLIC CONTACT
On August 8, 2024, a notice of public hearing on this item was mailed to property owners within 500 feet of the project site. On August 15, 2024 a notice of public hearing was posted in three public places within the City. At the time of this staff report, Planning staff has not received public comments in support or opposition to the proposed project.

RECOMMENDATION

1. Determine that the project is categorically exempt from formal environmental review per Section 15303(d), New Construction of Utility Extensions, of the CEQA Guidelines; and

2. Adopt a Resolution to approve a Conditional Use Permit for a new unmanned AT&T wireless telecommunication facility with the installation of a 60-foot-tall monotree at 3111 Benton Street, subject to findings and conditions of approval.

Prepared by: Tiffany Vien, Associate Planner
City of Santa Clara Printed on 8/15/2024Page 3 of 4
powered by Legistar™
24-325 Agenda Date: 8/21/2024
Reviewed by: Alexander Abbe, Assistant City Attorney
Approved by: Lesley Xavier, Planning Manager

ATTACHMENTS

1. Development Plans

2. Letter of Justification

3. Resolution to Approve the Conditional Use Permit

4. Conditions of Approval

5. Visual Simulations

6. Coverage Map

7. Public Comment - Bo

8. Public Comment - Zhang
City of Santa Clara Printed on 8/15/2024Page 4 of 4
powered by Legistar™

PROJECT SUPPORT STATEMENT
AT&T MOBILITY CCL06126

1 Site Name: CCL06126 – Planning No. PLN23-00148
Loca�on: 3111 Benton Street, Santa Clara, CA 95051
APN: 290-27-006
Introduction
AT&T is seeking to improve communications service to residences, businesses, public services, and area travelers in the City of Santa Clara. AT&T maintains a strong customer base in Santa Clara and strives to improve coverage for both existing and potential customers. Currently, this portion of the AT&T network is suffering from poor coverage due to an insufficient number of telecommunications facilities and the ever -increasing volume of service. To address this issue, AT&T is proposing a new wireless communications facility on a private parcel, to improve coverage for both existing and potential customers. This project will expand AT&T’s existing network and improve call quality, signal strength, and wireless connection services in the City of Santa Clara. It will benefit residents, local businesses, public services, and commuters.

Addi�onally, this network development will increase public safety within this area and bring wireless service to areas that currently suffer from poor service. This unmanned facility will provide service to area travelers, residents and businesses 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. This site will also serve as a backup to the existing landline service in the area and will provide improved mobile communica�ons, which are essen�al to modern day commerce and recrea�on.

Location/Design
This property is located within the jurisdiction of the City of Santa Clara and is zoned Public / Quasi at APN 290-27-006. This project is not within 1000’ of a highway, 100 yards of an existing facility, and is not within a flood zone. This project was originally designed as light fixtures when submitted in March of 2023. To address the concerns provided in the Notice of Incomplete on April 5, 2023, AT&T has decided to change the design to a Broadleaf style tree.

Areial View of Proposed Project

PROJECT SUPPORT STATEMENT
AT&T MOBILITY CCL06126

2 Project Description
The project will include an unmanned telecommunications facility that includes twelve ( 12) antennas located on two arrays along with associated tower-mounted equipment, and placed on a 60’ stealth mono broadleaf, providing RAN at a center line of 44’ & 52’ on a lease area of 20’ x 20’. Associated ground equipment will include a walk-in cabinet and a 30kw standby diesel generator, within the 30’ x 30’ lease area and enclosed by a new 6’ wood fenc e and CMU wall that is already placed in an abandoned compound. The proposed facility is located near the back of the property in the parking lot. No parking spaces will be affected.

The project abides by the Public / Quasi Public (B) zone code. The proposed facility meets all setbacks
within the zone. The proposed lease area has sufficient space for AT&T’s tower, outdoor cabinet, and diesel generator. Power, telco and access are located on the underlying parcel, or within the public right of way.

Service Objectives
The purpose of this facility is to close a gap in coverage that exists in the residential region of Santa Clara. This facility will provide capacity support to the surrounding facilities, ensuring that service always remains reliable.

Coverage Maps
The Coverage Maps below provide a visual depiction of the gap that the existing facility will close and the other facilities in the network. Wireless technology operates using line-of-site technology, meaning that the facility must be tall enough to be able to “see” the surrounding facilities and coverage areas to function properly. At a centerline of 44’ & 52’, the facility has been designed at the minimum functioning height in order to achieve the coverage depicted below.

The uncolored areas show denote poor or no coverage, the area shown in blue shows some outdoor and indoor coverage, the area marked in yellow shows some in transit coverage and good indoor coverage, and the area marked in green indicates good indoor, in-transit, and outdoor coverage. Please note that much of the blue and yellow areas are replaced by green following ac�va�on of the proposed facility along the targeted coverage area, as well as much of the surrounding area.

As shown in these coverage maps, the target area is filled with a green, indic a�ng far greater indoor coverage within the target area, as well as the surrounding vicinity. Larger versions of these coverage maps are provided with this applica�on.

PROJECT SUPPORT STATEMENT
AT&T MOBILITY CCL06126

3 PROJECT SUPPORT STATEMENT
AT&T MOBILITY CCL06126

4 Public Benefits of Improved Wireless Service
Modern life has become increasingly dependent on instant communication. No longer just a personal and social convenience, wireless telecommunication devices such as mobile phones, smartphones and tablets have become an important tool for business, commerce , and public safety. The proposed AT&T facility will provide service 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. This site will serve as a backup to the existing landline service in the area and will provide improved mobile communications, which are essential to emergency response, community safety, commerce, and recreation. The following wireless telecommunications users will benefit from improved coverage created as a result of the proposed facility:

• Commercial, industrial businesses in the area
• Public and community services in the area
• Residents, visitors and travelers

Safety Benefits of Improved Wireless Service
AT&T offers its customers multiple services such as voice calls, text messaging, mobile email, picture/video messaging, mobile web, navigation, broadband access, and E911 services. Mobile phone use has become an extremely important tool for first responders and serves as a back-up system in the event of a natural disaster.

Opera�ons & Maintenance
The site is unmanned and requires no on -site personnel. Visita�on to the site by a service technician for rou�ne maintenance may occur up to once per month. The proposed site is en�rely self -monitored and connected directly to a central office where sop his�cated computers alert personnel to any equipment malfunc�on. Because the wireless facility is unmanned, there are no regular hours of opera�on and no impacts to exis�ng local traffic pat erns. No water or sanita�on services will be required. The facility itself operates 24/7.

Emergency Stand-by Generator
AT&T installs a standby generator and bat eries at all its cell sites. The generator and bat eries serve a vital role in AT&T’s Wireless’ emergency and disaster preparedness plan. In the event of a power outage, AT&T communica�ons equipment will first transi�on over to the backup bat eries. The bat eries can run on the site for approximately 8 hours, depending upon the demand placed upon the equipment. Should the power outage extend beyond the capacity of the bat eries, the backup generator will automa�cally start and recharge the bat eries. This two -stage backup plan is an extremely important component of every AT&T Wireless telecommunica�ons site. The standby generator is operated for approximately 10 - 15 minutes per week for maintenance purposes.

PROJECT SUPPORT STATEMENT
AT&T MOBILITY CCL06126

5 Construction Schedule
The construc�on of the facility will be in compliance with all local rules and regula�ons. The crew size will range from two to ten individuals. The construc�on phase of the project will last approximately two months and will not exceed acceptable noise levels.

Lighting
Unless tower lighting is required by the FAA, the only lighting on the facility will be a shielded light dedicated for technicians inside the lease area.

Compliance with FCC Standards
This project will not interfere with any TV, radio, telephone, satellite, or other signals. Any interference would be against federal law and a violation of AT&T Mobility’s FCC license. A radio frequency report verifying compliance with FCC guidelines is included with this application.

Notice of Actions Affecting Development Permit
In accordance with California Government Code Section 65945(a), AT&T requests notice of any proposal to adopt or amend the: general plan, specific plan, zoning ordinance, ordinance(s) affecting building or grading permits that would in any manner affect th is development permit. Any such notice may be sent to 2009 V Street, Sacramento, CA 95818.

.

VICINITY MAP CODE COMPLIANCEPROJECT DESCRIPTION
T-1.1

TITLE SHEET

PREPARED FOR

REV DESCRIPTIONDATE
SHEET TITLE:

SHEET NUMBER:

CHECKED BY:

DRAWN BY:

PROJECT NO:

IT IS A VIOLATION OF LAW FOR ANY PERSON,

UNLESS THEY ARE ACTING UNDER THE

DIRECTION OF A LICENSED PROFESSIONAL
ENGINEER, TO ALTER THIS DOCUMENT.

Vendor:

Licensee:

ENGINEER:

AT&T SITE NO:
-
CCL06126
08/21/23 ZD 90%
5001 Executive Parkway
San Ramon, California 94583
Issued For:

CCL06126
CCL06126
0 APPROVED BY:

ISSUE STATUS

THESE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AS INSTRUMENTS OF SERVICE, ARE AND SHALL REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF STREAMLINE ENGINEERING AND DESIGN INC. WHETHER THE PROJECTS FOR WHICH THEY ARE MADE ARE EXECUTED OR NOT. THESE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS SHALL NOT BE

USED BY ANY PERSON OR ENTITY ON OTHER PROJECTS WITH OUT PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE ENGINEER. Copyright 2009, STREAMLINE ENGINEERING AND DESIGN INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.C 8445 Sierra College Blvd, Suite E Granite Bay, CA 95746 Contact: Kevin Sorensen Phone: 916-660-1930
E-Mail: [email protected] Fax: 916-660-1941
C. COLSTON
J. GRAY
-
3111 BENTON STREET
SANTA CLARA, CA 95051
C.T.C
CAD
11/17/23 ZD 100%1 C.T.C

DRIVING DIRECTIONS

PROJECT INFORMATION

SHEET INDEX

SHEET DESCRIPTION REV SHEET DESCRIPTION REV
AT&T SITE NUMBER: CCL06126
AT&T SITE NAME: CCL06126
3111 BENTON STREET
SANTA CLARA, CA 95051
JURISDICTION: CITY OF SANTA CLARA
APN: 290-27-006
SITE TYPE: OUTDOOR EQUIPMENT /

BROADLEAF MONOTREE
•
•
SCALE: N/A
71 SITE LOCATION
INITIATIVE / PROJECT: NSB
USID#: 298767
FA LOCATION CODE: 15376635
RFDS ID #: 4289118
RFDS VERSION: 4.00
RFDS DATE: 10/11/23
PACE JOB#: MRSFR073883
PTN#: 3701A0WFDV

A (N) AT&T UNMANNED TELECOMMUNICATION FACILITY CONSISTING OF INSTALLING (N) LEASE AREA W/ (N) GROUND MOUNTED EQUIPMENT CABINETS & (N) DIESEL GENERATOR & (N) UTILITIES TO (N) SITE LOCATION
(N) BROADLEAF MONOTREE W/ (N) ANTENNAS & ANTENNA EQUIPMENT.

SITE NAME:

SITE#:

COUNTY:

J.JRI SDICTION:

APN·
SITE ADDRESS:

CURRENT ZONING
CONSTRUCTION TYPE:

OCCUPANCY TYPE·
POWER·
LATITUDE:

LONGITUDE:

GROUND ELEVATION:

PROPERTY 01'.-NER:

APPLICANT:

CCL06l26
CCLD6126

SANTA CLARA

CITY OF SANTA CLARA
290- 27- 006
3111 BENTONSTREET
SANTA CLARA, CA 95051
PUBLIC / QUASI (8)
v-a

U, (UNMANNED COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY)

SILICON VALLEY POWER
N 37" 20' 48.69" NAO 83
N37.346859'NAD83
W 121' 59' 05.42" NAO 83
W 121.984841' NAD 83
98'AMSL

SANTA CLARA FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH
3111 BENTONSTREET
SANTA CLARA, CA 95051

AT&T MOBILI TY
5001 EXECUTIVE PARKWAY
SAN RAMON, CA 94583
SITE ACQUISITION COMPANY· COMPLETE WIRELfSS CONSULTING
2009 V STREET
SACRAMENTO, CA 95818
LEASING CONTACT: ATTN: ROCKY CORDOVA
(916) 616- 0468
RCORDOVAOCOMPLETEWIRELESS.NET
ZONING CONTACT: ATTN: STEVE PROO
(916)838 - 6713
SPROOOCOMPLETEWIRELESS.NET
CONSTRUCTION CONTACT: BECHTEL

KEITI, CONNER
(408) 306- 3801
GKCONNEReEIECHTEL.COM
9 i
I)
•I'
FROM: 5001 EXECUTIVE PARKWAY, SAN RAMON, CA 94583
TO· 31 11 BENTON STREET, SANTA CLARA, CA 95051

1. HEAD SOUTHl'i£ST 33 n

2. TURNRIGHT 12FT

3. TURN LEFT TOWARD EXECUTIVE PKWY 164 n

4. T URN RIGHT TOWARD EXECUTIVE PKWY 295 FT

5. TURN RIGHT ONTO EXECUTI VE PKWY 0.2 Ml
6 T URN RIGHT ONTO CAMINO RAMON 0.6 Ml
7 USE THE RIGHT 2 LANES TO TURN RIGHT ONTO BOLLINGER CANYON RD 0.5 Ml 8 USE THE RIGHT LANE TO MERGE ONTO 1- 680 S VIA THE RAMP TO SAN JOSE 0.3 Ml 9 MERGE ONTO 1-680 S 27.8 Ml
10 TAKE EXIT 6 FOR MONTAGUE EXPWY 0.4 Ml

11. MERGE ONTO MONTAGUE EXPWY 5,8 Ml

12. CONTINUE ONTO SAN TOMAS EXPWY 2.5 Ml

13. TURNRIGHTONTOBENTONST 0.8MI
14 TURNLEFT O.OMI
END AT: 3 111 BENTON STREET, SANTA CLARA, CA 95051
ESTIMATED TIME: 1 HOUR ESTIMATED DISTANCE: 38.8 MILES

ALL WORK & MATERIALS SHALL BE PERFORMED & INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE 'MTH THE CURRENT EDITIONS OF THE FOLLOWING CODES AS ADOPTED BY THE LOCAL GOVERNING AUTHORITIES. NOTHING IN THESE PLANS IS TO BE CONSTRUED TO PERMIT WORK

NOT CONFORMING TO THESE CODES
2022 CALIFORNIA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE, PART 1, TITLE 24 C.C.R 2022 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE (CBC), PART 2, VOLUME 1&2, TITLE 24 C.C.R. (2021 INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE AND 2022 CALIFORNIA AMENDMENTS} 2022 CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE (CEC), PART 3, TI TLE 24 C.C.R (2020 NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE AND 2022 CALIFORNIA AMENDMENTS) 2022 CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE (CMC) PART 4, TITlE 24 C.C.R (2021 UNIFORM MECHANICAL CODE AND 2022 CALIFORNIA AMENDMENTS) 2022 CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE (CPC}, PART 5, TITlE 24 C.C.R (2021 UNIFORM PLUMBING CODE AND 2022 CALIFORNIA AMENDMENTS) 2022 CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODE (CEC}, PART 6, 24 C.C.R
2022 CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE, PART 9, TITlE 24
(2021 INTERNATIONAL FIRE CODE AND 2022 CALIFORNIA AMENDMENTS) 2022 CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS CODE, PART 11, TITLE 24 C.C.R. 2022 CALIFORNIA REFERENCED STANDARDS, PART 12, TITLE 24 C.C.R.

ANSI/EIA-TIA-222- H
ALONG 'MTI--1 ANY OTHER APPLICABLE LOCAL & STATE LAWS AND REGULATIONS

DISABLED ACCESS REQUIREMENTS
THIS FACILITY IS UNMANNED & NOT FOR HUMAN HABITATION . DISABLED ACCESS & REQUIREMENTS ARE NOT REQUIRED IN ACCORDANCE 'MTH CALIFORNIA STATE BUILDING CODE, TITlE 24 PART 2, SECTION 11B-203.5 T- 1.1 TITLE SHEET
C- 1 TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY
C- 2 TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY
A-1.1 OVERALL SITE PLAN
A- 1.2 ENLARGED SITE PLAN
A- 1.3 ENLARGED BROADLEAF MONOTREE PLAN -
A-1 .4 EQUIPMENT PLAN
A- 2.1 ANTENNA PLANS
A- 3.1 E LEVATIONS
A- 3.2 ELEVATIONS
A- 4.1 AN TENNA DETAILS
A- 4.2 EQUIPMENT DETAILS
E- 1.1 ELECTRICAL PLAN
□ 8
~
COfflPLETE
Wireless Consu lti ng, Inc.

PRELIMINARY:

NOT FOR

CONSTRUCTION
KEVIN R. SORENSEN
S4469
,
-~
~ ... -~ -
~
= ......

MOBILITY
DATE OF SURVEY: 01- 19- 23
SURVEYED BY OR UNDER DIRECTION OF: KENNETH D. GEIL, R.C.E. 14803

LOCATED IN THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA

BEARINGS SHOWN ARE BASED UPON MONUMENTS FOUND AND
RECORD INFORMATION. THIS IS NOT A BOUNDARY SURVEY.

ELEVATIONS SHOIYN ON THIS PLAN ARE BASED UPON U.S.G.S
N.A.V.D. 88 DATUM. ABOVE MEAN SEA LEVEL.

N.G.V.D. 1929 CORRECTION· SUBTRACT 2.73' FROM ELEVATIONS SHOWN
CONTOUR INTERVAL: N.A
FEIJA FLOOD ZONE " X" PER FIRM 06085C0226J DATED D5- 18 - 2009

CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE TO VERIFY LEASE AREA PRIOR TO

CONSTRUCTION
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER: 290 - 27- 006
OWNER(S)· SANTA CLARA FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH
3111 BENTONS TREET
SANTAC LARA,CA95051
-008 -009 -010
Projec t Nome
Project Site Locat ion;
Assesso r's Parce l No.:
3111 Bento n Street
SontoC loro.CA9505 1
;~~~2 ;~~~ 6 County
Equipment/Proced ure Used t o Obtain Coordlnotes: Trimble GeoXT post processe d with Path finder 0/fice soft ware
T)?e of Antenna Mount Proposed Monoplne
Coordinat es:

Lati tude: N 3T20'48.69" (NAD83) N 3T20'48.90 " (NAD27) Longitude; W 121'59'05.42 " (NAD83) W 121'59'0 1.57" (NAD27) Lati tud e: N 37.346859'(NA083) N 37.3469 1T ( NAD27)
Long itude: W 121.98484 1" (NAD83) W 121.98377 1" (NAD27) ELEVATION of Ground ot Struct ure (NAV088) 98' AMSL
APN 290-19-
-OJ J -012 -013 -014 -015 -016 -017
~; i:
0;: .. 1;;8 .;g
ii" ii !j
~ ;~ ij
Santa Clara, CA
.,., .. ,-
~ ~ ~1!] VICINITY MAP l "I •
~SE~EU~;:~Ng~ :r~ig:, ~\ ~io~:tL~~N~ ~~~~NI ~ ~ IL f--------i

ENGINEERINGANDTHEIRUSEA NOPUBLICATIONSHALLBERESTRIC TEDTO THE ORIGINAL SITE ANO CARRIER FOR \YHICH TI-lEY ARE PREPARED. REUSE.

REPRODUCTION OR PUBLICATION BY ANY METI-100, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, IS PROHIBITED EXCEPT B Y 'M<:ITTEN PERMISSION FROM GEIL ENGINEERING TITLE

TO TI-IESE PLANS ANO/OR SPECIFICATIONS SHALL REMAIN 'M TH GEIL ENGINEERING WITHOUT PRE...UDICE ANO VISUAL CON TACT \'w1TH THEM SHALL CONSTITUTE PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE Of ACCEPTANCE Of THESE

RESTRICTIONS

BOUNDARY SHOWN IS BASED ON MONUMENTATION FOUND AND RECORD ~~!f~Wj1c~it 1~t:~Rg~~~~Fr~1~1~:~~rk~~i~~:~~;~:1~~:ED ! ~l~~~C~JR~t~cgRE~S~~~N;~A l~~~E R~~~~~it T6iN ~i~~D -D~~l~E~ f--------i LINES AND LINES OF TIQE WERE NOT I NVESTIGATED NOR SURVEYED. NO

PROPERTY MONUMENTS WERE SET
-018 -019
~=====-{ ~ -----= ____________ ; ____ --_ _j_ ___ ·-----·------ 1 =- -. - _____ : ---·· -~- \-~.,.,,,...._--~- : ---7fr✓7? /27"~/r /~ ~// /2/ ~ E.~-~ I PROPOSEDNDN-EXCLUSIVELESSEE100 '_µ . Cl::
\
\
-039 '>·~
~ \
L \\
-038 '\ \.

N \~
\£::i \,
C) \ ,
\ \\\ Ci, '\
DE
T
1 APN 290-27-006 ---- - -
I ACCESS AND UTTLITYEASEll,ENT _J_ 1 ~
(fj
1/

BENTON STREET
ggggg
SCALE 1" = 30' C- 1

OVERALL PROJECT AREA

MOBILITY

PARCEL BOUNDARY I CONCRETE CURBING
___ j __ _ _ i --·--------- - --- ------A-PN--2;10~-ig- 009 __ ------------T-
___ I _

DINATEPOINT

S'R LEASE- AREA OSED LESSEE

7.0' ELECT. ESMT.

PER 2009 - 20462412
I t--+-+- +-+-+-+---i
J)"z.G'
.,, o""\------,,io\
\ \"-,-t<it-~t
\ \ sc?-
\;..1~-'t _..,
-i.\'1.9,<,;
SCALE 1 " = 10'
C- 2
DETAIL 1
A-1.1

OVERALL

SITE PLAN

PREPARED FOR

REV DESCRIPTIONDATE
SHEET TITLE:

SHEET NUMBER:

CHECKED BY:

DRAWN BY:

PROJECT NO:

IT IS A VIOLATION OF LAW FOR ANY PERSON,

UNLESS THEY ARE ACTING UNDER THE

DIRECTION OF A LICENSED PROFESSIONAL
ENGINEER, TO ALTER THIS DOCUMENT.

Vendor:

Licensee:

ENGINEER:

AT&T SITE NO:
-
CCL06126
08/21/23 ZD 90%
5001 Executive Parkway
San Ramon, California 94583
Issued For:

CCL06126
CCL06126
0 APPROVED BY:

ISSUE STATUS

THESE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AS INSTRUMENTS OF SERVICE, ARE AND SHALL REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF STREAMLINE ENGINEERING AND DESIGN INC. WHETHER THE PROJECTS FOR WHICH THEY ARE MADE ARE EXECUTED OR NOT. THESE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS SHALL NOT BE

USED BY ANY PERSON OR ENTITY ON OTHER PROJECTS WITH OUT PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE ENGINEER. Copyright 2009, STREAMLINE ENGINEERING AND DESIGN INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.C 8445 Sierra College Blvd, Suite E Granite Bay, CA 95746 Contact: Kevin Sorensen Phone: 916-660-1930
E-Mail: [email protected] Fax: 916-660-1941
C. COLSTON
J. GRAY
-
3111 BENTON STREET
SANTA CLARA, CA 95051
C.T.C
CAD
11/17/23 ZD 100%1 C.T.C
71 ~ (E) CONCRETE SIDEWALK
W/ CURB &. GUTTER

OVERALL SITE PLAN
" r T
APN:
290- 19- 018
APN:
290-1 9- 019
□ 8
~
COfflPLETE
Wireless Consulting, Inc.

