Agenda packet — City Council and Authorities Concurrent, February 25, 2025 (part 6 of 7)

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 would eliminate or substantially reduce the gap in coverage
e. Co-Location. All new towers shall allow for co -location of public safety trans mission equipment when deemed feasible by the Director.

DURING CONSTRUCTION -- PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY
P8. 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.

P9. 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.

P10. Construction Parking. Off street parking is required to be available from the time of 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)
P11. Landscape Water Conservation. The owner or designee shall ensure that landscaping installation meets City water conservation criteria in a manner acceptable to the Director of Community Development.

OPERATIONAL CONDITIONS
P12. 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.

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; Str eet 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.

Page 4 ends

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 complies with the Santa Clara Flood Damage Prevention Code.
a. FEMA Flood Zone map designations and requirements a re 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 Prog ram 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 distur bs more than one acre, shall comply with the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention 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, mec hanical, 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

Page 5 ends

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 Sa nta 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 required 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

Page 6 ends

F7. Fire Department Access. Prior to Building Permit Issuance, a five -foot all -weather perimeter pathway around the entire perimeter of the buildings to facil itate 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 sides is project - specific and depends on the building configuration, building design, occupancy, and construction type, etc. As part of Building Permit Issuance, an alternat ive 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” unobstructed vertical clearance shall not be less than 13 feet 6 inches.

 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 fe et 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

Page 7 ends

buildings to avoid the possibility of injury and equipment damage from electrical hazards.

 Fire apparatus a ccess 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. Oth er 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 any 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 R ight- 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 San ta 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 with 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 Bu ilding 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.

Page 8 ends

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 & De molition 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 Per mit 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 saf ety 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, and 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 Registered Civil Engineer and approved by the City Engineer prior to approval and recordation of final map and/or issuance of building permits.

Page 9 ends

E4. Encroachment Pe rmit. 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 revie w 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 required 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 Arb orist specifications and with direct supervision of a certified arborist (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 projects 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 pro ject 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 project 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 t he Construction & 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 hir ed 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.

Page 10 ends

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 m aterials generated 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 S ource control measures with designations from C.3 stormwater handbook, Appendix H.

ST5. C.3 Treatment Facilities Construction Notes. Include the C.3 Treatment 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 p rojects 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, side walk, 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.

Page 11 ends

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 app roved plans. All new pervious concrete and porous asphalt pavements should have a minimum surface infiltration rate of 100 in./hr. as described in the SCVURPPP C.3 Handbook. A map displaying the number, location and details of full trash capture devices sh all be prepared as an attachment to the Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Agreement with the City.

ST14. Stormwater Treatment Facilities. Stormwater treatment facilities must be designed, installed, and maintained to achieve the site design measures throughout th eir 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 appropria te 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 t o 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 th e 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 final 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 should 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.

Page 12 ends

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 connection 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.

VICINITY MAPCODE COMPLIANCE PROJECT DESCRIPTION
T-1.1

TITLE SHEET

PREPARED FOR

REVDESCRIPTION DATE
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
11/15/24ZD 95%
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

J. GRAY
-
3111 BENTON STREET
SANTA CLARA, CA 95051
T.T.

CAD
3843 Taylor Road, Suite A, Loomis, CA 95650
Contact: Kevin Sorensen Phone: 916-660-1930
E-Mail: [email protected] Fax: 916-660-1941

DRIVING DIRECTIONS

PROJECT INFORMATION

SHEET INDEX

SHEETDESCRIPTIONREVSHEETDESCRIPTIONREV
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 / LIGHT POLE
·
·
SCALE: N/A
TN

SITE LOCATION
INITIATIVE / PROJECT: NSB
USID: 298767
FA CODE: 15376635
RFDS ID: RFDS-89437
RFDS DATE: 11/08/2024
JOB ID: WSSFR0016626
PTN: 3701A0WFDV

MOBILITY

MOBILITY
A-1.1

OVERALL

SITE PLAN

PREPARED FOR

REVDESCRIPTION DATE
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
11/15/24ZD 90%
5001 Executive Parkway
San Ramon, California 94583
Issued For:

CCL06126
CCL06126
0 APPROVED BY:

ISSUE STATUS

J. GRAY
-
3111 BENTON STREET
SANTA CLARA, CA 95051
T.T.

CAD
3843 Taylor Road, Suite A, Loomis, CA 95650
Contact: Kevin Sorensen Phone: 916-660-1930
E-Mail: [email protected] Fax: 916-660-1941
TN