PRELIMINARY:

NOT FOR

CONSTRUCTION
KEVIN R. SORENSEN
S4469

PREPARED FOR

REV DESCRIPTIONDATE
SHEET TITLE:

SHEET NUMBER:

CHECKED BY:

DRAWN BY:

PROJECT NO:

IT IS A VIOLATION OF LAW FOR ANY PERSON,

UNLESS THEY ARE ACTING UNDER THE

DIRECTION OF A LICENSED PROFESSIONAL
ENGINEER, TO ALTER THIS DOCUMENT.

Vendor:

Licensee:

ENGINEER:

AT&T SITE NO:
-
CCL06126
08/21/23 ZD 90%
5001 Executive Parkway
San Ramon, California 94583
Issued For:

CCL06126
CCL06126
0 APPROVED BY:

ISSUE STATUS

THESE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AS INSTRUMENTS OF SERVICE, ARE AND SHALL REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF STREAMLINE ENGINEERING AND DESIGN INC. WHETHER THE PROJECTS FOR WHICH THEY ARE MADE ARE EXECUTED OR NOT. THESE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS SHALL NOT BE

USED BY ANY PERSON OR ENTITY ON OTHER PROJECTS WITH OUT PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE ENGINEER. Copyright 2009, STREAMLINE ENGINEERING AND DESIGN INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.C 8445 Sierra College Blvd, Suite E Granite Bay, CA 95746 Contact: Kevin Sorensen Phone: 916-660-1930
E-Mail: [email protected] Fax: 916-660-1941
C. COLSTON
J. GRAY
-
3111 BENTON STREET
SANTA CLARA, CA 95051
C.T.C
CAD
11/17/23 ZD 100%1 C.T.C
A-1.2

ENLARGED SITE
PLAN
71 AT&T TO LOCATE, CU T, & REROUTE (E) U/G CONDUIT FOR

POWER FROM (E) S'MTCHGEAR TO (N) AT&T LEASE AREA TO
(N) AT&T 200AMP METER PANEL, APPROX 100'
(E) 1200AMP, 120/208¥, 3PH, 4W
ELECTRICALS¼HCHGEARONGROUND

BESIDE BUILDING & (N) AT&T POWER POC
(N) AT&T 200AMP METER PANEL

CONNECTED TO (E) ELECTRICAL

S'M TCHGEAR ON (N) UTILITY H- FRAME
2'- o·
(E) BUILDING WALl
(E) ELECTRICAL BOXES
a
====--+ --~--=-=== :./== ,, ====;::==----------- .L. --- - (N) AT&T PROTECTIOO
BOLLARD, TYP OF 2 (E) U/G GAS LINE
(E) MECHANICAL
EQUIPMENT, TYP OF 4
(6) (E) ABANDONED 6" CONDUITS ATTACHED TO BUILDING WAU &.

U/G TO (E) ABANDONED EQUIPMENT AREA TO BE REMOVED.

PATCH, REPAIR, & PAINT BUILDING WALL & ROOF OVERHANG EAVE (E)TELEPHONEBOX
(E) CONCRETE SIDEWALK
(E) ABANDONED EQUIPMENT LEASE

AREA/COMPOUND TO BE TAKEN OVER

BY AT&T & (N) AT&T LEASE AREA

SEE EQUIPMENT PLAN,
SHEET A-1.4

ENLARGED SITE PLAN
(E)JOINT UTILITYPCX..Elt(N)

AT&T FIBER POC
(N) AT&T 4" U/G CONDUIT FOR FIBER

FROM POC TO (P) CIENA W/ TELCO
BOX BELOW, APPROX 20'
(N) AT&T 15'- 0" WIDE NON- EXCLUSIVE

ACCESS & UTIUTY EASEMENT
(E)OVERHEAD

UTILITYLINES,TYP
(E)BUILDING
□ 8
~
COfflPLETE
Wireless Consulting, Inc.

PRELIMINARY:

NOT FOR

CONSTRUCTION
KEVIN R. SORENSEN
S4469

PREPARED FOR

REV DESCRIPTIONDATE
SHEET TITLE:

SHEET NUMBER:

CHECKED BY:

DRAWN BY:

PROJECT NO:

IT IS A VIOLATION OF LAW FOR ANY PERSON,

UNLESS THEY ARE ACTING UNDER THE

DIRECTION OF A LICENSED PROFESSIONAL
ENGINEER, TO ALTER THIS DOCUMENT.

Vendor:

Licensee:

ENGINEER:

AT&T SITE NO:
-
CCL06126
08/21/23 ZD 90%
5001 Executive Parkway
San Ramon, California 94583
Issued For:

CCL06126
CCL06126
0 APPROVED BY:

ISSUE STATUS

THESE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AS INSTRUMENTS OF SERVICE, ARE AND SHALL REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF STREAMLINE ENGINEERING AND DESIGN INC. WHETHER THE PROJECTS FOR WHICH THEY ARE MADE ARE EXECUTED OR NOT. THESE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS SHALL NOT BE

USED BY ANY PERSON OR ENTITY ON OTHER PROJECTS WITH OUT PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE ENGINEER. Copyright 2009, STREAMLINE ENGINEERING AND DESIGN INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.C 8445 Sierra College Blvd, Suite E Granite Bay, CA 95746 Contact: Kevin Sorensen Phone: 916-660-1930
E-Mail: [email protected] Fax: 916-660-1941
C. COLSTON
J. GRAY
-
3111 BENTON STREET
SANTA CLARA, CA 95051
C.T.C
CAD
11/17/23 ZD 100%1 C.T.C
A-1.3
ENL. BROADLEAF

MONOTREE PLAN
71 (E) 10·-o• 'MOE ELECTRICAL
EASEMENTPER4528/526 \
PROPERTl' LINE
(E) CONCRETE CURB
(2) (N) AT&T 6" U/G CONDUITS
W/ (3) (N) FIBER TRUNK CABLES
& (9) (N) DC POW'ER TRUNK
CABLES INSIDE,APPROX.245'
'H 'H
UTIL1\9,:;;HE-T¢,'; + r---- A \ =----r--= ~ FIB/P
I ______ --------------_l--1-1 __ _
(E)BUILDING ~
(E)TREE
(E)TREE
(E)TREE ~ - I ~ I r: 22·- s·
: V\ I
(N) AT&T METAL CABLE COVER 0

BASE OF BROADLEAF MONOTREE

PAIN TED BROWN TO MATCH (N)
BROADLEAF MONOTREE TRUCK ~
(N) AT&T 4'- 0" WlDE GATE

W/ SITE SIGNAGE
I
I
I
'",· )
' I
I
t-----10·-o·----;;---t-~ ~
37'- 1"
I
(N) AT&T 20'- Q" WIDE NON-EXCLUSIVE

ACCESS & UTILITY EASEMENT
-----y- - -

FIB/P - FIB/P -
20·- o·
(N) AT&T 10'-Q" WIDE NON-EXCLUSIVE

ACCESS & UTILITY EASEMENT
I~ (N) AT&T 511 SQ DT BROADLfAF
/ MONOTREE LEASE AREA
20·- o·
10·-o·
X
,' ~ -- """''"~- -~
(N) AT&T BROADLEAF

MONOTREE W/ (N) ANTENNAS
& ANTENNA EQUIPMENT

EN LARGED BROADLEAF MONOTREE PLAN
1/4"=1·- o·
□ 8
~
COfflPLETE
Wireless Consulting, Inc.

PRELIMINARY:

NOT FOR

CONSTRUCTION
KEVIN R. SORENSEN
54469

PREPARED FOR

REV DESCRIPTIONDATE
SHEET TITLE:

SHEET NUMBER:

CHECKED BY:

DRAWN BY:

PROJECT NO:

IT IS A VIOLATION OF LAW FOR ANY PERSON,

UNLESS THEY ARE ACTING UNDER THE

DIRECTION OF A LICENSED PROFESSIONAL
ENGINEER, TO ALTER THIS DOCUMENT.

Vendor:

Licensee:

ENGINEER:

AT&T SITE NO:
-
CCL06126
08/21/23 ZD 90%
5001 Executive Parkway
San Ramon, California 94583
Issued For:

CCL06126
CCL06126
0 APPROVED BY:

ISSUE STATUS

THESE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AS INSTRUMENTS OF SERVICE, ARE AND SHALL REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF STREAMLINE ENGINEERING AND DESIGN INC. WHETHER THE PROJECTS FOR WHICH THEY ARE MADE ARE EXECUTED OR NOT. THESE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS SHALL NOT BE

USED BY ANY PERSON OR ENTITY ON OTHER PROJECTS WITH OUT PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE ENGINEER. Copyright 2009, STREAMLINE ENGINEERING AND DESIGN INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.C 8445 Sierra College Blvd, Suite E Granite Bay, CA 95746 Contact: Kevin Sorensen Phone: 916-660-1930
E-Mail: [email protected] Fax: 916-660-1941
C. COLSTON
J. GRAY
-
3111 BENTON STREET
SANTA CLARA, CA 95051
C.T.C
CAD
11/17/23 ZD 100%1 C.T.C
A-1.4

EQUIPMENT
PLAN
71 (E) CMU WALL
~·E AR~M~16BANDONED U/G CONDUITS FOR POWl::R & LOCATE, REUSE & REROU UNDER LEASE AREA TO LEASE AREA. FIBER FROM OUTSIDE Lf~E (2R~:GTOC~~il~~S

2. LOCATE & PROTECT ____ (E_) _u/GG .AS LINE THROUGH LEASE AREA. (2) (N) AT&T PURCELL

CABINETS STACKED
(2)(F)AT&TP URCEL1

CABINETS STACKED
(E) WOOD FENCE
11'- 10"
(E)CMU )
WALL
(E) AREA DRAIN TO
B\~~~if TETOSL~J
LE'fl
□
~ at&t
~
~fb~;i!.
/ (E)BUILDING/
(E)GATETOBE WALL TO BE INST~~~D\IED & (N) CM U
HEIGHT & COLOR TO MATCH Of (E) CMU WAll
,r-o·

PREPARED FOR

REV DESCRIPTIONDATE
SHEET TITLE:

SHEET NUMBER:

CHECKED BY:

DRAWN BY:

PROJECT NO:

IT IS A VIOLATION OF LAW FOR ANY PERSON,

UNLESS THEY ARE ACTING UNDER THE

DIRECTION OF A LICENSED PROFESSIONAL
ENGINEER, TO ALTER THIS DOCUMENT.

Vendor:

Licensee:

ENGINEER:

AT&T SITE NO:
-
CCL06126
08/21/23 ZD 90%
5001 Executive Parkway
San Ramon, California 94583
Issued For:

CCL06126
CCL06126
0 APPROVED BY:

ISSUE STATUS

THESE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AS INSTRUMENTS OF SERVICE, ARE AND SHALL REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF STREAMLINE ENGINEERING AND DESIGN INC. WHETHER THE PROJECTS FOR WHICH THEY ARE MADE ARE EXECUTED OR NOT. THESE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS SHALL NOT BE

USED BY ANY PERSON OR ENTITY ON OTHER PROJECTS WITH OUT PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE ENGINEER. Copyright 2009, STREAMLINE ENGINEERING AND DESIGN INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.C 8445 Sierra College Blvd, Suite E Granite Bay, CA 95746 Contact: Kevin Sorensen Phone: 916-660-1930
E-Mail: [email protected] Fax: 916-660-1941
C. COLSTON
J. GRAY
-
3111 BENTON STREET
SANTA CLARA, CA 95051
C.T.C
CAD
11/17/23 ZD 100%1 C.T.C
A-2.1

ANTENNA PLANS
71 71

ANTENNA & CABLE SCHEDULE (PRELMINARY & SUBJECT TO CHANGE) 71 (N) AT&T RRUS- 4490 85/8 12
UNIT, TYPOF3 \
{N)SHEPR0 1 COLLAR7
MOUNT 6CHMT OR

APPROVED EQUAL
/ (N)AT&T RRUS- 4890
/ 825/866 UNIT, TYP OF 3
~ (N)AT&TRRUS- 2012
829 UNIT, TYP OF 3
(N) AT&T BROADLEAF

MONOTREE W/ (N)

CABLES INSIDE
RADIO UN IT PLAN @ CL 39'- 6"
½"=1'- 0"
;..;.u ·
10'-Q" MIN. LENGTI-1 Of
BRANCHES@ BOTTOM
7'-0" MIN. LENGTH
OF BRANCHES@ TOP
~ SECTOR 8
(2) (N) AT&T

ANTENNAS, VERTICALLY
STACKED,TYPOF3
(N) AT&T BROADLEAF

MONOTREE W/ (N)

CABLES INSIDE
ANTENNA PLAN @ CL 52'- 0"
½"=1'- 0"
MJ-W'
SECTOR ANTENNA MODEL NO. AZIMUTH CENTERLINE
Al QUINTEL QD6612- 2 35· ±52' - 0"
A2 ERICSSON AIR6 419 B77G & AIR6419 B77D 35· ±53' - 8" & ±50' - 1" A3 QUINTEL QD6612- 2 35· ±44 '- 0"
A4 QUINTEL QD6612- 2 35· ±44' - 0"
Bl QUINTEL QD6612- 2 275" ±52' - o"
B2 ERICSSON AIR6 41 9 B77G & AIR6419 B77D 275" ±53'- 8~ & ±50' -1 " B3 QUINTEL QD6612- 2 275" ±44' - o"
B4 QUINTEL QD6612- 2 275" ± 44'- o"
Cl QUINTEL QD6612-2 155' ±52' - 0"
C2 ERICSSON AIR6419 B77G & AIR6419 B77D 155' ±53' - 8~ & ±50' - 1" C3 QUINTEL QD6612- 2 155' ±44' - o"
C4 QUINTEL QD6612- 2 155' ± 44'- o"
RFDSDATE 10/1 1/23
RFDSREV 4.00
(N) SITE PRO 1 TRIPLE

T-ARM ASSEMBLY
RMVD8- 3- 3XX MOUNT

OR APPROVED EQUAL
10'- 0" MIN. LENGTH OF
BRANCHES@ BOTTOM
7'- 0" MIN. LENGTH
OF BRANCHES @ TOP
~ SECTOR B
{N) AT&T DC9 SURGE
SUPPRESSOR, TYP OF 3
(N) SITE PRO 1 TRIPLE

T- ARM ASSEMBLY
RMVD8- 3- 3XX MOUNT

OR APPROVED EQUAL
RRU NO'S & MODEL I # OF DC # Of FIBER

PO'NER CABLES CABLES
(1) 4490 B5/B12, (I) 4B90 B25/B66 SHARED SHARED

INTEGRATED SHARED SHARED
(1) 2012 B29
(1) 4478 B14 SHARED SHARED
(1) 4490 B5/B12, (1) 4890 B25/ B66 SHARED SHARED

INTEGRATED SHARED SHARED
(1) 2012 B29
(1) 4478 B14 SHARED SHARED
(1) 4490 B5/B12, (I) 4B90 B25/ B66 SHARED SHARED

INTEGRATED SHARED SHARED
(1) 2012 B29
(1) 4478 B1 4 SHARED SHARED
LENGTI-1 OF SURGE NO. OF NO. OF

CABLES S UPPRESSOR DIPLEXERS COMBINERS

SHARED SHARED

SHARED SHARED
±310' (1) DC9

SHARED SHARED

SHARED SHARED

SHARED SHARED
±310' (I) DC9

SHARED SHARED

SHARED SHARED

SHARED SHARED
±310' (l)DC9

SHARED SHARED
NOTE:

1. ANTENNA POSITIONS ARE LEFT TO RIGHT FROM
FRONT Cf ANTENNA

2. EQUIPMENT IS PRELJf,HNARY & SUBJECT TO CHANGE
(N) AT&T BROADLEAF

MONOTREE W/ (N)

CABLES INSIDE
AN TENNA PLAN @ CL 44'- 0"
½"=1'- 0"
MJ-W'
□ 8
~
COfflPLETE
Wireless Consulti ng, Inc.

PRELIMINARY:

NOT FOR

CONSTRUCTION
KEVIN R. SORENSEN
54469

PREPARED FOR

REV DESCRIPTIONDATE
SHEET TITLE:

SHEET NUMBER:

CHECKED BY:

DRAWN BY:

PROJECT NO:

IT IS A VIOLATION OF LAW FOR ANY PERSON,

UNLESS THEY ARE ACTING UNDER THE

DIRECTION OF A LICENSED PROFESSIONAL
ENGINEER, TO ALTER THIS DOCUMENT.

Vendor:

Licensee:

ENGINEER:

AT&T SITE NO:
-
CCL06126
08/21/23 ZD 90%
5001 Executive Parkway
San Ramon, California 94583
Issued For:

CCL06126
CCL06126
0 APPROVED BY:

ISSUE STATUS

THESE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AS INSTRUMENTS OF SERVICE, ARE AND SHALL REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF STREAMLINE ENGINEERING AND DESIGN INC. WHETHER THE PROJECTS FOR WHICH THEY ARE MADE ARE EXECUTED OR NOT. THESE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS SHALL NOT BE

USED BY ANY PERSON OR ENTITY ON OTHER PROJECTS WITH OUT PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE ENGINEER. Copyright 2009, STREAMLINE ENGINEERING AND DESIGN INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.C 8445 Sierra College Blvd, Suite E Granite Bay, CA 95746 Contact: Kevin Sorensen Phone: 916-660-1930
E-Mail: [email protected] Fax: 916-660-1941
C. COLSTON
J. GRAY
-
3111 BENTON STREET
SANTA CLARA, CA 95051
C.T.C
CAD
11/17/23 ZD 100%1 C.T.C
A-3.1

ELEVATIONS
(N)A T&TA NTENNAS& /-t
ASSOCIATED ANTENNA EQUIPMENT _____/ '
(N) AT&T RADIO UNITS •
·~ u.,..t
•j,.,
•t. it\.t
·~ w-.4
(N) AT&T BROAOLEAF MONOTREE ~
W/ (N) CABLES INSIDE ~
~
I
,.
•
~· !Ir~
~~
:t• 11r:ti
~­!lr,i'4

SOUTH ELEVATION
1/4"=1' -0"
~ ·
(N) AT&T 6'- 0" TALL WOOD FENCE
r

TOP OF (N) AT&T BROADLEAF MONOTREE BRANCHES
±60'- 0' A.G.L

TOP OF (N) AT&T BROADLEAF MONOTREE STEEL
±57'- 0' A.G.L.

TOP OF (N) AT&T ANTENNAS
±55'- 0' A.G.L

CENTER OF (N) AT&T ANTENNAS
±44'- 0' A.G.L

CENTER OF (N) AT&T RADIO UNITS
±39'- 6' A.G,L

BOTTOM OF (N) BROADLEAF MONOTREE BRANCHES
±20'-0 ' A.G.L

GROUND LEVEL
o·-o· A.G.L.
(N) AT&T BROADLEAF MONOTREE

W/ (N) CABLES INSIDE
•.
·{, . ·~ "'-ll!
•j,.,
•t. it\tt
-~
~ • (N} AT&T ANTENNAS &: ASSOCIATED
~- ANTENNA EQUIPMENT
~
..t-
:t •:Ii (N} AT&T RADIO UNITS
~.If·
:t• 1r:ti
~· ~,i'4
ffi
~
/ (N)4' - 0"'MDEACCESSGATE
~~~~~~~/~ / / (N) AT&T 6'- 0" TALL WOOO FENCE

EAST ELEVATION
1/4 "=1'- 0"
MJ-t...J' r
□ 8
~
COfflPLETE
Wireless Consulting, Inc.

PRELIMINARY:

NOT FOR

CONSTRUCTION
KEVIN R. SORENSEN
S4469

PREPARED FOR

REV DESCRIPTIONDATE
SHEET TITLE:

SHEET NUMBER:

CHECKED BY:

DRAWN BY:

PROJECT NO:

IT IS A VIOLATION OF LAW FOR ANY PERSON,

UNLESS THEY ARE ACTING UNDER THE

DIRECTION OF A LICENSED PROFESSIONAL
ENGINEER, TO ALTER THIS DOCUMENT.

Vendor:

Licensee:

ENGINEER:

AT&T SITE NO:
-
CCL06126
08/21/23 ZD 90%
5001 Executive Parkway
San Ramon, California 94583
Issued For:

CCL06126
CCL06126
0 APPROVED BY:

ISSUE STATUS

THESE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AS INSTRUMENTS OF SERVICE, ARE AND SHALL REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF STREAMLINE ENGINEERING AND DESIGN INC. WHETHER THE PROJECTS FOR WHICH THEY ARE MADE ARE EXECUTED OR NOT. THESE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS SHALL NOT BE

USED BY ANY PERSON OR ENTITY ON OTHER PROJECTS WITH OUT PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE ENGINEER. Copyright 2009, STREAMLINE ENGINEERING AND DESIGN INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.C 8445 Sierra College Blvd, Suite E Granite Bay, CA 95746 Contact: Kevin Sorensen Phone: 916-660-1930
E-Mail: [email protected] Fax: 916-660-1941
C. COLSTON
J. GRAY
-
3111 BENTON STREET
SANTA CLARA, CA 95051
C.T.C
CAD
11/17/23 ZD 100%1 C.T.C
A-3.2

ELEVATIONS
(N) A T&T OUTDOOR
(E) BUILDING EQUIPMENT CABINETS \ (N)AT&TGENERATOR\
(E) WOOD FENCE~
(E) CMU
WALL ~

T LEASE

EN OVER
(E) ABANDONED EQU IPMEN

AREA/COMPOUND TO BE TAK
BY AT&T & (N) AT&T LEA SEAREA ~
I'--"
.,.......L-
::r
~
"
\ \
\ \ I
I\
-1.1.~
II ..__
/ ~
,} ,,/
k ,J
I
1'--1'
I "
GROUNDLfVEL
o·-o·
(N) AT&T 4'- 0" ~OE ACCESS J

GATE IN (E) WOOD FENCE
WEST ELEVATION @ EQUIPM ENT

EASE (E) ABANDONED EQUIPMENT L

AREA/COMPOUND TO BE TAKEN

BY AT&T & (N) AT&T LEASE
OVER
·~~\ (E)=FENCE ~
I I I
½"=1·-0·
~ ·
(E) ~: ~~ ;g ~~ 1~~~~ ~~0 \JN~A~~~
=co-•o=-
7 \
(N)A T&T GENERATOR \
(E)CMU WALL \
I I -
\ I
0 ~
- = I I I I I I I I 7 I

I I I I I I I I
l l I I l I I I I I

I I I I II I I I I

I I I I I I I
1-
I I 7 l I 1 1
I 7 I I I I I I I I
I I I I II I I ~
SOU TH ELEVATION @ EQUIPMENT
Jf=l' - 0"
~ ·
~
/ (E)B UILDING
I

I I I I
0 0
I
I
□ 8
~
COfflPLETE
Wireless Consulting, Inc.

PRELIMINARY:

NOT FOR

CONSTRUCTION
KEVIN R. SORENSEN
54469
., ~
--!!! -
..
~
= ~

PREPARED FOR

REV DESCRIPTIONDATE
SHEET TITLE:

SHEET NUMBER:

CHECKED BY:

DRAWN BY:

PROJECT NO:

IT IS A VIOLATION OF LAW FOR ANY PERSON,

UNLESS THEY ARE ACTING UNDER THE

DIRECTION OF A LICENSED PROFESSIONAL
ENGINEER, TO ALTER THIS DOCUMENT.

Vendor:

Licensee:

ENGINEER:

AT&T SITE NO:
-
CCL06126
08/21/23 ZD 90%
5001 Executive Parkway
San Ramon, California 94583
Issued For:

CCL06126
CCL06126
0 APPROVED BY:

ISSUE STATUS

THESE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AS INSTRUMENTS OF SERVICE, ARE AND SHALL REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF STREAMLINE ENGINEERING AND DESIGN INC. WHETHER THE PROJECTS FOR WHICH THEY ARE MADE ARE EXECUTED OR NOT. THESE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS SHALL NOT BE

USED BY ANY PERSON OR ENTITY ON OTHER PROJECTS WITH OUT PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE ENGINEER. Copyright 2009, STREAMLINE ENGINEERING AND DESIGN INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.C 8445 Sierra College Blvd, Suite E Granite Bay, CA 95746 Contact: Kevin Sorensen Phone: 916-660-1930
E-Mail: [email protected] Fax: 916-660-1941
C. COLSTON
J. GRAY
-
3111 BENTON STREET
SANTA CLARA, CA 95051
C.T.C
CAD
11/17/23 ZD 100%1 C.T.C
A-4.1

ANTENNA

DETAILS

TOP VIEW

LEFT VIEW FRONT VIEW
ANTENNA DETAIL CI) )f=l' - 0" MAX 'M::IGH T: 88 LBS
~1

ERICSSON
~ RADI04490HP
44B544 812C

TOP VIEW
rn

FRONT VIEW SIDE VIEW
RADIO 4490HP DETAIL
® r=r-o· MAX 'l'l'tlGHT: 68 LBS
ERICSSON ANTEN NAMOUNT ~~fi:· (16.1")] ' MODEL# SXK 109 2065/1 ERICSSON AIR 6419 877G/DOO
BANO SECTOO AN~NNA \ TO'~ ' v::~
,,,·1n,,,,.11 \
] l,
.J

SIDE VIEW FRONT VIEW
ANTENNA DETAIL 0 1"=1'- 0" MAX WEIGHT: 55.4 LBS
1 151 "1
~ ERICSSON
~ / RADI04890HP ~w, _ _,

TOP VIEW
~

FR ON T VIEW SIDE VIEW
RADIO 4890HP DETAIL ® ,·=r-o· MAXIYE:IGHT: 68 L8S

SIDE VIEW FRONT VIEW
ANTENNA DETAIL (I) ,.=r-o· MAX WEIGHT: 64 LBS
ERICSSON RRUS- 4478 B1 4
1 (1340")1
~ E::::::'.'.:11
OR APPROVED EOUAL \ TOP VIEW
1[]](B,2'")f on

1. (18.10")
~ ~ LJ

SIDE VIEW FRONT VIEW
RRUS- 4478 B14 DETAIL
0 r=r-o· MAX WEIGHT: 59.4 LBS
TOP VIEW TOP ~EW W/ MOUN T
CD ~~D~GE SU PPRESSO~AX£H~!;, ILB~
r,,,,·11
~
ERICSSON RRUS 2012 B29

TOP VIEW/ OR AP, PROVEO EQUAL
1f")
"t_□ ~

FRONT VIEW SIDE VIEW
RRUS- 201 2 B 29 DETAIL ® ,·=r-o· MAX WEIGHT: 46 LBS
□ 8
~
COfflPLETE
Wireless Consulting, Inc.

PRELIMINARY:

NOT FOR

CONSTRUCTION
KEVIN R. SORENSEN
S4469

PREPARED FOR

REV DESCRIPTIONDATE
SHEET TITLE:

SHEET NUMBER:

CHECKED BY:

DRAWN BY:

PROJECT NO:

IT IS A VIOLATION OF LAW FOR ANY PERSON,

UNLESS THEY ARE ACTING UNDER THE

DIRECTION OF A LICENSED PROFESSIONAL
ENGINEER, TO ALTER THIS DOCUMENT.

Vendor:

Licensee:

ENGINEER:

AT&T SITE NO:
-
CCL06126
08/21/23 ZD 90%
5001 Executive Parkway
San Ramon, California 94583
Issued For:

CCL06126
CCL06126
0 APPROVED BY:

ISSUE STATUS

THESE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AS INSTRUMENTS OF SERVICE, ARE AND SHALL REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF STREAMLINE ENGINEERING AND DESIGN INC. WHETHER THE PROJECTS FOR WHICH THEY ARE MADE ARE EXECUTED OR NOT. THESE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS SHALL NOT BE

USED BY ANY PERSON OR ENTITY ON OTHER PROJECTS WITH OUT PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE ENGINEER. Copyright 2009, STREAMLINE ENGINEERING AND DESIGN INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.C 8445 Sierra College Blvd, Suite E Granite Bay, CA 95746 Contact: Kevin Sorensen Phone: 916-660-1930
E-Mail: [email protected] Fax: 916-660-1941
C. COLSTON
J. GRAY
-
3111 BENTON STREET
SANTA CLARA, CA 95051
C.T.C
CAD
11/17/23 ZD 100%1 C.T.C
A-4.2

EQUIPMENT

DETAILS

FRONT VIEW
DAERSON OUTDOOR NETSURE 512

DC POWER SYSTEM & NETEXTEND

FLEX BATTERY ENCLOSURE
)c_ (39.0") 3jf3.0")

RIGHT VIEW

POWER BATTERY CABINET DETAIL
MAX WEIGH T: 2348 LBS W/ (8) BATTERIES
c=P

INTERSECT TOP VIEW GEN INTERSECT
PTLC-ATS-3S-1 2200-CL__ATT (
PO'i'l't:R PO'i'l't:R TRANSFER •
LOAD CABINET ~ r~(35.0)n (l 5.0)
n tfu ~ U LidJ Y

LEFT VIEW FRONT VIEW RIGH T VIEW
(611")

SIDE VIEW FRONT VIEW
PU RCELL DETAIL 0 ,'f=l' - 0" EMPTY WEIGHT: 140 LBS
(374")
30 KW GENERATOR SD030
900")
190GAL UL
142 TANK
(94 8") ________,-
11~ ~ -~ -.. ~~7
(61.1)
~~o ~
(25.0")
- ~ (3")
i'\;;l3.J_JU_J
(568") •
(79.2")
r--- (106.0")

FRONT VIEW SIDE VIEW
30KW GENERA TOR DETAIL ® ¾' =1 '- 0" MAX WEIGHT: 3,106 LBS

TOP VIEW
□ FRONT VIEW RIGHT VIEW
CN 3931 DETAIL 0 1½"=1'- 0" MAX WEIGHT: 28.6 LBS
r1200•)1 ~1 - 1~1 ij-)
------i,- ELECTRICAL PANEL TO MEET
Top VIE;;.· CO""ERCIAL PG&E REQUIREMENTS
WITI-llESTBYPASS
0 7
(240")
~ J

FR ON T VIEW
MILBANK MODEL IU214MTBL
200 AMP METER/ DISCONNECT

OR EQUIVALENT

SIDE VIEW
(D ~,~}ER DETAIL

FRONT SIDE
RA YCAP DCS0 DETAIL 0 ¾"=1'- 0" MAX WEIGHT: 165 LBS
□ 8
~
COfflPLETE
Wireless Consulting, Inc.

PRELIMINARY:

NOT FOR

CONSTRUCTION
KEVIN R. SORENSEN
S4469

PREPARED FOR

REV DESCRIPTIONDATE
SHEET TITLE:

SHEET NUMBER:

CHECKED BY:

DRAWN BY:

PROJECT NO:

IT IS A VIOLATION OF LAW FOR ANY PERSON,

UNLESS THEY ARE ACTING UNDER THE

DIRECTION OF A LICENSED PROFESSIONAL
ENGINEER, TO ALTER THIS DOCUMENT.

Vendor:

Licensee:

ENGINEER:

AT&T SITE NO:
-
CCL06126
08/21/23 ZD 90%
5001 Executive Parkway
San Ramon, California 94583
Issued For:

CCL06126
CCL06126
0 APPROVED BY:

ISSUE STATUS

THESE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AS INSTRUMENTS OF SERVICE, ARE AND SHALL REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF STREAMLINE ENGINEERING AND DESIGN INC. WHETHER THE PROJECTS FOR WHICH THEY ARE MADE ARE EXECUTED OR NOT. THESE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS SHALL NOT BE

USED BY ANY PERSON OR ENTITY ON OTHER PROJECTS WITH OUT PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE ENGINEER. Copyright 2009, STREAMLINE ENGINEERING AND DESIGN INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.C 8445 Sierra College Blvd, Suite E Granite Bay, CA 95746 Contact: Kevin Sorensen Phone: 916-660-1930
E-Mail: [email protected] Fax: 916-660-1941
C. COLSTON
J. GRAY
-
3111 BENTON STREET
SANTA CLARA, CA 95051
C.T.C
CAD
11/17/23 ZD 100%1 C.T.C
E-1.1

ELECTRICAL PLAN
(3)18,
W/#10 GND,
IN l "C "'
(E) 1200AMP, 120/208V. 3PH, 4W
ELECTRICAL Sl'l1TCHGEAR ON GROUND

BESIDE BUILDING & (N) AT&T POWER POC
(N) 30KW DIESEL GENERATOR
j 25A,
y
l_ (N)#2 TINNEDBCWGND
GEN. CHASSIS TO
- GROUND RING BELOW
(N) BAITTRY

CHARGER &

HEATER BLOCK
(N) ALARM
DIST
(4) #10, W/#12 GND, IN l"C
(4) #10, W/#12 GND, IN l"C
I-
I-
I-
(N) EMERSON I-

OUIDOOR I-
NETSURE512 I-

DC POWER I-SYSTEM
I-
I- ~
"'
-
ci
" ..
ci
~
'n
g
"" ~
"
.,,oo,
oJ2P

TO INCOMING (E) UTILITY
':'
ci
.. -
~ I"
s
I
'n
ci
" ""
i
~ ----+-~I J~~~ ~~~ 3RD u~~~
: SUPPLY SERVICEsuPPLY
! 200/2 SUPPLY 200/2
IAUTOMATIC7
/
(N)A T&T200AMPMETER

PANEL W/ DISCONNECT

ON (N) UTILITY H- FRAME
(3) 3/0, #6 GND, 2" U/G
CONDUIT, APPROX 100'
(N) 200 AMP ELECTRICAL

PANEL ATTACHED TO (N)

UTILITY H- FRAME INSIDE
(N) AT&T LEASE AREA
(N) AT&T CAM- LOK

GENERATOR INTERFACE
- -----t-+-! -~~-N~~~~R ! ____ _J
PTLC- A TS- 3S- 12200- CL_ATT
2 GND
(4) #10, W/#12 GND, IN 1"C
(4) 110, W/112 GND, IN r e
(N) GFI OUTLET

WATERPROOF

SINGLE LINE DIAGRAM

ELECTRICAL LEGEND
@) MECHANICAL INTERLOCK
® METER
n CIRCUIT BREAKER
f SERVICE GROUND

WIRED CONNECTION

G TIMER SWITCH, WATERPROOF

D OUTDOOR LIGH T
Jli GFI OUTLET, WATERPROOF
NAMEPLATE : PAMEL A
(N) WATERPROOF OUTDOOR
6HR TIMER SWITCH
(N) OUTDOOR LED LIGHT

FIXTURE W/ TOP VISOR &
S'MI/EL MOUN T, TYP OF 4
LOCATION : OUTSIDE
I MOUNTING : H-FRAME
.. .,

LOAD VA LOAD VA
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
1000
250
7000 6250
TOTAL VA = 33730
TOTAL KVA - 33.73
(N)UNISTRUT
H- FRAME, T'rP \
(N) AT&T 200A ELECTRICAL PANEL W/ ATS
u u
& (N) CAM LOK GENERATOR INTERFACE \
(N)F IRE
EXTINGUISHER ~
(N)UNISTRUT

H- FRAME, TYP
(E) 1200AMP, 120/208V, 3PH, 4W
ELEClRICAL SWITCHGEAR ON GROUND

BESIDE BUILDING & (N) AT&T POWER POC

PANEL SCHEDULE
SC LEVEL : 10,000 VClTS: 120V/240V, le
BUS AMPS: 200A
MAIN CB: 200A
BKR BKR " .,
LOAD DESCRIPTION AMP/ ORCUIT NO A~P/ LOAD DESCRIPTION LOAD VA LOAD VA POLE POLE RECTIFIERS 1&2 30 2 1 2 30 2 RECTIFIERS 7&8 2000
3 • 2000
RECTIFIERS 3&:-4 30/2 5 6 30/2 RECTIFIERS 9&:10 2000
7 8 2000
RECTIFIERS 5&6 30 2 9 10 30/2 RECTIFIERS 11&:12 2000
11 12 .. 2000
BLANK - 13 14 30 2 RECTIFIERS 13&14 2000
- 15 16 2000
- 17 18 30 2 RECTIFIERS 15&16 2000
- 19 20 2000
- 21 22 - BLANK
- 23 24 -- 25 26 -
(N) BATTERY CHARGER 20/1 27 28 20/1 (N) LIGHT 300
(N) GEN 81.00< HEATER 20/1 29 30 20/1 (N) GFI RECEPTAQ.f 180 PHASE TOTALS PHASE TOTALS 10180 10300
TOTAL AMPS 141
□ 8
~
COfflPLETE
Wireless Consu lting, Inc.

PRELIMINARY:

NOT FOR

CONSTRUCTION
KEVIN R. SORENSEN
S4469
Resolution/ 3111 Benton Street - Use Permit Page 1 of 1 RESOLUTION NO. __________

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE

CITY OF SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A

CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A NEW UNMANNED AT&T

TELECOMMUNICATION FACILITY WITH INSTALLATION OF A
60-FOOT-TALL MONO TREE AT 3111 BENTON STREET,

SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA

PLN23-00148 (Conditional Use Permit)
WHEREAS, on March 23 , 202 3, Complete Wireless Consulting , (“Applicant”) submitted an application for a Conditional Use Permit for new unmanned AT&T telecommunication facility with the installation of a 60-foot-tall monotree at 3111 Benton Street (“Project Site”); WHEREAS, at the time the application was deemed co mplete, the Project Site was zoned B – Public – Quasi Public. The Project Site also has a General Plan land use designation of Very Low Density Residential;
WHEREAS, the proposal includes the proposed telecommunication facility which would include an AT&T 60-foot-tall monotree and the use of a 366-square feet lease area, enclosed by a wooden fence, for equipment inclusive of a 30 KW diesel generator; WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), Public Resources Code § 21000 et seq., requires a public agency to evaluate the environmental impacts of a proposed project; WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA ) the action being considered is categorically exempt from formal environmental review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303(d) (New Construction of Utility Extensions).

WHEREAS, the Conditional Use Permit process enables a municipality to exercise control over the extent of certain uses, which, although desirable in limited numbers and specific locations, could have a detrimental effect on the community in specific instances; WHEREAS, pursuant to Santa Clara City Code (SCCC) Section 18.252.030(a), the B – Public, Quasi-Public, and Public Park or Recreation Zoning Districts allow for telephone company switching stations “and operations which in the opinion of the Planning Commission are similar”; Resolution/ 3111 Benton Street - Use Permit Page 2 of 2 WHEREAS, pursuant to SCCC Section 18.66.040, a Conditional Use Permit approval is required for all new wireless telecommunication facilities, and the proposed monotree is 60-feet as shown on the Development Plans, attached by reference herein as Exhibit “Development Plans”; WHEREAS, pursuant to SCCC Chapter 18.114, the Planning Commission cannot grant a Conditional Use Permit without first making specific findings related to the effect of the project on health, safety, peace, comfort, and general welfare, based upon substantial evidence in the record;
WHEREAS, on August 8, 2024, a notice of public hearing on this item was mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the project site , and on _ August 15, 2024, a notice of public hearing was posted in three locations within the City; and
WHEREAS, on August 21, 2024, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing, at which time all interested persons were given an opportunity to present evidence and give testimony, both in support of and in opposition to the proposed Conditional Use Permit.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA AS FOLLOWS:

1. That the Planning Commission hereby finds that the above Recitals are true and correct and by this reference makes them a part hereof.

2. That the Planning Commission hereby finds that app roving a Conditional Use Permit to allow for a new unmanned AT&T telecommunication facility with the installation of a 60 -foot-tall monotree is consistent with SCCC Chapter 18.66 Wireless Communication Facilities and the B zoning district with approval of a Conditional Use Permit.

3. That the Planning Commission hereby finds as follows:

A. The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan, in that the General Plan does not specify any additional rules and regulations for wireless communication facilities and that the subject address is not located in a focus area or specific plan area.

Resolution/ 3111 Benton Street - Use Permit Page 3 of 3 B. The proposed use is allowed within the subject zone and complies with all other applicable provisions of this Zoning Code and the City Code; in that wireless communication facilities at the proposed height are allowed with conditional use permit approval and the proposed project meets all other applicable codes.

C. The design, location, size, and operating characteristics of the proposed use are compatible with the allowed uses in the vicinity; in that the mono tree design will be surrounded by existing trees currently located on the parcel, there is an existing cell site located on the roof of the church on the same site , and the operation of the monotree is not anticipated to produce any additional trips, noise, vibrations, or harmful side effects to the parcel or surrounding parcels.

D. Operation of the use at the location proposed would not be detrimental to the harmonious and orderly growth of the City, or endanger, jeopardize, or otherwise constitute a hazard to the public convenience, health, interest, safety, or general welfare; in that the proposed monotree is designed such that it does not adversely impact the surrounding areas, it will increase wireless coverage for residents in the area, meet the interests of local residents and customers from the greater region.

E. The subject site is:

1. Physically suitable in terms of design, location, operating characteristics, shape, size, topography, and the provision of public and emergency vehicle (e.g., fire and medical) access and public services and utilities; in that the site meets the City Code for minimum lot size, has adequate parking, and the proposed mono tree is located on the rear of the fac ility away from the normal operations of the church use on-site.

2. Served by highways and streets adequate in width and improvement to carry the type and quantity of traffic the proposed use would likely generate , in that the proposed project would not generate any additional trips to the subject parcel.

Resolution/ 3111 Benton Street - Use Permit Page 4 of 4

4. That the Planning Commission hereby approves Conditional Use Permit PLN23-00148 to allow a Conditional Use Permit for new unmanned AT&T telecommunication facility with the installation of a 60-foot-tall monotree at 3111 Benton Street, subject to the Conditions of Approval, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.

5. Effective date. This resolution shall become effective immediately.

I HEREBY CERTIFY THE FOREGOING TO BE A TRUE COPY OF A R ESOLUTION PASSED

AND ADOPTED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA, AT A REGULAR MEETING THEREOF HELD ON THE 21ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2024, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:

AYES: COMMISSIONERS:

NOES: COMMISSIONERS:

ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:

ABSTAINED: COMMISSIONERS:

ATTEST:

REENA BRILLIOT

ACTING DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

CITY OF SANTA CLARA

Attachments Incorporated by Reference:

1. Development Plans

2. Conditions of Approval

Conditions of Approval for Conditional Use Permit
PLN23-00148 / 3111 Benton Street

Conditional Use Permit for a new unmanned AT&T telecommunication facility with the installation of 60-foot-tall monotree.

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

GENERAL
G1. Permit Expiration. This Permit shall automatically be revoked and terminated if not used within two years of original grant or within the period of any authorized extension thereof.

The date of granting this Permit is the date this Permit is approved by the Decision-making body and the appeal period has been exhausted. The expiration date is August 29, 2026.

G2. Conformance with Plans. Prior to the commencement of the use, the use of the site shall conform to the approved plans on file with the Community Development Department, Planning Division. No change to the plans will be made without prior review by the Planning Division, and written approval by the Director of Community Development or designee. Each change shall be identified and justified in writing.

G3. Conditions on Plans. All conditions of approval for this Permit shall be reprinted and included within the first three sheets of the building permit plan sets submitted for review and approval. At all times these conditions of approval shall be on all grading and construction plans kept on the project site.

G4. Necessary Relocation of Public Facility. If reloc ation of an existing public facility becomes necessary due to a conflict with the developer's new improvements, then the cost of said relocation shall be borne by the developer.

G5. Indemnify and Hold Harmless. The owner or designee agrees to defend and indemnify and hold City, its officers, agents, employees, officials and representatives free and harmless from and against any and all claims, losses, damages, attorney’s fees, injuries, costs, and liabilities from any suit for damages or for equitable or injunctive relief which is filed by a third party against the City by reason of its approval of owner or designee’s project.

G6. Code Compliance. The construction permit application drawings submitted to the Santa Clara Building Division shall include an overall California Building Code analysis; proposed use and occupancy of all spaces (CBC Ch. 3), all building heights and areas (CBC Ch. 5), all proposed types of construction (CBC Ch. 6), all proposed fire and smoke protection features, including all types of all fi re rated penetrations proposed (CBC Ch. 7), all proposed interior finishes fire resistance (CBC Ch. 8), all fire protection systems proposed (CBC Ch. 9), and all means of egress proposed (CBC Ch. 10). Noncombustable exterior wall, floor, and roof finishes are strongly encouraged. a. During construction retaining a single company to install all fire related penetrations is highly recommended.
b. The grade level lobbies shall be minimum 1-hour rated all sides and above. c. All stair shafts shall be minimum 1-hour rated.
d. All elevator shafts shall be minimum 1-hour rated.
e. All trash chute shafts shall be minimum 1-hour rated. f. Recommendation: provide minimum two trash chutes; one for recyclables, one for trash, each trash chute to be routed down to a grade level trash collection room. g. Any trash rooms shall be minimum 1-hour rated all sides and above.

G7. Building Codes as Amended. See Title 15 of the Santa Clara City Code for any amendments to the California Building Codes.

G8. Reach Codes. This project is subject to the provis ions of the City of Santa Clara 2022 Reach Code, effective January 2022. See Ordinance No. 2034 and/or Title 15 of the Santa Clara City Code.
a. Chapter 15.36 – Energy Code for “all electric” provisions for new construction. b. Chapter 15 .38 – Green Building Cod e for additional Electric Vehicle Charging requirements for new construction.

G9. Comply with all applicable codes, regulations, ordinances and resolutions.

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT – PLANNING DIVISION

DESIGN / PERFORMANCE– PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT ISSUANCE P1. Construction Management Plan. The owner or designee shall submit a construction management plan addressing impacts to the public during construction activities including:
showing work hours, noticing of affected businesses, construction signage, noise control, storm water pollution prevention, job trailer location, contractor parking, parking enforcement, truck hauling routes, staging, concrete pours, crane lifts, scaffolding, materials storage, pedestrian safety, and traffic control. The plan shall be submitted to the Director of Community Development or designee for approval prior to issuance of demolition and building permits.

P2. Tree Replacement (on-site). Trees permitted by the City for removal shall be replaced on-site at a ratio of 1: 2 24 -inch box trees or 1:1 36 -inch box tree. Applicant to provide landscaping plan and to identify if any existing trees are to be removed. Tree removal is subject to Planning fees.

P3. Antenna/Cell Site Installation. Applicant to fill out and sign conditions of approval form related to antenna and cell site installations.

P4. Construction Management Plan. The owner or designee shall submit a construction management plan addressing impacts to the public during construction activities including:
showing work hours, noticing of affected businesses, construction signage, noise control, storm water pollution prevention, job trailer location, contractor parking, parking enforcement, truc k hauling routes, staging, concrete pours, crane lifts, scaffolding, materials storage, pedestrian safety, and traffic control. The plan shall be submitted to the Director of Community Development or designee for approval prior to issuance of demolition and building permits.

P5. Comprehensive Structural Study. The owner or designee shall submit a comprehensive structural study to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director prior to issuance of a building permit or designee that analyzes the structural members, connections, anchorages and foundations, ensuring structural integrity to withstand events such as seismic and wind calamities.

P6. All City Code requirements be met including:
a. An acceptable type of financial security (i.e., a letter of credit), to ensure that the approved facility is properly maintained and to guarantee that the facility is dismantled and removed if non -operative or abandoned for a minimum 30 -day period or upon expiration of the permit from the City, whichever first occurs; b. A proposed wireless telecommunication tower lighting plan c. At least two letters of intent, where more than one carrier is proposed for each tower, demonstrating an immediate need for the wireless telecommunications tower location.

d. Coverage Report Required. The applicant shall provide a coverage report containing an analysis of existing significant gaps in the service provider’s network and how the proposed wireless telecommunication facility wou ld eliminate or substantially reduce the gap in coverage
e. Co-Location. All new towers shall allow for co -location of public safety transmission equipment when deemed feasible by the Director.

DURING CONSTRUCTION -- PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY
P7. Construction Hours. Construction activity shall be limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. weekdays and 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Saturdays for projects within 300 feet of a residential use and shall not be allowed on recognized State and Federal holidays.

P8. Construction Trash /Debris. During construction activities, the owner or designee is responsible for collection and pick -up of all trash and debris on -site and adjacent public right-of-way.

P9. Construction Parking. Off street parking is required to be available from the time o f issuance of building permits until the issuance of certificate of occupancy. Five parking spaces shall be made available. Off -street construction parking lots are required to be maintained mud-free and dustless. If the off -street construction parking lot is located on an unpaved surface, daily street sweeping of surrounding streets is required. (SCC

18.38.030)
P10. Landscape Water Conservation. The owner or designee shall ensure that landscaping installation meets City water conservation criteria in a manner a cceptable to the Director of Community Development.

OPERATIONAL CONDITIONS
P11. Landscaping Installation & Maintenance. The owner or designee shall ensure that the landscaping installed and accepted with this project shall be maintained on the site as per the approved plans. Any alteration or modification to the landscaping shall not be permitted unless otherwise approved by the Director of Community Development.