PREPARED FOR

REVDESCRIPTION DATE
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
11/15/24ZD 90%
5001 Executive Parkway
San Ramon, California 94583
Issued For:

CCL06126
CCL06126
0 APPROVED BY:

ISSUE STATUS

J. GRAY
-
3111 BENTON STREET
SANTA CLARA, CA 95051
T.T.

CAD
3843 Taylor Road, Suite A, Loomis, CA 95650
Contact: Kevin Sorensen Phone: 916-660-1930
E-Mail: [email protected] Fax: 916-660-1941
A-1.2

ENLARGED SITE
PLAN
TN

PREPARED FOR

REVDESCRIPTION DATE
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
11/15/24ZD 90%
5001 Executive Parkway
San Ramon, California 94583
Issued For:

CCL06126
CCL06126
0 APPROVED BY:

ISSUE STATUS

J. GRAY
-
3111 BENTON STREET
SANTA CLARA, CA 95051
T.T.

CAD
3843 Taylor Road, Suite A, Loomis, CA 95650
Contact: Kevin Sorensen Phone: 916-660-1930
E-Mail: [email protected] Fax: 916-660-1941
A-1.3

ENLARGED SITE
PLAN
TN

PREPARED FOR

REVDESCRIPTION DATE
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
11/15/24ZD 90%
5001 Executive Parkway
San Ramon, California 94583
Issued For:

CCL06126
CCL06126
0 APPROVED BY:

ISSUE STATUS

J. GRAY
-
3111 BENTON STREET
SANTA CLARA, CA 95051
T.T.

CAD
3843 Taylor Road, Suite A, Loomis, CA 95650
Contact: Kevin Sorensen Phone: 916-660-1930
E-Mail: [email protected] Fax: 916-660-1941
A-1.4

EQUIPMENT
PLAN
TN

PREPARED FOR

REVDESCRIPTION DATE
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
11/15/24ZD 90%
5001 Executive Parkway
San Ramon, California 94583
Issued For:

CCL06126
CCL06126
0 APPROVED BY:

ISSUE STATUS

J. GRAY
-
3111 BENTON STREET
SANTA CLARA, CA 95051
T.T.

CAD
3843 Taylor Road, Suite A, Loomis, CA 95650
Contact: Kevin Sorensen Phone: 916-660-1930
E-Mail: [email protected] Fax: 916-660-1941
A-2.1

ANTENNA PLANS

TN TN TN

PREPARED FOR

REVDESCRIPTION DATE
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
11/15/24ZD 90%
5001 Executive Parkway
San Ramon, California 94583
Issued For:

CCL06126
CCL06126
0 APPROVED BY:

ISSUE STATUS

J. GRAY
-
3111 BENTON STREET
SANTA CLARA, CA 95051
T.T.

CAD
3843 Taylor Road, Suite A, Loomis, CA 95650
Contact: Kevin Sorensen Phone: 916-660-1930
E-Mail: [email protected] Fax: 916-660-1941
A-2.2

ANTENNA

SCHEDULE
(N) RF SCHEDULE (PRELIMINARY & SUBJECT TO CHANGE)

PREPARED FOR

REVDESCRIPTION DATE
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
11/15/24ZD 90%
5001 Executive Parkway
San Ramon, California 94583
Issued For:

CCL06126
CCL06126
0 APPROVED BY:

ISSUE STATUS

J. GRAY
-
3111 BENTON STREET
SANTA CLARA, CA 95051
T.T.

CAD
3843 Taylor Road, Suite A, Loomis, CA 95650
Contact: Kevin Sorensen Phone: 916-660-1930
E-Mail: [email protected] Fax: 916-660-1941
A-3.1

ELEVATIONS

PREPARED FOR

REVDESCRIPTION DATE
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
11/15/24ZD 90%
5001 Executive Parkway
San Ramon, California 94583
Issued For:

CCL06126
CCL06126
0 APPROVED BY:

ISSUE STATUS

J. GRAY
-
3111 BENTON STREET
SANTA CLARA, CA 95051
T.T.

CAD
3843 Taylor Road, Suite A, Loomis, CA 95650
Contact: Kevin Sorensen Phone: 916-660-1930
E-Mail: [email protected] Fax: 916-660-1941
A-3.2

ELEVATIONS

PREPARED FOR

REVDESCRIPTION DATE
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
11/15/24ZD 90%
5001 Executive Parkway
San Ramon, California 94583
Issued For:

CCL06126
CCL06126
0 APPROVED BY:

ISSUE STATUS

J. GRAY
-
3111 BENTON STREET
SANTA CLARA, CA 95051
T.T.

CAD
3843 Taylor Road, Suite A, Loomis, CA 95650
Contact: Kevin Sorensen Phone: 916-660-1930
E-Mail: [email protected] Fax: 916-660-1941
A-4.1

ANTENNA

DETAILS

PREPARED FOR

REVDESCRIPTION DATE
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
11/15/24ZD 90%
5001 Executive Parkway
San Ramon, California 94583
Issued For:

CCL06126
CCL06126
0 APPROVED BY:

ISSUE STATUS

J. GRAY
-
3111 BENTON STREET
SANTA CLARA, CA 95051
T.T.

CAD
3843 Taylor Road, Suite A, Loomis, CA 95650
Contact: Kevin Sorensen Phone: 916-660-1930
E-Mail: [email protected] Fax: 916-660-1941
A-4.2

EQUIPMENT

DETAILS

PREPARED FOR

REVDESCRIPTION DATE
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
11/15/24ZD 90%
5001 Executive Parkway
San Ramon, California 94583
Issued For:

CCL06126
CCL06126
0 APPROVED BY:

ISSUE STATUS

J. GRAY
-
3111 BENTON STREET
SANTA CLARA, CA 95051
T.T.

CAD
3843 Taylor Road, Suite A, Loomis, CA 95650
Contact: Kevin Sorensen Phone: 916-660-1930
E-Mail: [email protected] Fax: 916-660-1941
E-1.1

ELECTRICAL PLAN
CCL06126
3111 Benton Street, Santa Clara, CA
Photosims Produced on 4-13-2023
CCL06126
3111 Benton Street, Santa Clara, CA
Photosims Produced on 4-13-2023
Contact ( 925 ) 202-8507
Shot Point Map
Project Location
12 3
4 ExistingExisting
Proposed
Contact ( 925 ) 202-8507
Existing AT&T
Installation
CCL06126
3111 Benton Street, Santa Clara, CA
Photosims Produced on 4-13-2023
CCL06126
3111 Benton Street, Santa Clara, CA
Photosims Produced on 4-13-2023
view from Benton Street looking northwest at site
Proposed AT&T
Installation
ExistingExisting
Proposed
Contact ( 925 ) 202-8507
CCL06126
3111 Benton Street, Santa Clara, CA
Photosims Produced on 4-13-2023
CCL06126
3111 Benton Street, Santa Clara, CA
Photosims Produced on 4-13-2023
view from Benton Street looking northeast at site
Existing AT&T
Installation
Proposed AT&T
Installation
Proposed AT&T
Installation
Proposed AT&T
Installation
ExistingExisting
Proposed
Contact ( 925 ) 202-8507
CCL06126
3111 Benton Street, Santa Clara, CA
Photosims Produced on 4-13-2023
CCL06126
3111 Benton Street, Santa Clara, CA
Photosims Produced on 4-13-2023
view from Benton Street looking northeast at site
Existing AT&T
Installation
Proposed AT&T
Installation
Proposed AT&T
Installation
Proposed AT&T
Installation
ExistingExisting
Proposed
Contact ( 925 ) 202-8507
CCL06126
3111 Benton Street, Santa Clara, CA
Photosims Produced on 4-13-2023
CCL06126
3111 Benton Street, Santa Clara, CA
Photosims Produced on 4-13-2023
view from Humbolt Avenue looking southeast at site
Existing AT&T
Installation
Proposed AT&T
Installation
Proposed AT&T
Installation

EBI Consulting  21 B Street  Burlington, MA 01803  1.800.786.2346 CCL06126

Page 1 of 18 ends

Radio Frequency – Electromagnetic Energy (RF-EME)
Compliance Report

Prepared For AT&T Mobility, LLC

Site name:

FA#:

USID:

Site ID:

EBI Project Number

Address:

CCL06126
15376635
298767
CCL06126
298767

3111 Benton Street,
Santa Clara, California

County:

Latitude:

Longitude:

Structure Type:

Ordered by:

Pace Job:

Report Writer:

Report Date:

Santa Clara

37.3469
-121.9848
Roof

Complete Wireless Inc
MRSFR073883

Rebecca Sinisgalli
19 November 2024

Statement of Compliance

AT&T Mobility Compliance Statement: Based on the information collected, AT&T Mobility will be Compliant with FCC Rules and Regulations at the nearest walking surface if recommendations in the Compliance Summary are implemented.