P12. Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program (Non-Residential Project). The owner or designee shall implement the project TDM program that includes elements to reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) by 25 percent p er the City’s 2022 Climate Action Plan. A final TDM plan shall be submitted to the Director of Community Development or designee prior to Building Permit Final by the Planning Division. The property owner or designee shall monitor the project TDM program a nd submit an annual report to the Director of Community Development or designee. Monitoring and reporting requirements may be revised in the future if the minimum reduction is not achieved through the measures and programs initially implemented.

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT - BUILDING DIVISION

DESIGN / PERFORMANCE– PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT ISSUANCE BD1. Addressing. Prior to overall construction permit application, submit to the Santa Clara Building Division, 2 copies of an addressing diagram request, to be prepared by a licensed architect or engineer. The addressing diagram(s) shall include all proposed streets and all

building floor plans. The addressing diagram(s) shall conform to Santa Clara City Manager Directive #5; Street Name and Building Number Changes, and Santa Clara Building Division Address Policy For Residential and Commercial Developments. The addressing diagram(s) shall indicate all unit numbers to be based off established streets, not alleys nor access-ways to garages. Allow a minimum of 10 working days for initial staff review.

Please note city staff policy that existing site addresses typically are retired. Provide digital pdf printed from design software, not scanned from printed paper sheet. a. Any building or structure that is demolished shall have its address retired and a new address/s shall be issued for the project.

BD2. Flood Zone. The construction permit application drawings submitted to the Santa Clara Building Division shall include a copy of the latest Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Zone Map: https://msc.fema.gov/portal/home. The project drawings shall indicate how the project c omplies with the Santa Clara Flood Damage Prevention Code.
a. FEMA Flood Zone map designations and requirements are based on the map in effect at date of Building Permit issuance.

BD3. Water Pollution Control. The construction permit application drawings submitted to the Santa Clara Building Division shall include Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program Low Impact Development (LID) practices http://www.scvurppp- w2k.com/nd_wp.shtml. All projects that disturb more than one acre, or projects that are part of a larger development that in total disturbs more than one acre, shall comply with the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Preve ntion Program Best Management Practices (BMP): http://www.scvurppp-w2k.com/construction_bmp.shtml, and shall provide a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) by a certified Qualified SWPPP Developer (QSD). All site drainage and grading permit applications submitted to the Santa Clara Building Division shall include a city of Santa Clara "C3" data form, available on this web page:
 https://www.santaclaraca.gov/our-city/departments-g-z/public- works/environmental-programs/stormwater-pollution-prevention and will be routed to a contract consultant for review.

BD4. Submittal Requirements. The overall project construction permit application shall include the geotechnical, architectural, structural, energy, electrical, mechanical, and plumbing drawings and calculations. Prior to the issuance of the overall project construction permit, a conditions of approval review meeting must be held in city hall, which meeting must be attended by the on -site field superintendent(s). The meeting will not be held without the attendance of the on -site field superintendent(s). The on-site grading permit shall be a separate permit application to the Building Division.

DURING CONSTRUCTION – PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY
BD5. Temporary Certificates of Occupancy. Temporary Certificates of Occupancy (TCO) will not be routinely issued and will be considered on a very limited basis only when there is a clear and compelling reason for city staff to consider a TCO. A TCO will be approved only after all applicable City staff have approved in writing; Planning, P.W./ Engineering, Fire Prev., Santa Clara Water, Silicon Valley Power, and any other applicable agencies such as the Santa Clara County Health Dept., with the Building Division being the final approval of all TCO.'s.

FIRE DEPARTMENT

DESIGN / PERFORMANCE—PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT ISSUANCE
F1. A hazardous materials permit submitted to the fire permit is required before installation of generator. Please submit hazmat permit concurrently with building plan submittals.

F2. Please note this conditional approval does not approve the location of the new proposed generator location or the installation of batteries/ESS. When submitting the Building permit and hazmat permit, please include code sections from the CFC and NFPA 30 that dictate the minimum distances for the generator from property lines, buildings, and exits. Please note the CFC Chapter 12 requirements when battery thresholds are exceeded.

F3. Hazmat Clearance. Prior to any Building Permit issuance, Hazardous Materials Closure (HMCP) is required as applicabl e:  This is a permit is issued by the Santa Clara Fire Department, Fire Prevention & Hazardous Materials Division.   Hazardous materials closure plans are required for businesses that used, handled or stored hazardous materials.  While required prior to closing a business this is not always done by the business owner, and therefore should be part of the developer’s due diligen ce.  The hazardous materials closure plans demonstrate that hazardous materials which were stored, dispensed, handled or used in the facility/business are safely transported, disposed of or reused in a manner that eliminates any threat to public health and environment.

F4. Hazmat Clearance. Prior to any Building Permit Issuance, a Phase II environmental assessment is required to be submitted to CRRD for review. If hazards are present that require site mitigation, cleanup, or management of chemical contaminants in soil, soil vapor, or groundwater a separate permit from one of the regulatory agencies below will be required. The type and extent of contamination on site(s) will govern which of the regulatory agencies noted below can supervise the cleanup: Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC); State Water Resources Control Board; or Santa Clara County, Department of Environmental Health.

If the project intends to contract with a State or County Agency for onsite/offsite environmental remediation activities the following documentation shall be provided to the Fire Prevention & Hazardous Materials Division prior to issuance of a Building Permit for demolition or grading: Oversight agency case number; and Oversight mangers contact name, phone number.

For smaller projects that are not moving soil at all, a Phase I environmental assessment may be adequate. Please contact Assistant Fire Marshal Fred Chun at [email protected] for more information.

F5. Fire Flow Requirement. Prior to Building Permit Issuance, provide documentation from the City of Santa Clara Water & Sewer Department that the minimum required fire -flow can be met. Fire Department fire -flow will be based on the current California Fire Code.

The most restrictive departments requirement shall apply.

F6. Fire Hydrants. Prior to Building Permit Issuance, building plans shall show the required number, location and distribution of fire hydrants for the buildings will be based on the current California Fire Code, Appendix C as amended. The requ ired number of fire

hydrants will be based on the fire-flow before the reduction for fire sprinklers. Both public and private fire hydrants may be required
F7. Fire Department Access. Prior to Building Permit Issuance, a five -foot all -weather perimeter pathway around the entire perimeter of the buildings to facilitate firefighter access is required to be incorporated into the Building permit submittal.

F8. Fire Department Access. Prior to the issuance of the Building Permit, approval for fire department apparatus access roads is required. Roadways must be provided to comply with all the following requirements:

 Fire apparatus access roadways shall be provided so that the exterior walls of the first story of the buildings are located not more than 150 feet from fire apparatus access as measured by an approved route around the exterior of each building. In addition, aerial apparatus roadways must be located so aerial apparatus will have clear access to the “entire” face/sides of the building. The minimum number of sid es is project - specific and depends on the building configuration, building design, occupancy, and construction type, etc. As part of Building Permit Issuance, an alternative materials, design, and methods of construction and equipment permit application will need to be submitted for review and approval incorporating applicable mitigation measures as determined by the fire department for the lack of compliance. Please note acceptable mitigation methods may have been discussed during the planning stage. Those mitigations are not guaranteed until a formal alternate means permit is submitted concurrently with the Building Plans. Conversely, an acceptable mitigation method may not have been discussed and will be evaluated under an alternate means permit at the building permit stage.

 For underpasses, garages, gates, or anything similar that a Fire apparatus is required to drive under as part of the emergency vehicle access, 16 feet vertical clearance will be required. For all other areas, the “minimum” unobstruct ed vertical clearance shall not be less than 13 feet 6 inches.

or

 For all other areas, the “minimum” unobstructed vertical clearance shall not be less than 13 feet 6 inches.

 The “minimum” width of aerial roadways for aerial apparatus is 26 feet.

 The minimum inside turning radius shall be 30 feet.

 The “minimum” width of roadways for aerial apparatus is 26 feet. Aerial access roadways shall be located a minimum of 15 feet and a maximum of 30 feet from the protected building. This requirement is only applicable when Appendix D of the Fire Code is enforceable.

 Overhead utility and power lines easements shall not be located over fire apparatus access roads or between the aerial fire apparatus roads and the buildings to avoid the possibility of injury and equipment damage from electrical hazards.

 Fire apparatus access roadways shall be all -weather surface(s) designed to support a gross vehicle weight of 75,000-pounds.

 Trees at full development must not exceed 30 feet in height and not impair aerials apparatus operations to sweep opposing sides of a building. Other obstructions such as site lighting, bio -retention, and architectural features are reviewed case - by-case to ensure they do not obstruct aerial and ground ladder access.

 Traffic control/calming devices are not permitted on any designated fire access roadway unless approved. A separate Fire Department permit is required for any barrier devices installed alone fire department apparatus access roads.

Prior to an y Building Department Issuance, all fire department apparatus access roadways on private property are r equired to “be recorded” with the County of Santa Clara as Emergency Vehicle Access Easements (EVAE’s) and reviewed by the Fire Department. No other instruments will be considered as substitutions such as P.U.E, Ingress/Egress easements and/or City Right - of-Ways.

F9. Emergency Responder Radio Coverage System. Prior to Building Permit Issuance, provisions shall be made for Emergency Responder Radio Coverage System (ERRCS) equipment, including but not limited to pathway survivability in accordance with Santa Clara Emergency Responder Radio Coverage System Standard.

F10. Fire Department Access. Prior to the start of construction, roadways and water supplies for fire protection are required to be installed and made serviceable and maintained throughout the course of construction.

F11. Fire Department Access. Prior to issuance of the Building Permit, a gate permit is required to obtained. Openings for access gates located across fire apparatus access roads shall be a minimum of 20 feet of clear width. Gates shall also be provided wit h a minimum unobstructed vertical clearance of 16 -feet. All gates installed on designated fire department access roads must be electrically automatic powered gates. Gates shall be provided with an emergency power or be of a fail-safe design, allowing the gate to be pushed open without the use of special knowledge or equipment. A Tomar Strobe Switch or 3M Opticom detector shall be installed to control the automatic gate(s) to allow emergency vehicles (e.g., fire, police, ems). Said device shall be mounted at a minimum height of eight to ten feet (8’ - 10’) above grade.

F12. Alternative Means and Methods. Prior to any Building Permit issuance, an alternate means or methods permits to mitigate any code deficiency must be submitted and approved.

Please submit this permit concurrently with the building plans. Please note specific mitigations may have been discussed during the planning process. None of these discussions are binding

and can only be formally approved through submitting an AMMR permit. The AMMR permit is formally documenting that and still needs to be submitted.

F13. Hazmat Information. Prior to Building Permit Issuance, a Hazardous Materials Inventory Statement including refrigerants is required to be submitted and reviewed with the Building Permit if applicable.

F14. Fire Safety During Construction. Prior to Building Permit Issuance, a permit for Construction Safety & Demolition shall be submitted to the fire department for review and approval in compliance with our Construction Safety & Demolition standard Alternative Means and Methods. Prior to any Building Permit issuance, an alternate means or methods permits to mitigate any code deficiency must be submitted and approved. Please submit this permit concurrently with the building plans. Please note specific mitigations may have been discussed during the planning process. None of these discussions are binding and can only be formally approved through submitting an AMMR permit. The AMMR permit is formally documenting that and still needs to be submitted.

DURING CONSTRUCTION – PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY
F15. Shared Fire Protection Features that Cross Property Lines. Prior to Building Permit Final, any EVAEs or fire protection equipment (including but not limited to fire service undergrounds, sprinkler piping, fire alarm equipment, fire pumps, ERRCS) that cross property lines or is not located on the parcel of the building it serves shall have a CC&R legally recorded detailing who is responsible for maintenance and repair of the EVAE or fire protection equipment.

F16. Fire Protection Systems Before Occupancy. Prior to any Certificate of Occupancy Issuance (temporary or permanent), fire -life safety systems installations must be fully installed, functional, and approved.

PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT - ENGINEERING

DESIGN—PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT ISSUANCE
E1. Site Clearance. Obtain site clearance through Public Works Department prior to issuance of Building Permit. Site clearance will require payment of applicable development fees.

Other requirements may be identified for compliance during the site clearance process .

Contact Public Works Department at (408) 615-3000 for further information.

DURING CONSTRUCTION
E2. Encroachment Permit. All work within the public right -of-way and/or public easement, which is to be performed by the Developer/Owner, the general contractor, a nd all subcontractors shall be submitted within a Single Encroachment Permit to be reviewed and issued by the City Public Works Department. Issuance of the Encroachment Permit and payment of all appropriate fees shall be completed prior to commencement of work, and all work under the permit shall be completed prior to issuance of occupancy permit.

E3. Encroachment Permit. Submit public improvement/encroachment permit plans prepared in accordance with City Public Works Department procedures which provide for the installation of public improvements directly to the Public Works Department. Plans shall be prepared by a Registe red Civil Engineer and approved by the City Engineer prior to approval and recordation of final map and/or issuance of building permits.

E4. Encroachment Permit. The applicant shall incorporate Best Management Practices (BMPs) into construction plans. Include the SCVURPPP Countywide Construction BMPs with the plans.

STREETS DIVISION
Right of Way Landscape

DESIGN/PERFORMANCE PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT L1. Tree Preservations Specifications. Include City of Santa Clara Tree Preservation /City Arborist specifications on all improvement plans.

L2. Mature Trees. Identify existing mature trees to be maintained. Prepare a tree protection plans for review and approval by the City prior to any demolition, grading or other earthwork in the vicinity of existing trees on the site.

L3. Tree Replacement. 2:1 tree replacement ratio requir ed for all trees removed from the right-of-way.

DURING CONSTRUCTION OR OPERATION
L4. No Public Root Cutting. No cutting of any part of public trees, including roots, shall be done without securing prior approval of the City Arborist. Tree trimming/removal shall be done in accordance to the City of Santa Clara Tree Preservation/City Arborist specifications and with direct supervision of a certified a rborist (Certification of International Society of Arboriculture).

PRIOR TO FINAL OF BUILDING PERMIT
L5. In Lieu Fee. If 2:1 replacement ratio cannot be met for removal of right of way landscape trees, tree planting fee must be paid prior to building permit final.

Solid Waste

DESIGN/PERFORMANCE PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT SW1. Construction Waste Diversion. For projec ts that involve construction, demolition or renovation of 5,000 square feet or more, the applicant shall comply with City Code Section

8.25.285 and recycle or divert at least sixty five percent (65%) of materials generated for discard by the project during demolition and construction activities. No building, demolition, or site development permit shall be issued unless and until applicant has submitted a construction and demolition debris materials check -off list. Applicant shall create a Waste Management Plan and submit, for approval, a Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Report through the City’s online tracking tool at http://santaclara.wastetracking.com/.

SW2. Authorized Service Haulers. This proje ct is subject to the City’s Accumulation, Transportation and Disposal of Solid Waste Ordinance (Chapter 8.25 of the Municipal Codes), which requires the handling and disposal of waste by authorized service haulers.

Insert the General Notes for the Construc tion & Demolition (C&D) Waste Management into construction plans in accordance with the City’s municipal codes prior to the issuance of a Building or Grading permit. Provide the Green Halo waste online tracking number to Building staff prior to the issuance of a demolition or building permit.

SW3. Exclusive Franchise Hauling Area. This property falls within the City’s exclusive franchise hauling area. The applicant is required to use the City’s exclusive franchise hauler and rate structure for any hired debris boxes. Prior to the issuance of a Public Works clearance, the project applicant shall complete and sign the Construction and Demolition (C&D) / Waste Management Rules and Regulations Form.

DURING CONSTRUCTION OR OPERATION
SW4. Waste Generation Tracking. Applicant to track all waste generated and upload debris tags to GreenHalo for City staff review.

PRIOR TO FINAL OF BUILDING PERMIT
SW5. Weight Tickets. Prior to obtaining a Temporary or Final Certificate of Occupancy, individual weight tickets for all materials g enerated for discard or reuse by the project during demolition and construction activities shall be uploaded to Green Halo and submitted for review and approval by Environmental Services. At a minimum two (2) weeks review time is required.

Stormwater

DESIGN/PERFORMANCE PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT ST1. Final Stormwater Management Plan. Prior to City’s issuance of Building or Grading Permits, the applicant shall develop a Final Stormwater Management Plan, update the C.3 Data Form, the Special Project Narratives and Worksheet (as appropriate), and an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan.

ST2. 3rd Party Review of Final Stormwater Management Plan. The Final Stormwater Management Plan and all associated calculations shall be reviewed and certified by a qualified 3rd party consultant from the SCVURPPP List of Qualified Consultants, and a 3rd party review letter (on design) shall be submitted with the Plan.

ST3. Notice of Intent. For project that disturbs a land area of one acre or more, the applicant shall provide a copy of the Notice of Intent (NOI) with WDID number for coverage under the State Construction General Permit. Active projects with NOI will be inspected by the City once per month during the wet season (October – April).

ST4. Best Management Practices. The applicant shall incorporate Best Management Practices (BMPs) into construction plans and incorporate post -construction water runoff measures into project plans. Include the SCVURPPP Countywide Construction BMPs Plan Sheet with the plans. Applicant to add Source control measures with designations from C.3 stormwater handbook, Appendix H.

ST5. C.3 Treatment Facilities Construction Notes. Include the C.3 Tr eatment Facilities Construction Notes on the Improvement Plans and/or Stormwater Control Plans.

ST6. Decorative & Recreational Water Features. Decorative and recreational water features such as fountains, pools, and ponds shall be designed and constructed to drain to the sanitary sewer system only.

ST7. Small Projects. For single -family homes and other small projects that create and/or replace 2,500 – 10,000 square feet of impervious surface area, the applicant shall implement at least one of the following site design measures:
a. Direction of roof runoff into cisterns or rain barrels b. Direction of roof, sidewalk, walkway, patio, driveway, or parking lot runoff onto vegetated areas
c. Construction of sidewalks, walkways, patios, bike lanes, driveways, and parking lots with permeable surfaces
Plans shall specify which site design measures are selected for the project and show the direction of flow from impervious surfaces to the selected site design measures. All measures shall meet the design criteria in the 2016 C.3. Stormwater Handbook, Appendix K: Standard Specifications for Lot-Scale Measures for Small Projects.

ST8. Interior Floor Drains. Interior floor drains shall be plumbed to the sanitary sewer system and not connected to the City’s storm drain system.

ST9. Trash Enclosure Floor Drains. Floor drains within trash enclosures shall be plumbed to the sanitary sewer system and not connected to the City’s storm drain system.

ST10. Architectural Copper. The use of architectural copper is prohibited.

DURING CONSTRUCTION OR OPERATION
ST11. Biotreatment Soil Media. Applicant shall install biotreatment soil media that meets the minimum specifications as set forth in the SCVURPPP C.3 Stormwater Handbook. If percolation rate test of the biotreatment soil mix is not performed on -site, a certification letter from the supplier verifying that the soil meets the specified mix (the date of such document shall not be older than 3 months).

ST12. Stormwater Control Measure Inspection. At critical construction phases, all stormwater control measures shall be inspected for conformance to approved plans by a qualified 3rd party consultant from the SCVURPPP List of Qualified Consultants.

ST13. Inspections. Permeable Pavement, Media Filter vaults, and Trash Full Capture Devices shall be inspected by a 3 rd party reviewer and/or manufacturer representative for conformance with the details and specifications of the approved plans. All new pervious concrete and porous asphalt pavements should have a minimum surface infiltration rate of 100 in./hr. as described in the SCVURPP P C.3 Handbook. A map displaying the number, location and details of full trash capture devices shall be prepared as an attachment to the Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Agreement with the City.

ST14. Stormwater Treatment Facilities. Stormwater treatment facili ties must be designed, installed, and maintained to achieve the site design measures throughout their life in accordance to the SCVRUPPP C.3 Stormwater Handbook (Chapter 6 and Appendix C).

ST15. Amendments to Operation & Maintenance Agreement. Any site design measures used to reduce the size of stormwater treatment measures shall not be installed for the project without the written approval from the City, installing the corresponding resizing of other stormwater treatment measures and an amendment of the property’s O&M Agreement.

ST16. Stormwater Pollution Prevention Messaging. Developer shall install an appropriate stormwater pollution prevention message such as “No Dumping – Flows to Bay” on any storm drains located on private property.

ST17. Outdoor Storage Areas. All outdoor equipment and materials storage areas shall be covered and/or bermed, or otherwise designed to limit the potential for runoff to contact pollutants.

PRIOR TO FINAL OF BUILDING PERMIT
ST18. As-Built Drawings. As-Built drawing shall be submitted to the Public Works Department.

ST19. 3rd Party Concurrence Letter. 3rd Party concurrence letter on the C.3 facilities construction shall be submitted to the Public Works Department. The letter shall be prepared by a 3rd party consultant from the SCVURPPP List of Qualified Consultants. The City reserves the right to review the 3 rd party inspection report on the C.3 stormwater facility installation.

ST20. Final C.3 Inspection. Applicant shall schedule and City shall conduct a fi nal C.3 inspection.

ST21. Operation & Maintenance Agreement. The property owner shall enter into an Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Agreement with the City for all installed stormwater treatment measures and full trash capture devices in perpetuity. Applicants s hould contact Public Works Dept. - Environmental Services at (408) 615 -3080 or [email protected] for assistance completing the Agreement. For more information and to download the most recent version of the O&M Agreement, visit the City’s stormwater resources website at http://santaclaraca.gov/stormwater. Inspection of permeable pavement, media filter vaults and full trash capture devices is to be done annually by December 31 of each year.

SILICON VALLEY POWER
SVP1. No Comments

WATER & SEWER DEPARTMENT

DURING CONSTRUCTION
W1. Construction Water. This project shall use recycled water for all construction water needs for onsite and offsite construction.

W2. Water Shortage Response Actions. Pursuant to the City of Santa Clara’s Urban Water Management Plan, during times of drought or water shortage, the City implements water shortage response actions in accordance with the level of water shortage declared. All construction activities and all new irrigation connections are subject to the Water Shortage Response Actions in effect at the time of construction and connecti on of the irrigation service.

Water Shortage Response Actions for Stage 2 and higher include water use restrictions that limit the use of potable water such as:
a. prohibiting the installation of new potable water irrigation services. new irrigation connections, construction, and dust control.
b. restrict the use of potable water used for construction and dust control if recycled water is available.

This project is subject to all the requirements and restrictions of the Water Shortage Response Actions in place or adopted during the duration of the project. For more information, visit the City of Santa Clara Water & Sewer Utilities website at www.santaclaraca.gov/waterconservation.

PRIOR TO FINAL OF BUILDING PERMIT
W3. Conditional Releases . The applicant shall comply with all the requirements of any building permit conditional release requirements.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT AND ACCEPTANCE OF CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

Permittee/Property Owner

The undersigned agrees to each condition of approval and acknowledges and hereby agrees to use the project property on the terms and conditions set forth in this permit.

Signature: _________________________________________________

Printed Name: _________________________________________________

Relationship to Property: _________________________________________________

Date: _________________________________________________

Pursuant to Santa Clara City Code 18.128.100, the applicant shall return this document to the Department, properly signed and dated, within 30 -days following the date of the Acknowledgement.

ExistingExisting
Proposed
Contact ( 925 ) 202-8507
Existing AT&T
Installation
Proposed AT&T
Installation
Proposed AT&T
Installation
CCL06126
3111 Benton Street, Santa Clara, CA
Photosims Produced on 11-1-2023
CCL06126
3111 Benton Street, Santa Clara, CA
Photosims Produced on 11-1-2023
view from Humbolt Avenue looking southwest at site
ExistingExisting
Proposed
Contact ( 925 ) 202-8507
Existing AT&T
Installation
Proposed AT&T
Installation
Proposed AT&T
Installation
CCL06126
3111 Benton Street, Santa Clara, CA
Photosims Produced on 11-1-2023
CCL06126
3111 Benton Street, Santa Clara, CA
Photosims Produced on 11-1-2023
view from Humbolt Avenue looking southeast at site
ExistingExisting
Proposed
Contact ( 925 ) 202-8507
Existing AT&T
Installation
Proposed AT&T
Installation
Proposed AT&T
Installation
CCL06126
3111 Benton Street, Santa Clara, CA
Photosims Produced on 11-1-2023
CCL06126
3111 Benton Street, Santa Clara, CA
Photosims Produced on 11-1-2023
view from Moraga Street looking west at site
ExistingExisting
Proposed
Contact ( 925 ) 202-8507
Existing AT&T
Installation
Proposed AT&T
Installation
Proposed AT&T
Installation
CCL06126
3111 Benton Street, Santa Clara, CA
Photosims Produced on 11-1-2023
CCL06126
3111 Benton Street, Santa Clara, CA
Photosims Produced on 11-1-2023
view from Benton Street looking north at site
CCL06126
3111 Benton Street, Santa Clara, CA
Photosims Produced on 11-1-2023
CCL06126
3111 Benton Street, Santa Clara, CA
Photosims Produced on 11-1-2023
Contact ( 925 ) 202-8507
Shot Point Map
Project Location
12 3
4 (c) 2007 AT&T Intellectual Property. All rights reserved. AT&T and the AT&T logo are trademarks of AT&T Intellectual Property.

CCL06126 Propagation Map
December 13, 2023
“AT&T PROPRIETARY -- This information constitutes confidential trade secrets and commercial or financial information owned by AT&T and is shared for Critical Infrastructure Protection purposes only. It is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552), Exemptions (b)(3)&(4), and its disclosure is prohibited under the Trade Secrets Act (18 U.S.C. 1905), the Critical Infrastructure Information Act of 2002, 6 U.S.C. § 133, and any State or local law requiring disclosure of information or records. This information must not be copied (whether mechanically or electronically through screen shots or other recording) or distributed to others not agreed upon by AT&T, but in all events do not copy or distribute to such others without notification pursuant to Executive Order 12600.”
Existing Sites LTE 700 Coverage
•
Legend
I Reliable Service Indoors/Outdoors
Reliable Coverage in Transit
Indoor Coverage less Reliable
I ~~li;ble Coverage Outdoors
Indoor Coverage Less Reliable
e Existing site
e Proposed site
“AT&T PROPRIETARY -- This information constitutes confidential trade secrets and commercial or financial information owned by AT&T and is shared for Critical Infrastructure Protection purposes only. It is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552), Exemptions (b)(3)&(4), and its disclosure is prohibited under the Trade Secrets Act (18 U.S.C. 1905), the Critical Infrastructure Information Act of 2002, 6 U.S.C. § 133, and any State or local law requiring disclosure of information or records. This information must not be copied (whether mechanically or electronically through screen shots or other recording) or distributed to others not agreed upon by AT&T, but in all events do not copy or distribute to such others without notification pursuant to Executive Order 12600.”
Existing Sites + CCL06126 LTE 700 Coverage
Legend
I Reliable Service Ind
Reliable Covera . oars/Outdoors
Indoor Covera ;e in Transit
I
Reliable Co g less Reliable
Only verage Outdoors
Indoor Covera
• Existing site ge Less Reliable
• Proposed site
From: Planning Public Comment
Sent : Friday, August 9, 2024 8:26 AM
To: Dong Bo ; Planning Public Comment
<PlanningPublicComment @santaclaraca.gov>; Tiffany Vien <[email protected]>; Lesley Xavier <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Regarding PLN23-00148
Good Morning,
Your email has been received in the Planning Division and by way of my reply I am including the appropriate Planning Division staff for their review of your comments.

Thank you.

Elizabeth Elliott I Staff Aide 11
Community Develop ment Department I Planning Division
1500 Warburton Avenue I Santa Clara, CA 95050
0: 408.6 15.2450 I D: 408.615.24 74
www .Santa Cla raCA.gov
From: Dong Bo
Sent : Thursday, August 8, 2024 10:00 PM
To: Planning Public Comment <[email protected]> Subject: Regarding PLN23-00148
I You don't often get email from
Hi,
I earo why this is important
This message is regarding t he installat ion of a 60-foot-tall monotree for telecommunication. And I live on Benton St.
3111 Benton Street is very near to many houses, living structures, Pomeroy Elementary and Santa Clara High. And there is research showing negative health effects (https://mdsafetech.org/cell- tower-health-effects/).

Therefore I object to the proposal.

Thanks,
Shawn

From: Hannah Zhang
To: Tiffany Vien
Subject: PLN23-00148
Date: Saturday, August 10, 2024 12:46:02 PM
Hello,
I am a neighbor of where the planning project is. I DO Believe the project is harmful for our community due to hundreds of scientists studies. Please find a place where no PEOPLE living near by for this kind of cell tower. Big NO on PLN23-00148.

Thank you

Hannah
City of Santa Clara
Agenda Report
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
santaclaraca.gov
@SantaClaraCity
24-987 Agenda Date: 10/23/2024

REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION

SUBJECT
PUBLIC HEARING: Continuance from September 11, 2024, for Action on Conditional Use Permit (PLN23-00148) for a New Unmanned AT&T Telecommunication Facility with the Installation of a 60- Foot-Tall Monotree at 3111 Benton Street

REPORT IN BRIEF
File No.: PLN23-00148
Project: Conditional Use Permit for a new unmanned AT&T telecommunication facility with the installation of 60-foot-tall monotree.

Applicant: Steve Proo, Complete Wireless Consulting
Owner: Santa Clara First Baptist Church
General Plan: Public / Quasi Public
Zoning: Public / Quasi Public (PQP)
Site Area: 3.15 acres
Existing Site Conditions: The project site is built with an existing church and a paved parking lot.

There is an existing cell site located on the roof of the church.

Surrounding Land Uses
North: Single-family uses
East: Multi-family and single-family uses
South: Single-family and public uses (Santa Clara High School) West: Multi-family uses
Issues: Consistency with the City’s General Plan and Zoning Ordinance Staff Recommendation: Adopt a resolution approving the Conditional Use Permit for a new unmanned AT&T telecommunication facility with the installation of a 60-foot-tall monotree, subject to findings and conditions of approval.

BACKGROUND
On March 23, 2023, Complete Wireless Consulting, applicant, filed an application requesting a Conditional Use Permit (File No. PLN23-00148) for a new unmanned telecommunication facility for AT&T at 3111 Benton Street.

At the August 21, 2024, Planning Commission meeting, staff provided a presentation on the project followed by a presentation from the applicant. The staff report is included in Attachment 14. There were three public speakers at the August 21, 2024, Planning Commission meeting that spoke in opposition of the project with concerns related to the proposed diesel generator and the location of the new telecommunication facility. After the public discussion, the applicant requested a continuance City of Santa Clara Printed on 10/19/2024Page 1 of 5
powered by Legistar™
24-987 Agenda Date: 10/23/2024
of this item to the September 11, 2024, Planning Commission meeting to allow additional time for research and review of comments received during testimony.

At the September 11, 2024, Planning Commission meeting, the applicant requested a further continuance to address these comments. Since wireless telecommunications facility requests are subject to time limits specified by the Federal Communications Commission, the City and the applicant entered into a tolling agreement to allow for the additional continuance.

The subject property has a General Plan land use designation of Public / Quasi Public and is zoned PQP (Public / Quasi Public). The project site is located to the northeast of Benton Street and Pomeroy Avenue. The property is about 3.15 acres and is currently built with an existing church, paved parking lot, and an existing cell site on the roof of the church.

According to Santa Clara City Code (SCCC) Section 18.66.040.A, Conditional Use Permit approval is required for all new wireless telecommunication facilities.

DISCUSSION
The proposed new unmanned telecommunication facility would include the installation of an AT&T 60 -foot-tall monotree design. A monotree is a wireless telecommunications facility camouflaged to resemble a tree. The proposed monotree will be equipped with fifteen antennas and twelve remote radio units (RRUs) on a 511 square foot lease area enclosed by a new 6-foot-tall wooden fence. The antennas are grouped towards the top of the tower, flanked with broadleaf designed material (See Plans sheet A-3.1). The tower is located 37’-1” from the north property line. There are also existing trees that will surround the fenced area where the monotree will be located. The project previously included the installation of a 30-Kilowatt diesel emergency standby generator, which is no longer being proposed. A new battery cabinet will be installed to address events when electricity is disrupted. Otherwise, the design and location of the proposed monotree remains unchanged from the previous Planning Commission meeting. The applicant also provided additional technical studies to address the comments received at the August 21, 2024, Planning Commission meeting which are detailed in Attachments 7 to 12.

Pertaining to safety concerns, local governments, including the City of Santa Clara, are preempted from regulating wireless telecommunication facilities based on concerns regarding the health effects of radio frequency emissions. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 ("TCA"; 47 U.S.C §332(c)(7)(B) (iv)) limits the local zoning authority over wireless telecommunication antennas for personal wireless service:
“No State or local government or instrumentality thereof may regulate the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the [Federal Communication] Commission's regulations concerning such emissions.” Although the TCA prohibits the City from basing its decision on radio frequency (RF) emissions, the installation must still comply with RF emissions limits set by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). At the August 21, 2024 meeting, Members of the Commission asked staff to provide information on the applicable emission limits, and asked the applicant to provide data on the emissions of the proposed installation. For cellular antennas, the FCC has established Maximum City of Santa Clara Printed on 10/19/2024Page 2 of 5
powered by Legistar™
24-987 Agenda Date: 10/23/2024
Permissible Exposure (MPE) limits for human exposure to RF energy. The FCC measures MPEs in terms of milliwatts (mW) of power over a unit of surface area measured in square centimeters (cm2).

The relative risk of RF emissions varies depending on the frequency used, with the highest risk in the frequency range of 30 - 300 megahertz (MHz). As a result, the applicable MPE varies with the frequency:

FCC MPEs for General Public
Frequency Range (MHz) Power Density (mW / cm2)

0.3 - 1.34 100

1.34 - 30 180 / f2
30 - 300 0.2
300 - 1,500 f / 1,500
1,500 - 100,000 1.0
AT&T has indicated that their proposed antennas will be operating at a frequency between 700 and 1,900 MHz, which are in the last two lines of the table. At 700 MHz, the MPE is 700 / 1,500 = 0.47 mW / cm

2. At 1,900 MHz, the MPE is 1.0 mW / cm2.

AT&T provided a Radio Frequency Compliance report dated September 5, 2024. According to that report, the proposed installation would result in maximum emissions that are 49.33% of the applicable MPEs.

Consistency with the General Plan
The General Plan designation for the project site is Public / Quasi Public (PQP), which was recently updated from a Very Low Density Residential designation as part of the City’s broader effort to create consistency between General Plan and Zoning designations.

The proposal is consistent with the following General Land Use and Energy Policies of the General Plan:
• 5.3.1-P17 Promote economic vitality by maintaining the City's level of service for public facilities and infrastructure, including affordable utilities and high-quality telecommunications. • 5.10.3-P10 Maintain the City's level of service for high quality utilities and telecommunications infrastructure.

The proposal is consistent with these policies in that the project is proposing to install a new wireless telecommunication facility to provide increased coverage for AT&T customers in this network area.

The project will expand AT&T’s existing network and improve call quality, signal strength, and wireless connection services in the City.

Zoning Conformance
The zoning designation for the project site is Public / Quasi Public (PQP). This is an update from the “Classic” Zoning Code, which was Public or Quasi Public (B). Pursuant to Section 18.66.040, Conditional Use Permit approval is required for all new wireless telecommunication facilities.

Pursuant to SCCC Section 18.114.050, the Planning Commission may approve or conditionally approve a Conditional Use Permit only after first making all of the following findings:

A. The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan; B. The proposed use is allowed within the subject zone and complies with all other applicable City of Santa Clara Printed on 10/19/2024Page 3 of 5
powered by Legistar™
24-987 Agenda Date: 10/23/2024
provisions of this Zoning Code and the City Code;
C. The design, location, size, and operating characteristics of the proposed use are compatible with the allowed uses in the vicinity;
D. Operation of the use at the location proposed would not be detrimental to the harmonious and orderly growth of the City, or endanger, jeopardize, or otherwise constitute a hazard to the public convenience, health, interest, safety, or general welfare; and E. The subject site is:

1. Physically suitable in terms of design, location, operating characteristics, shape, size, topography, and the provision of public and emergency vehicle (e.g., fire and medical) access and public services and utilities; and;

2. Served by highways and streets adequate in width and improvement to carry the type and quantity of traffic the proposed use would likely generate.

All of the above findings are able to be made as detailed in Attachment 3 - Resolution to Approve the Conditional Use Permit.

Conclusion
:

The proposal is consistent with the General Plan policies and Zoning Ordinance and meets the height requirements. The proposed project is desirable to the public convenience and will provide coverage objectives for the proposed wireless facility and improve service/coverage for the general area. The proposed project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed ancillary use.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The proposed project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per section 15303(d) of the CEQA Guidelines (New Construction of Utility Extensions).

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no impact to the City for processing the requested application other than administrative staff time and expense typically covered by processing fees paid by the applicant.

COORDINATION
This report has been coordinated with the City Attorney’s Office.

PUBLIC CONTACT
On October 10, 2024, a notice of public hearing on this item was mailed to property owners within 500 feet of the project site. At the time of this staff report, Planning staff has received three public comments in opposition to the proposed project which has been compiled in Attachment 13 - Correspondence.

RECOMMENDATION

1. Determine that the project is categorically exempt from formal environmental review per Section 15303(d), New Construction of Utility Extensions, of the CEQA Guidelines; and

2. Adopt a Resolution to approve a Conditional Use Permit for a new unmanned AT&T wireless telecommunication facility with the installation of a 60-foot-tall monotree at 3111 Benton Street, subject to findings and conditions of approval.

City of Santa Clara Printed on 10/19/2024Page 4 of 5
powered by Legistar™
24-987 Agenda Date: 10/23/2024
Prepared by: Tiffany Vien, Associate Planner
Reviewed by: Alexander Abbe, Assistant City Attorney
Approved by: Lesley Xavier, Planning Manager

ATTACHMENTS

1. Development Plans

2. Letter of Justification

3. Resolution to Approve the Conditional Use Permit

4. Conditions of Approval

5. Visual Simulations

6. Coverage Map

7. Property Value Study

8. Real Estate Study

9. Maps of Existing and Future Locations

10. Shade Report

11. Revised Radio Frequency Study

12. Revised Noise Study

13. Correspondence

14. August 21, 2024 Planning Commission Staff Report
City of Santa Clara Printed on 10/19/2024Page 5 of 5
powered by Legistar™
City of Santa Clara
Agenda Report
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
santaclaraca.gov
@SantaClaraCity
24-1194 Agenda Date: 12/4/2024

REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION

SUBJECT
Public Hearing: Action on Conditional Use Permit (PLN23-00148) for a New Unmanned AT&T Telecommunication Facility with the Installation of a 60-Foot-Tall Monotree or an Alternative Design with Three 42’-6” Monopoles Located in the Parking Lot at 3111 Benton Street

REPORT IN BRIEF
File No.: PLN23-00148
Project: Conditional Use Permit for a new unmanned AT&T telecommunication facility with the installation of 60-foot-tall monotree or an alternative design with three 42’-6” monopoles located in the parking lot.

Applicant:

Steve Proo, Complete Wireless Consulting
Owner: Santa Clara First Baptist Church
General Plan: Public / Quasi Public
Zoning: Public / Quasi Public (PQP)
Site Area: 3.15 acres
Existing Site Conditions: The project site is built with an existing church and a paved parking lot.

There is an existing cell site located on the roof of the church.

Surrounding Land Uses:

North: Single-family uses
East: Multi-family and single-family uses
South: Single-family and public uses (Santa Clara High School) West: Multi-family uses
Issues: Consistency with the City’s General Plan and Zoning Ordinance Staff Recommendation: Adopt a resolution approving the Conditional Use Permit for a new unmanned AT&T telecommunication facility with the installation of a 60-foot-tall monotree, subject to findings and conditions of approval.

BACKGROUND
On March 23, 2023, Complete Wireless Consulting, applicant, filed an application requesting a Conditional Use Permit (File No. PLN23-00148) for a new unmanned telecommunication facility for AT&T at 3111 Benton Street.

The subject property has a General Plan land use designation of Public / Quasi Public and is zoned PQP (Public / Quasi Public) and a General Plan land use designation of Very Low Density Residential. The project site is located to the northeast of Benton Street and Pomeroy Avenue. The property is about 3.15 acres and is currently built with an existing church, paved parking lot, and an City of Santa Clara Printed on 12/1/2024Page 1 of 5
powered by Legistar™
24-1194 Agenda Date: 12/4/2024
existing cell site on the roof of the church. According to Santa Clara City Code (SCCC) Section

18.66.040.A, Conditional Use Permit approval is required for all new wireless telecommunication facilities.

This project was heard by the Planning Commission at their hearing on August 21, 2024, where staff provided a presentation on the project followed by a presentation from the applicant. The staff report is included as Attachment 1. There were three public speakers that spoke in opposition of the project with concerns related to the proposed diesel generator, health risks, and the location of the new telecommunication facility on the site close to residences. After the public discussion, the applicant requested a continuance of this item to the September 11, 2024, Planning Commission meeting to allow additional time for research and review of comments received during testimony.

At the September 11, 2024, Planning Commission meeting, the applicant requested a further continuance as they were not ready to provide the additional information to address the comments.

Since wireless telecommunications facility requests are subject to shot clock time limits specified by the Federal Communications Commission, the City and the applicant entered into a tolling agreement expiring November 15, 2024 to allow for the additional continuance.

This item was noticed again for the October 23, 2024 Planning Commission hearing.

DISCUSSION
At the October 23, 2024 Planning Commission hearing, staff provided a presentation on the project followed by a presentation from the applicant. The staff report is included as Attachment 2. Since the previous Planning Commission hearing, the applicant made one change to the project in that the diesel backup generator was removed and replaced by a battery cabinet. The applicant presented information on the additional technical studies that were completed to address previous comments, which are attached to this report as Attachments 13 to 18 respectively, and include Property Value Study, Real Estate Study, Shade Report, Revised Radio Frequency Study, and a Revised Noise Study.

There were three public speakers that spoke in opposition of the project with concerns related to pole collapse hazard, fire hazard, bringing down property values, adjacency to the Historic Pomeroy Green Townhomes, and aesthetics due to proximity to single-family residences.

The Commission then deliberated on the project, including questioning staff and the applicant on an alternative design for the site. The applicant provided an alternative design that would place three shorter monopoles in the parking lot along Benton Street, however staff did not support this design.

Staff concurred by stating that it was preferrable to have one monotree as visually one pole was less intrusive than three shorter monopoles. The Commission then voted to continue the item with re- noticing for the applicant to present the alternative three monopole design. The City and the applicant entered into a second tolling agreement, expiring January 15, 2025, to facilitate this additional consideration.

In response, the applicant provided a second development plan and visual simulations (Attachments 5 and 6) for the alternative three monopole design. This design includes three poles at 42’-6” in height that include light fixtures attached to each pole at 27’-4” in height and the antennas and other ancillary equipment attached near the top each pole. Each of the poles, located within the eastern parking lot will be located 84’-2” apart from each other and all three poles would be located City of Santa Clara Printed on 12/1/2024Page 2 of 5
powered by Legistar™
24-1194 Agenda Date: 12/4/2024
approximately 52’ away from the property line adjoining single-family residences and approximately 42’ away from the Benton Street right-of-way and 57’-6” away from the Moraga Street right-of-way.

The location of the equipment area would remain the same as the original alternative.

An analysis of the monotree design, General Plan, and Zoning Conformance can be found in the staff reports for the August 21 and October 23, 2024 Planning Commission hearings (Attachment 1 and 2). Staff determined that the monotree proposal is consistent with the General Plan policies and Zoning Ordinance and meets the height requirements of the Zoning.

The three-monopole proposal is also consistent with the following General Plan General Land Use and Energy Policies in that the design will still increase coverage for AT&T customers in this network area thereby expanding the existing network and improving call quality, signal strength, and wireless connection services in the City.
· 5.3.1-P17 Promote economic vitality by maintaining the City's level of service for public facilities and infrastructure, including affordable utilities and high-quality telecommunications. · 5.10.3-P10 Maintain the City's level of service for high quality utilities and telecommunications infrastructure.

The zoning designation for the project site is Public / Quasi Public (PQP). Pursuant to Section

18.66.040, Conditional Use Permit approval is required for all new wireless telecommunication facilities. Pursuant to SCCC Section 18.114.050, the Planning Commission may approve or conditionally approve a Conditional Use Permit only after first making all of the following findings:

A. The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan; B. The proposed use is allowed within the subject zone and complies with all other applicable provisions of this Zoning Code and the City Code;
C. The design, location, size, and operating characteristics of the proposed use are compatible with the allowed uses in the vicinity;