EBI Consulting  21 B Street  Burlington, MA 01803  1.800.786.2346 CCL06126

Page 2 of 18 ends

Table of Contents

1. Executive summary ............................................................................................... 3

2. Predicted Emissions .............................................................................................. 4

3. Mitigation Recommendations ................................................................................ 5

4. Limitations ............................................................................................................. 8

5. Appendices ........................................................................................................... 9 Appendix A: Certifications ........................................................................................... 10 Appendix B: RF Exposure Policy Requirements ......................................................... 12 Appendix C: AT&T Signage and Mitigation ................................................................. 13 Appendix D: Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Requirements .................. 14 Appendix E: RF Compliance Simulation Software ....................................................... 17

EBI Consulting  21 B Street  Burlington, MA 01803  1.800.786.2346 CCL06126

Page 3 of 18 ends

1. Executive summary
Purpose of Report
EBI Consulting has been contracted by AT&T Mobility, LLC to provide a Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Energy (RF-EME) compliance analysis and report for the above listed AT&T base station facility to determine whether the facility is in compliance with federal standards and regulations regarding RF emissions. This analysis includes theoretical emissions calculations to determine RF-EME exposure levels from proposed AT&T wireless communications equipment at this site. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has developed Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE) Limits for general public exposures and occupational exposures. This report summarizes the results of RF-EME modeling in relation to relevant FCC RF-EME compliance standards for limiting human exposure to RF-EME fields.

This report contains the RF EME analysis for the site, including the following:
 Site Plan with antenna locations
 Graphical representation of recommended signage and/or barriers This document addresses the compliance of AT&T’s transmitting facilities independently and in relation to all collocated facilities at the site.

Table 1: Compliance status
Max Predictive Spatial Average MPE%
at Ground Level (General Public): 36.24%
AT&T Mobility Site Compliance:

AT&T Mobility Compliance Statement: Based on
the information collected, AT&T Mobility will be
Compliant with FCC Rules and Regulations at the
nearest walking surface if recommendations in the
Compliance Summary are implemented.

Table 2: Documents used to prepare this report
Construction
Drawings

11.6.24 - Redline -Light Pole 100% ZD_CV_RF_DM MRSFR073883 15376635 CCL06126
RFDS Snapshot-RF Modify Preliminary RFDS-1731107718689

EBI Consulting  21 B Street  Burlington, MA 01803  1.800.786.2346 CCL06126

Page 4 of 18 ends

2. Predicted Emissions

This section details predicted RF emissions levels present on any on-site applicable walking/working surfaces identified as well as applicable off-site areas, such as ground level or other points of interest, such as adjacent buildings. Results are provided as a percentage of the FCC OET 65 standard (unless otherwise specified).

EBI has conducted theoretical modeling to estimate the worst-case power density from AT&T antennas and other carrier antennas to document potential MPE levels at this location and ensure that site control measures are adequate to meet FCC requirements, as well as AT&T’s corporate RF safety policies.

The assumptions used and inputs modelled are based upon information provided by AT&T and information gathered from other sources. T-Mobile, Verizon, and Dish were observed to have antennas on the adjacent rooftop.

Information about the RF Compliance software and calculation methodology used are detailed in Appendix E: RF Compliance Simulation Software. Scale maps are included in highlighting mitigation strategies deployed or proposed to ensure EMF compliance, where applicable, as shown in Section 0: .

EBI Consulting  21 B Street  Burlington, MA 01803  1.800.786.2346 CCL06126

Page 5 of 18 ends

3. Mitigation Recommendations

To reduce the risk of exposure and/or injury, EBI recommends that access to the rooftop or areas associated with the active antenna installation be restricted and secured where possible. Signage is recommended as presented below. Posting of the signage and installation of the recommended barriers brings the site into compliance with FCC rules and regulations and AT&T’s corporate RF safety policies. Workers or members of the general public accessing areas directly in front of the other carrier antennas should contact the carrier and/or landlord to determine appropriate setbacks or measures to safely occupy those areas.

Table 5: Recommended Mitigation
Location Proposed Signage Proposed Barrier(s)
Access
 Yellow 7 by 7 inch CAUTION signs on
opposite sides of the light poles, 5 feet below
the bottom of the antennas. Signs should
denote a stay-back distance of 47 feet from
the face of the antennas.

None
Alpha
Sector  No action required. None
Beta
Sector  No action required. None
Gamma
Sector  No action required. None
Barriers should be constructed of weather-resistant plastic or wood fencing. Barriers may consist of railing, rope, chain, or weather-resistant plastic if no other types are permitted or are feasible. Painted stripes should only be used as a last resort and only in regions where there is little chance of snowfall.