D. Operation of the use at the location proposed would not be detrimental to the harmonious and orderly growth of the City, or endanger, jeopardize, or otherwise constitute a hazard to the public convenience, health, interest, safety, or general welfare; and E. The subject site is:

1. Physically suitable in terms of design, location, operating characteristics, shape, size, topography, and the provision of public and emergency vehicle (e.g., fire and medical) access and public services and utilities; and;

2. Served by highways and streets adequate in width and improvement to carry the type and quantity of traffic the proposed use would likely generate.

Staff determines that all the above findings can be made for the revised three-monopole project just as determined for the monotree project as detailed in Attachment 10 - Resolution to Approve the Conditional Use Permit - 3 Pole Design. However, the monotree design is still preferrable as it is designed to blend in with the existing surrounding trees compared with the three-monopole design where there would be no visual screening provided in the parking lot.

City of Santa Clara Printed on 12/1/2024Page 3 of 5
powered by Legistar™
24-1194 Agenda Date: 12/4/2024

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The proposed project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per section 15303(d) of the CEQA Guidelines (New Construction of Utility Extensions).

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no impact to the City for processing the requested application other than administrative staff time and expense typically covered by processing fees paid by the applicant.

COORDINATION
This report has been coordinated with the City Attorney’s Office.

PUBLIC CONTACT
Public contact was made by posting the Planning Commission agenda on the City’s official-notice bulletin board outside City Hall Council Chambers. A complete agenda packet is available on the City’s website and in the City Clerk’s Office at least 72 hours prior to a Regular Meeting and 24 hours prior to a Special Meeting. A hard copy of any agenda report may be requested by contacting the City Clerk’s Office at (408) 615-2220, [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> or at the public information desk at any City of Santa Clara public library.

On November 21, 2024, a notice of public hearing on this item was mailed to property owners within 500 feet of the project site. At the time of this staff report, Planning staff has received eight public comments in opposition to the proposed project which has been compiled in Attachment 19 Correspondence.

ALTERNATIVES

1. Adopt a Resolution to approve a Conditional Use Permit for a new unmanned AT&T wireless telecommunication facility with the installation of a 60-foot-tall monotree at 3111 Benton Street, subject to findings and conditions of approval.

2. Adopt a Resolution to approve a Conditional Use Permit for a new unmanned AT&T wireless telecommunication facility with the installation of three, 42’-6” monopoles 3111 Benton Street, subject to findings and conditions of approval.

3. Disapprove the Conditional Use Permit and make specific findings as to the basis for disapproval.

RECOMMENDATION

1. Determine that the project is categorically exempt from formal environmental review per Section 15303(d), New Construction of Utility Extensions, of the CEQA Guidelines; and

2. Adopt a Resolution to approve a Conditional Use Permit for a new unmanned AT&T wireless telecommunication facility with the installation of a 60-foot-tall monotree at 3111 Benton Street, subject to findings and conditions of approval.

Reviewed by: Alexander Abbe, Assistant City Attorney
Approved by: Afshan Hamid, Community Development Department Director

ATTACHMENTS
City of Santa Clara Printed on 12/1/2024Page 4 of 5
powered by Legistar™
24-1194 Agenda Date: 12/4/2024

1. August 21, 2024 Planning Commission Staff Report

2. October 23, 2024 Planning Commission Staff Report

3. Development Plans - Monotree

4. Visual Simulations - Monotree

5. Development Plans - 3 Monopoles

6. Visual Simulations - 3 Monopoles

7. Letter of Justification

8. Resolution to Approve the Conditional Use Permit - Monotree

9. Conditions of Approval - Monotree

10.Resolution to Approve the Conditional Use Permit - 3 Pole Design

11.Conditions of Approval - 3 Pole Design

12.Coverage Map

13.Property Value Study

14.Real Estate Study

15.Shade Report

16.Radio Frequency Study - Monotree

17.Radio Frequency Study - 3 Pole Design

18.Noise Study

19.Correspondence
City of Santa Clara Printed on 12/1/2024Page 5 of 5
powered by Legistar™
City of Santa Clara
Agenda Report
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
santaclaraca.gov
@SantaClaraCity
24-1256 Agenda Date: 1/15/2025

REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION

SUBJECT
Public Hearing Continuance: Action on Conditional Use Permit (PLN23-00148) for a New Unmanned AT&T Telecommunication Facility with the Installation of a 60-Foot-Tall Monotree or an Alternative Design with Three 42’-6” Monopoles Located in the Parking Lot at 3111 Benton Street

REPORT IN BRIEF
File No.: PLN23-00148
Project: Conditional Use Permit for a new unmanned AT&T telecommunication facility with the installation of 60-foot-tall monotree or an alternative design with three 42’-6” monopoles located in the parking lot.

Applicant: Steve Proo, Complete Wireless Consulting
Owner: Santa Clara First Baptist Church
General Plan: Public / Quasi Public
Zoning: Public / Quasi Public (PQP)
Site Area: 3.15 acres
Existing Site Conditions: The project site is built with an existing church and a paved parking lot.

There is an existing cell site located on the roof of the church.

Surrounding Land Uses:

North: Single-family uses
East: Multi-family and single-family uses
South: Single-family and public uses (Santa Clara High School) West: Multi-family uses
Issues: Consistency with the City’s General Plan and Zoning Ordinance Staff Recommendation: Adopt a resolution approving the Conditional Use Permit for a new unmanned AT&T telecommunication facility with the installation of a 60-foot-tall monotree, subject to findings and conditions of approval.

BACKGROUND
On March 23, 2023, Complete Wireless Consulting, applicant, filed an application requesting a Conditional Use Permit (File No. PLN23-00148) for a new unmanned telecommunication facility for AT&T at 3111 Benton Street.

The subject property has a General Plan land use designation of Public / Quasi Public and is zoned PQP (Public / Quasi Public) and has a General Plan land use designation of Very Low Density Residential. The project site is located to the northeast of Benton Street and Pomeroy Avenue. The property is about 3.15 acres and is currently built with an existing church, paved parking lot, and an City of Santa Clara Printed on 1/11/2025Page 1 of 6
powered by Legistar™
24-1256 Agenda Date: 1/15/2025
existing cell site on the roof of the church. According to Santa Clara City Code (SCCC) Section

18.66.040.A, Conditional Use Permit approval is required for all new wireless telecommunication facilities.

This project was heard by the Planning Commission at their hearing on August 21, 2024, where staff provided a presentation on the project followed by a presentation from the applicant. The staff report is included as Attachment 1. There were three public speakers that spoke in opposition of the project with concerns related to the proposed diesel generator, health risks, and the location of the new telecommunication facility on the site close to residences. After the public discussion, the applicant requested a continuance of this item to the September 11, 2024, Planning Commission meeting to allow additional time for research and review of comments received during testimony.

At the September 11, 2024, Planning Commission meeting, the applicant requested a further continuance as they were not ready to provide the additional information to address the comments.

Since wireless telecommunications facility requests are subject to shot clock time limits specified by the Federal Communications Commission, the City and the applicant entered into a tolling agreement expiring November 15, 2024 to allow for the additional continuance. Shot clock time limits under California Government Code Section 65964.1 provides that an application for a wireless telecommunications facility is "deemed approved” if the local government has not approved or disapproved it within the applicable time period under the FCC Shot Clock ruling.

This project was noticed again for the October 23, 2024 Planning Commission hearing. The staff report is included as Attachment 2. For the October 23
rd Planning Commission hearing, the applicant
made one change to the project in that the diesel backup generator was removed and replaced by a battery cabinet. There were three public speakers that spoke in opposition of the project. The Commission then deliberated on the project, including questioning staff and the applicant on an alternative design for the site. The Commission then voted to continue the item with re-noticing for the applicant to present the alternative three monopole design. The City and the applicant entered into a second tolling agreement, expiring January 15, 2025, to facilitate this additional consideration.

The project was noticed for the December 4, 2024 Planning Commission Hearing. The City and the applicant entered into a third tolling agreement, expiring February 15, 2025, to facilitate this additional consideration.

DISCUSSION
At the December 4, 2024 Planning Commission hearing, staff provided a presentation on the project followed by a presentation from the applicant. The staff report is included as Attachment 3. Staff maintained its recommendation to approve a 60-foot-tall monotree on the subject site due to a monotree appearance fitting more contextually with the overall neighborhood The applicant also presented information on the alternative design of three 42’-6” Monopoles located in the parking lot.

There were eight public speakers that spoke in opposition of the project with concerns related to aesthetics, neighborhood compatibility, devaluation of property, radio frequency emissions, and that alternative locations should be considered.

The Commission then deliberated on the project, including questioning the applicant on the alternative locations that were considered. The applicant responded that a number of sites in the City of Santa Clara Printed on 1/11/2025Page 2 of 6
powered by Legistar™
24-1256 Agenda Date: 1/15/2025
vicinity were considered and ruled out as unsuitable with the exception of the City’s Central Park as no response was received from the City on the availability of the site for a wireless facility.

After deliberation, the Commission voted to continue the item to the January 15, 2025 Planning Commission hearing with direction to staff to follow up with the Parks Department on the Central Park site.

In response to the Commission request, the following is staff’s response with follow up items listed below in bold, followed by staff comments in regular text:

1. The potential location of the Wireless Facility in Central Park:

City staff has reviewed the possibility of placing the proposed Wireless Facility in Central Park and has determined that Santa Clara City Charter § 714.1 would present a significant impediment to this proposal. Santa Clara City Charter § 714.1 requires any proposed sale, disposal, lease, or change in use of City owned parkland lasting 180 days or more to be approved by a two-thirds majority of voters. The provisions of the City Charter would apply here because the City would need to lease the underlying property to the applicant and such lease would have a term exceeding 180 days. Typically, lease agreements for the installation of telecommunications facilities have multi-year terms (10-15 years) with options to extend.

If the City decides to install the Wireless Facility in Central Park, the City would first need to submit the proposal to the voters at a general municipal election in accordance with the City Charter. This would significantly delay the Project, since elections must be held on specific dates fixed by the Elections Code; the soonest this question could be placed on the ballot would be a special election on November 4, 2025. There are also significant costs and expenses associated with placing a measure on the ballot. For the general election in November 2024, the cost to put a question on the ballot was approximately $118,000. The cost of a special election would be significantly higher.

In addition, given the high two-thirds majority threshold needed to prevail, there is a strong likelihood that such a measure would not pass. In November 2024, approximately 44,000 residents voted in the election. If a comparable number voted on this proposal, it would take an affirmative vote of 29,334 persons to approve the lease.

In the event that such a ballot measure was successful, City staff would still need to negotiate terms for a lease agreement, which would then be subject to Council approval. The Parks Department reviewed the proposal and indicated that before they could consider such a proposal, they would first need input from the Parks and Recreation Commission and the City Council, and would need to conduct community outreach.

Additionally, the applicant and Parks Department staff did a thorough examination of the entirety of Central Park to identify any other potential locations including the five locations that were suggested by the public. Three of them had to be eliminated due to a planned parking entry construction project.

Another site was ruled out based on park staff preference as it was near main walking paths. In addition, any area on the eastern side of the park, including the lights of the baseball field, did not meet the radio frequency needs of AT&T. Unfortunately, given the park's existing infrastructure, including the recreation center, veteran’s memorial, new playground along with main park pathways, City of Santa Clara Printed on 1/11/2025Page 3 of 6
powered by Legistar™
24-1256 Agenda Date: 1/15/2025
as well as the two elementary schools located at the north and south of the park and future park entry construction, it was not possible to site a wireless facility at Central Park.

2. The need for the City to have an infrastructure plan that would include identified locations for new wireless facilities.

Based on staff’s knowledge, wireless companies determine locations on a project-by-project basis based on the need for coverage and increased demand. The wireless companies then work with individual property owners and negotiate use of their property. While the City could identify permitted as of right locations for wireless facilities, this would not necessarily align with the needs or demands of the wireless carriers to provide the necessary coverage.

Resident Concerns:

Since the December 4 Planning Commission meeting, the surrounding neighborhood has provided additional written comments. In general, the issues raised are:

1. Radio Frequency (RF) emissions from cell towers.

2. Safety due to fire concerns on cell towers.

3. International Fire Fighters Association review of cell towers.

4. Other cities’ distance requirements from residential neighborhoods.

The Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 provides that local agencies can regulate location and aesthetics of wireless facilities, but cannot regulate based on health effects and cannot deny a provider a reasonable means to address an identified coverage gap within a certain area. More specifically, the Telecommunications Act preempts all municipal regulation of Radio Frequency (RF) emissions to the extent that wireless facilities comply with federal emissions standards. 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(iv) (“No State or local government or instrumentality thereof may regulate the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the Commission’s regulations concerning such emissions.”). As detailed in the December 4 staff report, the proposed facilities will not exceed federal emissions standards.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The proposed project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per section 15303(d) of the CEQA Guidelines (New Construction of Utility Extensions).

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no impact to the City for processing the requested application other than administrative staff time and expense typically covered by processing fees paid by the applicant.

COORDINATION
This report has been coordinated with the City Attorney’s Office and Parks & Recreation Department.

PUBLIC CONTACT
Public contact was made by posting the Planning Commission agenda on the City’s official-notice bulletin board outside City Hall Council Chambers. A complete agenda packet is available on the City’s website and in the City Clerk’s Office at least 72 hours prior to a Regular Meeting and 24 City of Santa Clara Printed on 1/11/2025Page 4 of 6
powered by Legistar™
24-1256 Agenda Date: 1/15/2025
hours prior to a Special Meeting. A hard copy of any agenda report may be requested by contacting the City Clerk’s Office at (408) 615-2220, [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> or at the public information desk at any City of Santa Clara public library.

On November 21, 2024, a notice of public hearing on December 4, 2024 for this item was mailed to property owners within 500 feet of the project site. At that hearing this item was continued to date certain of January 15, 2025, therefore no additional noticing was sent. At the time of this staff report, Planning staff has received 16 public comments in opposition to the proposed project which have been compiled in Attachment 20 Correspondence.

ALTERNATIVES

1. Adopt a Resolution to approve a Conditional Use Permit for a new unmanned AT&T wireless telecommunication facility with the installation of a 60-foot-tall monotree at 3111 Benton Street, subject to findings and conditions of approval.

2. Adopt a Resolution to approve a Conditional Use Permit for a new unmanned AT&T wireless telecommunication facility with the installation of three, 42’-6” monopoles 3111 Benton Street, subject to findings and conditions of approval.

3. Disapprove the Conditional Use Permit and make specific findings as to the basis for disapproval.

RECOMMENDATION

1. Determine that the project is categorically exempt from formal environmental review per Section 15303(d), New Construction of Utility Extensions, of the CEQA Guidelines; and

2. Adopt a Resolution to approve a Conditional Use Permit for a new unmanned AT&T wireless telecommunication facility with the installation of a 60-foot-tall monotree at 3111 Benton Street, subject to findings and conditions of approval.

Reviewed by: Alexander Abbe, Assistant City Attorney
Approved by: Afshan Hamid, Community Development Department Director

ATTACHMENTS

1. August 21, 2024 Planning Commission Staff Report

2. October 23, 2024 Planning Commission Staff Report

3. December 4, 2024 Planning Commission Staff Report

4. Development Plans - Monotree

5. Visual Simulations - Monotree

6. Letter of Justification

7. Development Plans - 3 Monopoles

8. Visual Simulations - 3 Monopoles

9. Resolution to Approve the Conditional Use Permit - Monotree

10. Conditions of Approval - Monotree

11. Resolution to Approve the Conditional Use Permit - 3 Pole Design City of Santa Clara Printed on 1/11/2025Page 5 of 6
powered by Legistar™
24-1256 Agenda Date: 1/15/2025

12. Conditions of Approval - 3 Pole Design

13. Coverage Map

14. Property Value Study

15. Real Estate Study

16. Shade Report

17. Radio Frequency Study - Monotree

18. Radio Frequency Study - 3 Pole Design

19. Noise Study

20. Public Correspondence
City of Santa Clara Printed on 1/11/2025Page 6 of 6
powered by Legistar™
Economic Impacts to
Residential Real Estate from
Small Wireless Facilities
July 2021

SILICON VALLEY
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0).

To view this license, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ www.jointventure.org
Joint Venture Silicon Valley, 2021

Study Background
Mobile telephone and data networks have existed for several decades, dating back to the late 1960s when “car phones” were first introduced. Mass-adoption began in the late 1990s, when economies of scale and Moore’s Law [1] made affordable mobile
handsets possible. The introduction of smartphones in the late 2000s drove mass adoption of mobile connectivity and applications we now rely on for daily life in the 21 st century. The usage trends of these technologies are well-known and personally familiar. In 2015 the World Bank reported that 97.4% of the world’s population have cellular phone subscriptions, but only 68% have sanitation service (i.e. toilets, sewers, etc.)
[2]
In the United States, over 80% of emergency calls to 911 emergency services originate from mobile phones.
[3] Per the Centers for Disease Control’s bi-annual
Wireless Substitution Report 62.5% of U.S. adults and 73.6% of U.S. children are living in households that are “wireless-only” in which they’ve replaced their wired telephones with wireless service.
[4] For people under the age of 34, the wireless-only rate is nearly 80%, as an increasingly large percentage of the younger population have never owned — or even used — wired telephones. Mobile internet and data usage is also growing exponentially. Globally, in 2020, the amount of data that flowed monthly over mobile data networks exceeded 70 Petabytes. (A Petabyte is equal to 1,000,000 Gigabytes.) [5]
To serve this exponentially-increasing demand, wireless carriers are densifying their networks by deploying low-power augmentation sites known as “small cells” because they cover small areas close to population centers and areas where people congregate. Initially, the densification projects used enhanced 4G LTE technology, but are now shifting toward 5G NR (New Radio) to add additional capacity and features.

This expansion of the network, and in particular the introduction of new technologies and spectrum bands, has met with a variety of concerns from a small but vociferous handful of residents, organizations, and even some local governments. The expressed concerns are primarily that electromagnetic fields from these wireless sites will cause health problems, negatively impact local aesthetics, or negatively affect real property valuations. It is this latter concern that our study sought to address.

Study Goals
There are numerous studies on the impact of wireless sites on real estate valuation that used objective and reproducible methods: Joint Venture Silicon Valley 2012, Valbridge 2018, Maennig (University of Hamburg) 2010, and others. [6], [7], [8] However,
previous studies focused on wide-area coverage from large towers and monopoles (known as “macro” sites) on hilltops and buildings, rather than small cells on wooden poles and street lights near residences and population centers. None of the previous objective studies found economically-significant impacts — positive or negative — to property valuations, but nevertheless there is an extant belief (or an “urban legend”) held by some real estate agents that wireless sites near residences can cause Economic Impacts to Residential Real Estate from Small Wireless Facilities2 property valuation reductions of up to 20%. A devaluation of residential real estate from proximal wireless sites does not show up in objective peer-reviewed studies, nevertheless a belief that wireless sites cause devaluation persists and is often raised as an objection during planning commission, city council, county board, and permit appeal hearings. Because the previous studies focused on macro sites, and the wireless industry’s current deployment focus is on 4G and 5G small cells, the studies from JVSV, Valbridge, Maennig, etc. are challenged by appellants as not applicable to small cells.

To address the gap between extant belief and evidence-based economics, our study focused on whether residential real estate valuation impacts from small cells were objectively evident in real estate sale records.

Study Methodology
Our study applied a spatial difference-in-differences approach, a well-regarded economic analysis method used to estimate the impacts from proposed shopping centers, liquor stores, sports stadiums, transit centers, and other contentious land uses in and near residential areas. The study examined the question, “Do wireless small cell sites have an effect, either positive or negative, on the valuation of residential real estate?” The study also examined the question of whether or not the oft-asserted 20% reduction in property valuation appeared in the results.

The study used a dataset of 1,734 small cell sites installed in the State of California over the time period from 2010 to 2020, and a dataset of 11,684,458 real estate transactions statewide over the same ten-year period.

The study looked at residential real estate valuations for properties (the study subjects) within 10 kilometers around the constructed small cell sites, compared with residential real estate valuations for similar properties (the control group) not near small cell sites.

The study looked at price variation before and after construction of the small cell sites.

Using the spatial difference-in-differences analysis method, effects on real estate sale prices from wireless small cell sites — if they exist — will show up as variations in sale price trajectories between properties proximal to wireless sites and the non-proximal control group properties, with variation occurring during or after the time point when the small cell sites were built.

Our study methodology also controlled for variations that could affect the sale price.

Controlling for variations included, but was not limited to, defining similarities in the properties based on:
• Type of Transaction: New construction, Re-sale, REO, Foreclosure, etc. • Property Type: Single-Family Attached, Single-Family Detached, Condo, COOP , etc. • Number of bedrooms
Economic Impacts to Residential Real Estate from Small Wireless Facilities 3 • Number of bathrooms
• Number of Half Bathrooms
• Square Footage (living area)
• Garage Square Footage
• Lot Size: Number of square feet of lot
• Year Built: Original construction year
• Levels: Number of property stories
• Units: Number of units on property
• Property Condition: Any internal flag/measure of property condition • Arm’s Length: Any internal indicator of arm’s length transaction • Latitude - Property latitude in decimal degrees (ISO 6709) • Longitude - Property longitude in decimal degrees (ISO 6709) The wireless site dataset was provided by Verizon Wireless, and included small cell sites (both 4G and 5G) constructed between 2010 and 2020 in sixteen metropolitan regions in California:
• Sacramento, Roseville, Arden-Arcade
• San José, Sunnyvale, Santa Clara
• San Francisco, Redwood City, South San Francisco
• Oakland, Hayward, Berkeley
• Santa Rosa
• Stockton, Lodi
• Fresno
• Santa Maria, Santa Barbara
• Modesto
• Salinas, Monterey
• San Luis Obispo, Paso Robles, Arroyo Grande
• Santa Cruz, Capitola, Aptos, Watsonville
• Bakersfield
• Vallejo, Fairfield
• Visalia, Porterville
• Napa
Economic Impacts to Residential Real Estate from Small Wireless Facilities4 The wireless site dataset defined the latitude and longitude of the site, the date of construction, and the type of attachment structure i.e. wood pole, street light, etc.

The real estate transaction dataset was provided by Black Knight Data & Analytics, LLC, and included all residential real estate transactions in California between the years 2010 and 2020. Extensive and detailed coding of the properties in the dataset enabled accurate comparisons between sales of the study properties and sales of control group properties.

Both the wireless and real estate datasets were provided to a doctoral-level economist skilled in urban planning, policy, land use, and housing. The economist was directed to conduct the analysis objectively. The economist had no contact with the wireless industry before or during the study, and has no previous or current financial relationship with the wireless industry. The analysis was done using the Stata software package from StataCorp LLC. The economist produced a set of statistical coefficients appropriate for a third-order curve analysis of residential real estate sales near wireless sites ranging out to 10 kilometers (32,808 feet) radial distance. The analysis used radial increments of 0.1 kilometers (328 feet). The economist also calculated a coefficient of determination (denoted as R
2) which indicates how well the data fits to the calculated regression line. The analysis was conducted at the aggregate statewide level, and also at the local level for the aforementioned metropolitan regions. No adjustments were made to the real estate dataset by the Joint Venture Silicon Valley or the economist.

The coefficients and analysis results were in turn provided to Joint Venture Silicon Valley for final authorship of this report. Aside from formatting the results as necessary for report authorship production, no adjustments were made to the analysis results.

Study Findings
Statewide (California)
At an aggregate statewide level, the analysis found statistically significant increases in residential real estate valuation at all distances after construction of the proximal wireless sites. However, not all of these valuation variations were economically significant.

Coefficient of determination (R
2) for the statewide analysis was very high at 0.97 – in other words, this analysis accounts for nearly 100% of all observed effects on valuation from wireless site deployment near the subject properties.

Statewide, real estate valuation increases from proximal wireless sites ranged from +0.03% (within 0.1 kilometers of a wireless site) to +2.14% (at distances from 8.4 km to 8.9 kilometers). For purposes of illustration: California’s median single-family home price in 2020 was $758,990 thus the price premia found in the analysis would result in valuation increases ranging from $228 (0.03%) to $16,242 (2.14%).

Economic Impacts to Residential Real Estate from Small Wireless Facilities 5 The oft-cited 20% reductions in valuation are not evident in the statewide analysis, nor in any of the metropolitan region analyses.

Statistical Significance of Metro Areas
Of the sixteen metropolitan regions analyzed, six regions showed no statistical significance; i.e. wireless sites proximal to residential real estate had no impact on valuation. The six metro regions showing no statistical significance in the analysis were:
• Stockton, Lodi
• Salinas, Monterey
• Santa Cruz, Capitola, Aptos, Watsonville
• Bakersfield
• Vallejo, Fairfield
• Visalia, Porterville
• Napa
Sacramento CA Metro Area
In the Sacramento metro area (Sacramento, Roseville, Arden-Arcade), the analysis found increases in residential real estate valuation after construction of proximal wireless sites.

Looking at 3,796,728 transactions, the valuation variation ranged from +0.01% (within

0.1 km of the wireless site) to +0.53% (at distances from 6.0 km to 6.4 km).

R
2 for the Sacramento metro area analysis was 0.92. The oft-cited 20% reductions in valuation are not evident in the Sacramento metro area results.

San José CA Metro Area
In the San José metro area (San José, Sunnyvale, Santa Clara), the analysis found no valuation effects within 0.4 km, and increases in residential real estate valuation at distances greater than 0.5 km, after construction of the subject wireless sites.

Looking at 3,612,141 transactions, the valuation variation ranged from +0.01% (beginning at 0.5 km from the wireless site) to +0.47% (at distances from 8.0 km to 9.0 km).

Economic Impacts to Residential Real Estate from Small Wireless Facilities6 R2 for the San José metro area analysis was 0.93. The oft-cited 20% reductions in valua
tion are not evident in the San José metro area results.

San Francisco CA Metro Area
In the San Francisco metro area (San Francisco, Redwood City, South San Francisco), the analysis found slight decreases, but also increases, in residential real estate valuation after construction of proximal wireless sites.

Looking at 3,378,178 transactions, the valuation variation ranged from -0.11% (at distances from 0.7 km to 0.9 km from the wireless site) to +3.73% (at distances from 9.1 km to 9.3 km). The decreases observed are not economically signification.

R2
for the San Francisco metro area analysis was 0.90. The oft-cited 20% reductions in valuation are not evident in the San Francisco metro area results.

Oakland CA Metro Area
In the Oakland metro area (Oakland, Hayward, Berkeley), the analysis found increases in residen
tial real estate valuation at all distances after construction of proximal wireless sites.

Looking at 628,836 transactions, the pricing variation ranged from +0.08% (within 0.1 km of the wireless site) to +3.25% (at 10.0 km from the wireless site).

R2 for the Oakland metro area analysis was 0.92. The oft-cited 20% reductions in valuation are not evident in the Oakland metro area results.

Santa Rosa CA Metro Area
In
the Santa Rosa metro area, the analysis found slight decreases, but also slight increases, in residential real estate valuation after construction of proximal wireless sites
.

Looking at 120,937 transactions, the pricing variation ranged from -0.52% (at distances from

2.3 km to 2.7 km from the wireless site) to +0.05% (at distances from 7.5 km to

7.9 km).

R2 for the Santa Rosa metro area analysis was 0.94. The oft-cited 20% reductions in valuation are not evident in the Santa Rosa metro area results.

Economic Impacts to Residential Real Estate from Small Wireless Facilities 7 Fresno CA Metro Area
In the Fresno metro area, the analysis found increases in residential real estate valuation after construction of proximal wireless sites.

Looking at 18,438 transactions, the pricing variation ranged from +0.25% (within 0.1 km of the wireless site) to +3.94% (at distances from 4.4 km to 4.6 km).

R2 for the Fresno metro area analysis was 0.97. The oft-cited 20% reductions in valuation are not evident in the Fresno metro area results.

Santa Barbara CA Metro Area
In the Santa Barbara metro area (Santa Barbara, Santa Maria), the analysis found increases in residential real estate valuation after construction of proximal wireless sites.

Looking at 15,630 transactions, the pricing variation ranged from +0.10% (within 0.1 km of the wireless site) to +2.56% (at distances from 5.0 km to 5.5 km).

R
2 for the Santa Barbara metro area analysis was 0.98. The oft-cited 20% reductions in valuation are not evident in the Santa Barbara metro area results.

Modesto CA Metro Area
In the Modesto metro area, the analysis found increases in residential real estate valuation after construction of proximal wireless sites.

Looking at 15,123 transactions, the pricing variation ranged from +1.00% (within 0.1 km of the wireless site) to +16.22% (at distances from 3.7 km to 3.8 km).

R2 for the Modesto metro area analysis was 0.92. The oft-cited 20% reductions in valuation are not evident in the Modesto metro area results.

San Luis Obispo CA Metro Area
In the San Luis Obispo metro area (San Luis Obispo, Paso Robles, Arroyo Grande), the analysis found slight decreases, but also increases, in residential real estate valuation after construction of proximal wireless sites.

Looking at 9,831 transactions, the pricing variation ranged from -0.27% (at distances from 1.7 km to 2.1 km from the wireless site) to +0.91% (at distances from 9.3 km to

9.5 km).

Economic Impacts to Residential Real Estate from Small Wireless Facilities8 R2 for the San Luis Obispo metro area analysis was 0.98. The oft-cited 20% reductions in valuation are not evident in the San Luis Obispo metro area results.

Discussion
Economic Significance of Pricing Variations
While some pricing variation was found to be statistically significant, not all variations were economically significant. Economic significance could be interpreted as any variation above the 1 - R
2 level, however for purposes of this study, the researchers considered pricing variations over 1% to be economically significant. Variations could be due to factors that this analysis did not consider including weather, crime trends, stock market fluctuations, or population migration trends.

Example: In our study, the maximum valuation decrease was -0.52% (Santa Rosa metro area). The median listing sold price in Santa Rosa CA (Jan 2020, per the National Association of REALTORS® website) was $571,000. A pricing variation of -0.52% would equate to a valuation decrease of $2,969.

The study found three metro areas with statistically significant valuation decreases, but no metro areas with economically significant valuation decreases. The study found six metro areas with economically significant valuation increases: San Francisco (+3.73%), Oakland (+3.25%), Fresno (+3.94%), Santa Barbara (+2.56%), and Modesto (+16.22%).

Metro Area Lowest Variation Highest Variation R2
Sacramento +0.01% +0.53% 0.92
San José (South Bay) +0.01% +0.47% 0.93
San Francisco (-0.11%) +3.73% 0.90
Oakland (East Bay) +0.08% +3.25% 0.92
Santa Rosa (-0.52%) +0.05% 0.94
Fresno +0.25% +3.94% 0.97
Santa Barbara +0.10% +2.56% 0.98
Modesto +1.00% +16.22% 0.92
San Luis Obispo (-0.27%) +0.91% 0.98
T able 1 : Valuation Variation Ranges and Coefficients of Determination, by Metro Area Economic Impacts to Residential Real Estate from Small Wireless Facilities 9 Refutation of the “20% Reduction in Valuation” Assertion An article appeared in The Appraisal Journal, (Summer 2005) authored by Sandy Bond, Ph.D. and Ko-Kang Wang that asserted wireless towers could result in a 20% reduction in residential real estate valuations. Reviewing this article reveals that Bond and Wang used a survey methodology to collect data, citing sources (including self-citations to Bond’s own work) that recommended surveys as a valid methodology. In practice, surveys are poor methodologies for analyzing market economics as they are subject to respondent bias, participation bias, sampling bias, and a host of other factors. There is also evidence that Dr. Bond was consulting in 2005 for the Porirua Residents’ Action Group in Wellington, NZ, and that this group was actively opposed to wireless tower deployments in the area.
[9] Dr. Bond’s financial relationship with the PRAG (if any) is unknown.

Despite the relative weakness of surveys compared to objective market studies (JVSV 2012, Valbridge 2018, Maennig 2010) the extant belief that wireless sites have negative impacts on real estate valuations persists in the real estate community, and is often cited by resident groups opposed to wireless site deployments. These negative valuation impacts are not evident in this study’s analysis. Indeed, no economically significant valuation decreases are evident in our study.

Demographic Shifts in Attitudes toward Wireless Sites
As evidenced by the CDC’s Wireless Substitution reports [4] younger people rely more heavily on wireless devices for their daily lives. Per the CDC’s report as of December 2019, over 75% of U.S. adults under age 34 rely solely on their wireless devices for telephone calls. Younger generations, sometimes referred to as “Millennials” or “Generation Z” , are now the dominant economic demographic in the U.S. and are increasingly the dominant economic force in real estate markets. An article in the National Association of REALTORS® magazine stated that, after the onset of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, 69% of real estate professionals reported that prospective buyers sought information about a home’s access to connectivity, including wireless coverage. [10] The article
also stated that 62% of real estate agents believe that within one to two years, 5G home internet (an alternative to DSL, fiber, or cable broadband) will be something they will advertise during the sale process. Younger buyers’ attitudes towards wireless infrastructure stand in somewhat sharp contrast to members of older generations that have traditionally formed the core of opposition to wireless site deployments in and around neighborhoods.

The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic forced a major societal shift in attitudes toward remote work, distance learning, telehealth, online shopping, and delivery services. Many of these shifts will remain, and real estate professionals should expect that, going forward, residents will expect their wireless networks to support the increased levels of wireless data usage we observed during the pandemic.

Economic Impacts to Residential Real Estate from Small Wireless Facilities10 Possible Distortions of the Study Data
The datasets for this study’s analysis were purely objective. They comprise the entirety of one wireless carrier’s small cell deployments from 2010 to 2020, and the entirety of real estate transactions in the state of California over the same time period. The R
2 values for the observed results are very high, at 0.90 or better, indicating that the observed effects on residential real estate valuation are largely explained by the spatial difference-in-differences approach. Nevertheless, for completeness, we note some possible external effects on the study data.

Carrier Operational Economics
The most likely distortion of the results is due to the operational economics of wireless carriers. As for-profit companies, wireless carriers must weigh the cost of building a given wireless site against the carrier’s ability to realize a return on investment. Costs associated with wireless deployments are often significant, and realizing a return on investment from deployments in economically-challenged neighborhoods or areas with low population is challenging. If the wireless sites in the study data were deployed more in economically-advantaged neighborhoods, and economically-challenged neighborhoods in the control group were not targets for wireless site deployment, the relative strength of the economically-advantaged neighborhoods chosen for deployment could be affecting the results.

Economic Impacts of the SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic
Because the datasets covered the time period from 2010 to 2020, it is possible that the economic effects of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic (beginning in early 2020) had some (albeit minimal) effect on the analysis. During the pandemic in 2020, people migrated away from large cities to smaller cities and suburban areas. [11] Despite massive
corrections to the economy and significant unemployment due to business closures, real estate transactions rose sharply and valuations increased. It is possible that the 2020 real estate valuation increases could be affecting the results, however given that the study looked at a full decade of transactions, a statistically significant effect from pandemic-driven migration is unlikely.

Racial, Cultural, Age, and Other Factors
The real estate transaction dataset used for this study does not contain information about buyer demographics. Thus, it is impossible to determine if there are demographic effects in the study results. It may be, for example, that younger buyers (who tend to place higher value on network connectivity) will place a higher valuation on a real estate opportunity that has strong wireless coverage. And it may be that some racial, cultural, or other demographic groups will place higher or lower value on Economic Impacts to Residential Real Estate from Small Wireless Facilities 11 network connectivity. To help offset this, the researchers studied a large number of metropolitan areas across the state, but in the end, we note that buyer demographics are an uncontrollable variable in this study.

Contradictory Evidence Review
We reviewed previous studies and articles that claimed to find negative impacts to residential real estate valuation. In many cases, these works were not openly available in the peer-review systems.

Bond/Wang 2005
We were able to review a copy of Bond and Wang’s article, The Impact of Cell Phone Towers on House Prices in Residential Neighborhoods, in The Appraisal Journal (Summer 2005) although we note that this article is behind a subscriber paywall. We noted that Bond/Wang’s methodology used surveys, which have inherent issues with respondent bias, participation bias, sampling bias, and a host of other factors.

Affuso/Cummings/Le 2017
We attempted to review the work of Ermanno Affuso, J. Reid Cummings, and Huubinh Le from University of South Alabama. Their paper, Wireless Towers and Home Values:

An Alternative Valuation Approach Using a Spatial Econometric Analysis, in The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics (May 2018) appears (from what we could derive from the paper abstract) to be the closest approximation to our study, with the exception that Affuso et al. analyzed effects from macro towers not small wireless facilities. The National Association of REALTORS® links to Affuso et al. 2017 from their “Cell Phone Towers” subpage, but via a NAR member registration wall. [12] Requests to
Affuso et al. for a courtesy/peer copy of their paper did not receive a response.

National Association of REALTORS® Website
The NAR also links to The Impact of Cell Phone Towers on House Prices: Evidence from Brisbane, Australia (Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Jan. 1, 2018) which again is behind a member registration wall. NAR links to Property values, desirability and cell towers (EMFSA, website) an anti-EMF activist group which cites both the survey work from Bond/Wang 2005, and a survey conducted in June 2014 by the National Institute for Science, Law and Public Policy (NISLAPP) in Washington, D.C. [12]
Economic Impacts to Residential Real Estate from Small Wireless Facilities12 Conclusions
Across a wide geographic area, using a decade of wireless facility and real estate transaction data, our analysis found effectively zero statistical evidence that proximal small wireless communication facilities or “small cells” negatively impact residential real estate valuations. In fact, there is some evidence that residential real estate valuations increase within 10 km after construction of a small wireless facility. In cases where there is a statistically significant negative impact, the impact is not economically significant.

We note that the body of evidence asserting to show negative impacts to residential real estate from wireless communication facilities appears to come largely from survey- based methodologies. Where previous work has claimed to find negative valuation impacts, there appears to be very little if any available for peer-review. We encourage researchers on this topic to open their work to peer-review and scrutiny.

Support for the extant belief held by some real estate agents that wireless sites near residences can cause residential property devaluations of up to 20% is not evidenced by this study.

About the Researchers
David Witkowski, Joint Venture Silicon Valley
Witkowski is an author, advisor, and strategist who works at the intersection between local government and the telecommunication industry. He is the Executive Director of the Civic Technologies Initiative at Joint Venture Silicon Valley, a Fellow in the Radio Club of America, an IEEE Senior Member, and the Founder & CEO of Oku Solutions LLC. After serving in the U.S. Coast Guard and earning his B.Sc. in Electrical Engineering from the University of California, he held leadership roles for companies ranging from Fortune 500 multi-nationals to early-stage startups. He serves as Co-Chair of the Deployment Working Group at IEEE Future Networks, Co-Chair of the GCTC Wireless SuperCluster at NIST, as a member of the Connected Communities Forum in the Wireless Broadband Alliance, and as an Expert Advisor to the California Emerging Technology Fund.

Dr. Ralph B. McLaughlin, Chief Economist and Senior Vice President of Analytics, Haus
In December 2019, McLaughlin was named Chief Economist and Senior Vice President of Analytics at Haus. He is responsible for leading economic research using data and analytics to expand the visibility of the Haus economic policy unit while enhancing research capabilities and tools for consumers, industry professionals, the public sector and news media.

Economic Impacts to Residential Real Estate from Small Wireless Facilities 13 McLaughlin has nearly two decades of experience in the housing and mortgage market. Prior to joining Haus, he served as Chief Economist at Trulia, as Deputy Chief Economist at CoreLogic, as an Assistant Professor in Real Estate Development at San Jose State University, and as a Lecturer at the University of South Australia. He was also recently appointed as an Adjunct Assistant Professor in the Price School of Public Policy at the University of Southern California, where he teaches a masters course in urban economics.

McLaughlin frequently appears on local and national radio and television programs, and has been widely quoted in The Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Washington Post, USA Today, and Los Angeles Times as well as numerous industry trade publications such as HousingWire and National Mortgage News. He has appeared as a regular guest on cable news channels including CNBC, Bloomberg, and Fox Business News.

McLaughlin earned a Ph.D. in Planning, Policy, and Design, specializing in Urban Economics, from the University of California at Irvine, and a B.S. in Geography and Regional Development from the University of Arizona.

Acknowledgements
Richard Lombardi and Damien Weldon
Lombardi and Weldon’s sponsorship and support of this project was key to completing the study. This study is based in part on data provided by Black Knight Data & Analytics, LLC who generously provided the real estate transaction dataset for this study.

Black Knight (NYSE:BKI) is a leading provider of integrated software, data and analytics solutions that facilitate and automate many of the business processes across the homeownership life cycle. Black Knight is committed to being a premier business partner that clients rely on to achieve their strategic goals, realize greater success and better serve their customers by delivering best-in-class software, services and insights with a relentless commitment to excellence, innovation, integrity and leadership.

Radha Sharma
Sharma and her team at Verizon Wireless have been consistent supporters of the Wireless Communications Initiative at Joint Venture Silicon Valley, and they worked tirelessly to navigate the legal and contractual process with Verizon’s legal team in order to provide us with the wireless site dataset.

Economic Impacts to Residential Real Estate from Small Wireless Facilities14 Bibliography
[1] Wikipedia, “Moore’s Law, ” [Online]. Available: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Moore%27s_law. [Accessed 11 June 2021].
[2] World Bank, “Are cell phones becoming more popular than toilets?, ” 26 August 2019. [Online]. Available: https://blogs.worldbank.org/opendata/are-cell-phones- becoming-more-popular-toilets. [Accessed 09 June 2021]. [3] NENA - The 9-1-1 Association, “9-1-1 Statistics, ” [Online].

Available: https://www.nena.org/page/911Statistics. [Accessed 09 June 2021]. [4] National Center for Health Statistics, “Wireless Substitution: Early Release of Estimates Jan-Jun 2020, ” U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control, Washington, D.C., 2020.
[5] Ericsson, “Ericsson Mobility Report, ” Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson, Stockholm, Sweden, 2020.
[6] Joint Venture Silicon Valley, “Wireless Facilities Impact on Property Values, ” Joint Venture Silicon Valley, San José, CA, 2012.
[7] Valbridge Property Advisors, “Valbridge Market Studies, ” Valbridge Property Advisors, Naples, FL, 2018.
[8] W. Maennig and S. Brandt, “Perceived Externalities of Cell Phone Base Stations – The Case of Property Prices in Hamburg, Germany, ” Universität Hamburg, Hamburg, DE, 2010.
[9] California State University, Fullerton CA, “Curriculum Vitae: Dr Sandy Bond, ” [Online]. Available: https://fullerton.academia.edu/SandyBond/CurriculumVitae. [Accessed 21 June 2021].
[10] National Association of REALTORS, 14 May 2021. [Online]. Available: https:// magazine.realtor/daily-news/2021/05/14/5g-network-availability-becomes-major- selling-point-for-homes. [Accessed 10 June 2021].
[11] J. K. Dineen, “San Francisco Chronicle, ” 18 February 2021. [Online]. Available:
https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/People-are-leaving-S-F-but-not-for- Austin-or-15955527.php. [Accessed 11 June 2021].
[12] National Association of REALTORS(r), “NAR: Cell Phone Towers, ” [Online].

Available: https://www.nar.realtor/cell-phone-towers#section-165807. [Accessed 21 June 2021].

Economic Impacts to Residential Real Estate from Small Wireless Facilities 15

SILICON VALLEY
84 West Santa Clara Street
Suite 800
San Jose, California 95113
(669) 223-1331
www.jointventure.org
Environmental Noise Assessment
CCL06126 AT&T Cellular Facility
City of Santa Clara, California
BAC Job #2023-021
Prepared For:

Complete Wireless Consulting
Attn: Steve Proo
2009 V Street
Sacramento, CA 95818
Prepared By:

Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc.

Dario Gotchet
Principal Consultant
Elected Member, Institute of Noise Control Engineering (INCE)

September 18, 2024

Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc. | P.O. Box 7968, Auburn, CA. 95604 | P: (530) 537-2328 | bacnoise.com

Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc.

Environmental Noise Assessment
CCL06126 AT&T Cellular Facility – Santa Clara, California

Introduction
The CCL06126 AT&T Wireless Unmanned Telecommunications Facility (project) proposes the installation of cellular equipment within an existing (abandoned) telecommunications lease area located at 3111 Benton Street in Santa Clara, California (APN: 290-27-006). The outdoor equipment cabinets have been identified as the primary noise sources associated with the project.

The project overall site plan is presented in Figure 1. The studied site drawings are dated February 3, 2023.

Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc. has been contracted by Complete Wireless Consulting, Inc. to complete an environmental noise assess ment regarding the proposed project cellular equipment operations. Specifically, the followi ng assessment addresses daily noise production and exposure associated with operation of the project outdoor equipment cabinets. Please refer to Appendix A for definitions of acoustical terminology used in this report. Appendix B illustrates common noise levels associated with various sources.

Criteria for Acceptable Noise Exposure
City of Santa Clara Municipal Code
The City of Santa Clara Municipal Code establishes noise level performance standards for non- transportation (stationary) noise sources, such as those that would occur on the project site. The nearest (adjacent) land uses have been identified as residential to the north. Section 9.10.040 of the Municipal Code limits noise levels at residential uses to 55 dB during daytime hours (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.) and 50 dB during nighttime hours (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.).

It should be noted that the Municipal Code does not define the acoustical time descriptor such as L
eq (average noise level) or Lmax (maximum instantaneous noise level) that is associated with the established limits. For the purposes of this assessment, the City’s noise level limits were reasonably interpreted to be an average noise level (Leq).

Noise Standards Applied to the Project
Noise would be generated by this project by the ongoing operation of the cellular equipment cabinets’ cooling systems. These systems utilize fans to circulate cooling air through the electric circuitry. During warmer periods, the cooling requirements will be greater, and the fans will run continuously. During cooler periods, however, the heat transfer requirements are diminished, and the fans will run intermittently as needed. Be cause the fan operation is a normal aspect of the project, and because the fans could run continuously during warm nighttime hours (i.e., more than 30 minutes per hour), the noise standards applied to the equipment cabinets are as follows:
 55 dB L
eq at residential uses during daytime hours (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.)  50 dB L eq at residential uses during nighttime hours (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) Satisfaction with the City’s 50 dB L eq nighttime noise level standard at the nearest residential property lines would ensure compliance with the City’s less restrictive 55 dB L eq daytime noise level standard.

Legend
Figure 10 30 60
Scale (Feet)
Proposed AT&T Cellular Equipment Lease Area
CCL06126 AT&T Cellular Facility
Santa Clara, California
Project Overall Site Plan
Parcel Boundaries
290-27-006
(Project Parcel)
Residential

Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc.

Environmental Noise Assessment
CCL06126 AT&T Cellular Facility – Santa Clara, California

Project Noise Generation
The project proposes the installation of four (4) equipment cabinets within the lease area shown in Figure 1. Based on the project site drawings, the cabinets assumed for installation within the lease area are as follows: two (2) stacked Purcell Systems FLX12WS (GR-487 rated) cabinets, and two (2) AT&T Power/Battery cabinets. The cabinets and their respective reference noise levels are provided in Table 1. The manufacturer’s noise level data specification sheets for the proposed cabinets are provided as Appendix C.

Table 1
Reference Noise Level Data of Proposed Equipment Cabinets1 Equipment
Number of
Cabinets
Reference Noise
Level (dB)
Reference
Distance (ft)
Purcell Systems FLX12WS 2 65 5
AT&T Power/Battery 2 65 5
1 Manufacturer specification sheets provided as Appendix C.

Predicted Facility Equipment Noise at the Nearest Residential Property Lines Assuming standard spherical spreading loss (-6 dB per doubling of distance from a stationary noise source), project-equipment noise exposure at the nearest residential property lines to the north was calculated and the results of those calculations are presented in Table 2. Satisfaction of the City’s noise level criteria at the closest residential property lines would ensure compliance of the City’s noise limits at residential property lines located farther away.

The results presented in Table 2 include consideration the orientation of the proposed outdoor equipment cabinet cooling fans relative to the adjacent residential property lines. Based on the provided site plans, the cooling fans of the equipment cabinets are proposed to face south, or away from the residential property lines to the north. Reference noise level measurements conducted by BAC staff at a similarly configured facility in Livermore, California (5179 Preston Avenue) indicate that the proposed equipment cabinet cooling fans are approximately 8 dB quieter when measured from the opposite side (rear) of the cooling fans. As a result, predicted equipment cabinet noise levels were adjusted by -8 dB at the residential property lines to the north.

Finally, it should be noted that an existing 6’ CMU wall is constructed along a portion of the project equipment lease area. However, because the existing 6’ solid wall does not enclose the entire perimeter of the equipment lease area (i.e., there is a wood fence portion on the west side), the effectiveness of the CMU wall performing as a noise barrier would be significantly reduced. As a result, barrier offsets for the existing non-continuous CMU wall were not applied to predicted equipment noise levels.

Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc.

Environmental Noise Assessment
CCL06126 AT&T Cellular Facility – Santa Clara, California

Table 2
Predicted Equipment Noise Levels at the Nearest Residential Property Lines APN1 Land Use
Distance from Equipment
Cabinets (ft)2
Predicted Noise Level, Leq
(dB)3
290-19-012 Residential 25 49
290-19-011 Residential 30 47
1 Parcel boundaries are shown in Figure 1.
2 Distance scaled using the prov ided site plans dated 2/3/23. 3 Predicted cabinet noise levels include consideration the orientation of the cooling fans, which resulted in an -8 dB noise level reduction at the residential property lines.

Source: BAC 2024
As indicated in Table 2, project equipment cabinet noise levels are predicted to be 49 dB L eq or less at the nearest residential property lines, which would satisfy the Municipal Code 50 dB L eq nighttime noise level limit. As a result, consideration of project equipment cabinet noise mitigation measures would not be warranted for the project.

Conclusions
Project equipment noise level exposure is expected to comply with applicable City of Santa Clara Municipal Code daytime and nighttime noise level criteria at the nearest residential uses to the north. As a result, no further consideration of project equipment noise mitigation measures would be warranted for this project.

This concludes our environmental noise assessment for the proposed CCL06126 AT&T Cellular Facility in Santa Clara, California. Please contact BAC at (530) 537-2327 or [email protected] with any questions or requests for additional information.

Appendix A
Acoustical Terminology

Acoustics The science of sound.

Ambient Noise The distinctive acoustical char acteristics of a given space consisting of all noise sources audible at that location. In many cases, the term ambient is used to describe an existing or pre-project condition such as the setting in an environmental noise study.

Attenuation The reduction of an acoustic signal.

A-Weighting A frequency-response adjustment of a sound level meter that co nditions the output signal to approximate human response.

Decibel or dB Fundamental unit of sound. A Bell is defined as the logarithm of the ratio of the sound pressure squared over the reference pressure squared. A Decibe l is one-tenth of a Bell.

CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level. Defined as the 24-hour aver age noise level with noise occurring during evening hours (7 - 10 p.m.) weighted by a factor of three and nighttime hours weighted by a factor of 10 prior to averaging.

Frequency The measure of the rapidity of alterations of a periodic signa l, expressed in cycles per second or hertz.

IIC Impact Insulation Class (IIC): A single-number representation of a floor/ceiling partition’s impact generated noise insulation performance. The field-measured version of this number is the FIIC.

L
dn Day/Night Average Sound Level . Similar to CNEL but with no evening weighting.

Leq Equivalent or energy-averaged sound level.

Lmax The highest root-mean-square (R MS) sound level measured over a given period of time.

Loudness A subjective term for the sensation of the magnitude of sound.

Masking The amount (or the process) by which the threshold of audibility is for one sound is raised by the presence of another (masking) sound.

Noise Unwanted sound.

Peak Noise The level corresponding to the hi ghest (not RMS) sound pressure measured over a given period of time. This term is often confused with the “Maximum” level, which is the highest RMS level.

RT
60 The time it takes reverberant sound to decay by 60 dB once th e source has been removed.

STC Sound Transmission Class (STC): A single-number representation of a partition’s noise insulation performance. This number is based on laboratory-measured, 16-band (1/3- octave) transmission loss (TL) data of the subject partition. The field-measured version of this number is the FSTC.

Appendix B
ii
I
Typical A-Weighted Sound Levels of Common Noise Sources Decibel Scale (dBA)*
12-Gauge Shotgun 160
Chainsaw 110
Motorcycle 100
Lawn Mower 90
Vacuum Cleaner 80
Conversation
1 65
Floor IFan 50
Rustling Leaves 30
Pin Falling 15
► -
•◄ -
►
-◄
◄
◄
◄
◄
Jet Takeoff 140
Pneumatic Riveter 124
Hammer Drill 114
Rock Concert 105
Tractor/Hand Drill 97
City Traffic 78
Air Conditioning Unit 60 I
Electrical Transformer 45
"Sol.wees.
wwwcdc.~~olCI~
rittp,J,,..a<.cc1M1eaf"opdel <.llJCn'bQ..mM.dffl
Appendix
C-1
FlexSure
FLX12WS
GR-487 C rtifi d for Wire/ Data Broadband Ba khaul App/i ation Ext .rio r Olm ns ons

2.S
t)
r,
o· . +2 voe.

B tt ry P d al
• 12"H ~esta l cco moda e.s up
• 13 pedHta l cco modates up eries
• 65 dBA at five (5) feet (according to the Purcel Systems) Purcell ystents, Inc.
16125 East E cltd Aven e Spo e 'J s ing o 99 6
Pho 1 509 .755 ,034 www .pu rcellsyst ms .com
C bl Entry
• (3) '.•; 3) "; (1) "; ( ) 3 '.· o 2·
W rr nty
• 5 ve rs ndos
r
u
( 2 ov
SPO
nee outl
ng ( o 3 abi s
led equipment )
FLX12 'S shown
~ 1th 39 1/C
heat exchanger;
vertically sta ed
on a 1 "pf inth
App
endix C-2

Shade Report
Honeydew Energy Advisors for AT&T Mobility

Site Name: CCL06126
Address: 3111 Benton Street
APN: 290-27-006

This Shade report was conducted by Jacob Parro� , Energy Consultant for Honeydew Energy Advisors.

Please note there is only 1 house located on Humboldt Ave that currently has solar panels installed on their home (Array #1). No other houses currently have solar panels installed on their homes. In addi� on to show the annual solar access for the home that does have solar panels installed (Array #1), this report also showcases what future annual solar access would provide should the possibility become available for these homes to have solar panels installed on their roofs. (Array # 2-8).

The report concludes that the annual solar access that would result from the approval and building of a 60’ Mono-Broadleaf wireless facility will not impact any solar blockage from the home that currently has solar installed on their roof (Array #1). In addi� on, should any of the homes decide to install solar on their roofs, the annual solar access that these future solar panels would access is predicted at or above 97%.

Thank you,

Steve Proo
Planning Specialist – Land Use Development
Complete Wireless Consul� ng

Shade Repo - 3111 Benton St, Santa Clara, CA 95051, USA Customer
—
Address
Benton St, Santa Clara, CA
, USA
Coordinates
.,
-.
Organization
Honeydew Energy
Advisors
Date
//
Annual irradiance
0 kWH/m2/year
350
700
1,050
1,400
1,750
2,100
2,450+
Summary
Page of
° ° % % %
° ° % % %
° ° % % %
° ° % % %
° ° % % %
° ° % % %
° ° % % %
° ° % % %
— — — — .% .%








Weighted average by panel count:

Panel count Azimuth Pitch Annual TOF Annual solar access Annual TSRFArray ID Shade Repo - 3111 Benton St, Santa Clara, CA 95051, USA Customer
—
Address
Benton St, Santa Clara, CA
, USA
Coordinates
.,
-.
Organization
Honeydew Energy
Advisors
Date
//
Monthly solar access % across arrays
Page of








Array ID Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Arrays by address
3188 Humbolt Ave, Santa Clara, CA 95051
• Array ID 1
3190 Humbolt Ave, Santa Clara, CA 95051
• Array ID 2
3208 Humbolt Ave, Santa Clara, CA 95051
• Array ID 3, 4, 5
3218 Humbolt Ave, Santa Clara, CA 95051
• Array ID 6, 7
3232 Humbolt Ave, Santa Clara, CA 95051
• Array ID 8
Shade Repo - 3111 Benton St, Santa Clara, CA 95051, USA Customer
—
Address
Benton St, Santa Clara, CA
, USA
Coordinates
.,
-.
Organization
Honeydew Energy
Advisors
Date
//
Zoomed out satellite view 3D model
3D model with LIDAR overlay
Page of

Shade Repo - 3111 Benton St, Santa Clara, CA 95051, USA Customer
—
Address
Benton St, Santa Clara, CA
, USA
Coordinates
.,
-.
Organization
Honeydew Energy
Advisors
Date
//
Street view with corresponding 3D model
Page of
© Jan Matusiewicz
Report a problem

Resolution/3111 Benton Street PLN23-00148 Page 1 of 4
Rev: 7/27/2023
RESOLUTION NO. _____

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA

OVERRULING THE APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE APPROVAL

OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A NEW UNMANNED

AT&T TELECOMMUNICATION FACILITY WITH INSTALLATION
OF THREE 42’ -6” - TALL MONOPOLES AT 3111 BENTON

STREET, SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA

PLN23-00148 (Conditional Use Permit)
WHEREAS, on March 23, 2023, Complete Wireless Consulting, (“Applicant”) submitted an application for a Conditional Use Permit for new unmanned AT&T telecommunication facility with the installation of a 60-foot-tall monotree at 3111 Benton Street (“Project Site”); WHEREAS, the proposal was subsequently revised to a telecommunication facility which would include three 42’-6” monopoles and the use of a 366-square foot lease area, enclosed by a wooden fence, for equipment inclusive of a battery cabinet (the “Proposal”); WHEREAS, on January 15, 2025, the Planning Commission approved Conditional Use Permit PLN23-00148 to allow for a new unmanned AT&T telecommunication facility with the installation of three 42’-6” tall monopoles at 3111 Benton Street, subject Conditions of Approval; WHEREAS, pursuant to SCCC Section 18.114.040.B.3, the Planning Commission’s decision is appealable to the Council in compliance with SCCC Chapter 18.144; WHEREAS, on January 18, 2025, Vignesh Vivekraja filed a timely appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval of Conditional Use Permit PLN23-00148 to the City Council; WHEREAS, at the time the application was deemed complete, the Project Site was zoned B – Public – Quasi Public under the “Classic Code,” and per Section 18.020.070.A of the Updated Zoning Code, because the application was complete prior to the effective date of the Updated Zoning Code, the application is subject to the development standards of the Classic Code; WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), Public Resources Code § 21000 et seq., requires a public agency to evaluate the environmental impacts of a proposed project; WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) the Proposal is

Resolution/3111 Benton Street PLN23-00148 Page 2 of 4
Rev: 7/27/2023
categorically exempt from formal environmental review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303(d) (New Construction of Utility Extensions).

WHEREAS, the Conditional Use Permit process enables a municipality to exercise control over the extent of certain uses, which, although desirable in limited numbers and specific locations, could have a detrimental effect on the community in specific instances; WHEREAS, pursuant to Santa Clara City Code (SCCC) Section 18.252.040 (g), in the former B – Public, Quasi-Public, and Public Park or Recreation Zoning Districts of the Classic Code, a Conditional Use Permit approval is required for uses not specifically provided for which in the opinion of the Planning Commission would appropriately be placed in the B zoning district; WHEREAS, pursuant to SCCC Chapter 18.114, the review authority may approve or conditionally approve a Conditional Use Permit only after first making specific findings related to the effect of the project on health, safety, peace, comfort, and general welfare, based upon substantial evidence in the record;
WHEREAS, on February 13, 2025, a notice of public hearing on this item was mailed to property owners within 500 feet of the project site and to all residences at the nearby “Pomeroy Green” residential development;
WHEREAS, pursuant to SCCC Section 18.146.020, on February 20, 2025, notices of the public hearing of February 25, 2025 were posted at City Hall, the Central Park Library, the Mission Branch Library, the Northside Branch Library, and on the City’s website; and WHEREAS, on February 25, 2025, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing, at which time all interested persons were given an opportunity to present evidence and give testimony, both in support of and in opposition to the appeal of the Conditional Use Permit.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA AS FOLLOWS:

1. That the City Council hereby overrules the appeal of Vignesh Vivekraja related to the Planning Commission’s approval of Conditional Use Permit (CUP) PLN23-00148 on January 15, 2025;

Resolution/3111 Benton Street PLN23-00148 Page 3 of 4
Rev: 7/27/2023

2. That pursuant to SCCC Section 18.114.050, the City Council determines that the following findings exist to support the approval and justify denial of this appeal:

A. The Proposal is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan, in that the General Plan does not specify any additional rules and regulations for wireless communication facilities and that the subject address is not located in a focus area or specific plan area.

B. The Proposal is allowed within the subject zone and complies with all other applicable provisions of this Zoning Code and the City Code, in that wireless communication facilities at the proposed height are allowed with a conditional use permit approval and the proposed project meets all other applicable codes.

C. The design, location, size, and operating characteristics of the Proposal are compatible with the allowed uses in the vicinity; in that the monopoles will be disguised as light poles within a parking lot, there is an existing cell site located on the roof of the church on the same site, and the operation of the monopoles is not anticipated to produce any additional trips, noise, vibrations, or harmful side effects to the parcel or surrounding parcels.

D. Operation of the use at the location proposed would not be detrimental to the harmonious and orderly growth of the City, or endanger, jeopardize, or otherwise constitute a hazard to the public convenience, health, interest, safety, or general welfare; in that the Proposal is designed such that it does not adversely impact the surrounding areas, it will increase wireless coverage for residents in the area, meet the interests of local residents and customers from the greater region.

E. The subject site is:

1. Physically suitable in terms of design, location, operating characteristics, shape, size, topography, and the provision of public and emergency vehicle (e.g., fire and medical) access and public services and utilities; in that the site meets

Resolution/3111 Benton Street PLN23-00148 Page 4 of 4
Rev: 7/27/2023
the City Code for minimum lot size, has adequate parking, and the Proposal will resemble conventional light poles in the existing parking lot away from the normal operations of the church use on-site.

2. Served by highways and streets adequate in width and improvement to carry the type and quantity of traffic the proposed use would likely generate, in that the Proposal would not generate any additional trips to the subject parcel.

3. That the City Council hereby upholds the approval of Conditional Use Permit PLN23- 00148 for new unmanned AT&T telecommunication facility with the installation of three 42’-6” tall monopoles at 3111 Benton Street, subject to the Conditions of Approval, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.

4. Effective date. This resolution shall become effective immediately.

I HEREBY CERTIFY THE FOREGOING TO BE A TRUE COPY OF A RESOLUTION PASSED

AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA, AT A REGULAR MEETING THEREOF HELD ON THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:

AYES: COUNCILORS:

NOES: COUNCILORS:

ABSENT: COUNCILORS:

ABSTAINED: COUNCILORS:

ATTEST: ______________________________

NORA PIMENTEL, MMC

ASSISTANT CITY CLERK

CITY OF SANTA CLARA

Attachments incorporated by reference:

1. Development Plans

2. Conditions of Approval

S:\Attorney\RESOLUTIONS\Form Resolution-City.dc

Conditions of Approval for Conditional Use Permit
PLN23-00148 / 3111 Benton Street

Conditional Use Permit for a New Unmanned AT&T Telecommunication Facility with the Installation of Three 42’-6” Tall Monopoles.

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

GENERAL
G1. Permit Expiration. This Permit shall automatically be revoked and terminated if not used within two years of original grant or within the period of any authorized extension thereof.

The date of granting this Permit is the date this Permit is approved by the Decision-making body and the appeal period has been exhausted. The expiration date is December 4, 2026.

G2. Conformance with Plans. Prior to the commencement of the use, the use of the site shall conform to the approved plans on file with the Community Development Department, Planning Division. No change to the plans will be made without prior review by the Planning Division, and written approval by the Director of Community Development or designee. Each change shall be identified and justified in writing.

G3. Conditions on Plans. All conditions of approval for this Permit shall be reprinted and included within the first three sheets of the building permit plan sets submitted for review and approval. A t all times these conditions of approval shall be on all grading and construction plans kept on the project site.

G4. Necessary Relocation of Public Facility. If relocation of an existing public facility becomes necessary due to a conflict with the developer's new improvements, then the cost of said relocation shall be borne by the developer.

G5. Indemnify and Hold Harmless. The owner or designee agrees to defend and indemnify and hold City, its officers, agents, employees, officials and representatives free and harmless from and against any and all claims, losses, damages, attorney’s fees, injuries, costs, and liabilities from any suit for damages or for equitable or injunctive relief which is filed by a third party against the City by reason of its approval of own er or designee’s project.

G6. Code Compliance. The construction permit application drawings submitted to the Santa Clara Building Division shall include an overall California Building Code analysis; proposed use and occupancy of all spaces (CBC Ch. 3), all building heights and areas (CBC Ch. 5), all proposed types of construction (CBC Ch. 6), all proposed fire and smoke protection features, including all types of all fire rated penetrations proposed (CBC Ch. 7), all proposed interior finishes fire resistance (CBC Ch. 8), all fire protection systems proposed (CBC Ch. 9), and all means of egress proposed (CBC Ch. 10). Noncombustable exterior wall, floor, and roof finishes are strongly encouraged. a. During construction retaining a single company to install all fire r elated penetrations is highly recommended.
b. The grade level lobbies shall be minimum 1-hour rated all sides and above. c. All stair shafts shall be minimum 1-hour rated.
d. All elevator shafts shall be minimum 1-hour rated.
e. All trash chute shafts shall be minimum 1-hour rated. f. Recommendation: provide minimum two trash chutes; one for recyclables, one for trash, each trash chute to be routed down to a grade level trash collection room. g. Any trash rooms shall be minimum 1-hour rated all sides and above.

G7. Building Code s as Amended. See Title 15 of the Santa Clara City Code for any amendments to the California Building Codes.

G8. Reach Codes. This project is subject to the provisions of the City of Santa Clara 2022 Reach Code, effective January 2022. See Ordinance No. 2034 and/or Title 15 of the Santa Clara City Code.
a. Chapter 15.36 – Energy Code for “all electric” provisions for new construction. b. Chapter 15 .38 – Green Building Code for additional Electric Vehicle Charging requirements for new construction.

G9. Comply with all applicable codes, regulations, ordinances and resolutions.

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT – PLANNING DIVISION

DESIGN / PERFORMANCE– PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT ISSUANCE P1. Construction Management Plan. The owner or designee shall submit a construction management plan addressing impacts to the public during construction activities including:
showing work hours, noticing of affected businesses, construction signage, noise control, storm water pollution prevention, job trailer location, contractor parking, parking enforcement, truck hauling routes, staging, concrete pours, crane lifts, scaffolding, materials storage, pedestrian safety, and traffic control. The plan shall be submitted to the Director of Community Development or designee for approval prior to issuance of demolition and building permits.

P2. Tree Replacement (on-site). Trees permitted by the City for removal shall be replaced on-site at a ratio of 1: 2 24 -inch box trees or 1:1 36 -inch box tree. Applicant to provide landscaping plan and to identify if any existing trees are to be removed. Tree removal is subject to Planning fees.

P3. Antenna/Cell Site Installation. Applicant to fill out and sign conditions of approval form related to antenna and cell site installations.

P4. Equipment. A new battery cabinet will be installed in place for when electricity is disrupted.

P5. Construction Management Plan. The owner or designee shall submit a construction management plan addressing impacts to the public during construction activities including:
showing work hours, noticing of affected businesses, construction signage, noise control, storm water pollution prevention, job trailer location, contractor parking, parking enforcement, truck hauling routes, staging, concrete pours, crane lifts, scaffold ing, materials storage, pedestrian safety, and traffic control. The plan shall be submitted to the Director of Community Development or designee for approval prior to issuance of demolition and building permits.

P6. Comprehensive Structural Study. The owner or designee shall submit a comprehensive structural study to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director prior to issuance of a building permit or designee that analyzes the structural members, connections, anchorages and foundations, ensuring str uctural integrity to withstand events such as seismic and wind calamities.

P7. All City Code requirements be met including:
a. An acceptable type of financial security (i.e., a letter of credit), to ensure that the approved facility is properly maintained and to guarantee that the facility is dismantled and removed if non -operative or abandoned for a minimum 30 -day period or upon expiration of the permit from the City, whichever first occurs; b. A proposed wireless telecommunication tower lighting plan