If painted stripes are selected as barriers, it is recommended that the stripes and signage be illuminated.

The signage and any barriers are graphically represented in the Signage Plan presented below. It is important to note that this Signage Plan is specific for AT&T antennas only and does not address RF emissions of other carrier antennas.

All workers and individuals accessing the light poles or persons (including arborists), accessing elevated structures or trees within areas exceeding the general public MPE, must be made aware of the presence and locations of antennas and their associated fields, where applicable.

EBI Consulting  21 B Street  Burlington, MA 01803  1.800.786.2346 CCL06126

Page 6 of 18 ends

Mitigation Overview

Items to be
removed

Existing Signs

Proposed
Signs

Existing
Barriers

Proposed
Barriers

Safety
Instructions
Notice
2 Notice
2D
Caution
2 Caution
2A
Caution
2B
Caution
2C
Caution
2D
Warning
1B
Warning
2A

Yellow 7 by 7 inch CAUTION signs on
opposite sides of the light poles, 5 feet
below the bottom of the antennas.

Signs should denote a stay-back
distance of 47 feet from the face of the
antennas
Adjacent Roof = 20’
Adjacent Roof = 20’
Adjacent Roof = 20’ Adjacent Roof = 20’
Adjacent Roof = 15’
Adjacent Roof = 10’
Utility Pole = 50’ Utility Pole = 50’

EBI Consulting  21 B Street  Burlington, MA 01803  1.800.786.2346 CCL06126

Page 7 of 18 ends

Exposure Threshold - All Adjacent Rooftops

Adjacent Roof = 20’ Adjacent Roof = 20’ Adjacent Roof = 20’ Adjacent Roof = 20’ Adjacent Roof = 20’
Adjacent Roof = 10’
Adjacent Roof = 13’
Adjacent Roof = 20’
Adjacent Roof = 33’

EBI Consulting  21 B Street  Burlington, MA 01803  1.800.786.2346 CCL06126

Page 8 of 18 ends

Exposure Threshold - Ground Level

Adjacent Roof = 20’
Adjacent Roof = 20’ Adjacent Roof = 20’ Adjacent Roof = 20’ Adjacent Roof = 20’
Adjacent Roof = 15’
Adjacent Roof = 10’ Adjacent Roof = 10’

EBI Consulting  21 B Street  Burlington, MA 01803  1.800.786.2346 CCL06126

Page 9 of 18 ends

4. Limitations

This report was prepared for the use of AT&T Mobility, LLC to meet requirements outlined in AT&T’s corporate RF safety guidelines. It was performed in accordance with generally accepted practices of the trade, albeit proprietary in specific content, including other consultants undertaking similar studies at the same time and in the same locale under like circumstances. The conclusions provided by EBI and its partners are based solely on information supplied by AT&T, including modeling instructions, inputs, parameters and methods. Calculations, data, and modeling methodologies for C Band equipment Include a statistical factor reducing the power to 32% of maximum theoretical power to account for spatial distribution of users, network utilization, time division duplexing, and scheduling time. AT&T recommends the use of this factor based on a combination of guidance from its antenna system manufacturers, supporting international industry standards, industry publications, and its extensive experience. The observations in this report are valid on the date of the investigation. Any additional information that becomes available concerning the site should be provided to EBI so that our conclusions may be revised and modified, if necessary. This report has been prepared in accordance with Standard Conditions for Engagement and authorized proposal, both of which are integral parts of this report. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made.

EBI Consulting  21 B Street  Burlington, MA 01803  1.800.786.2346 CCL06126

Page 10 of 18 ends

5. Appendices

EBI Consulting  21 B Street  Burlington, MA 01803  1.800.786.2346 CCL06126

Page 11 of 18 ends

Appendix A: Certifications

Report Preparer Certification
I, Rebecca Sinisgalli, state that:
 I am an employee of EnviroBusiness Inc. (d/b/a EBI Consulting), which provides RF-EME safety and compliance services to the wireless communications industry.  I have successfully completed RF-EME safety training, and I am aware of the potential hazards from RF-EME and would be classified “occupational” under the FCC regulations.  I am fully aware of and familiar with the Rules and Regulations of both the Federal Communications Commissions (FCC) and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) with regard to Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Radiation.  I have been trained in on the procedures outlined in AT&T’s RF Exposure: Responsibilities, Procedures & Guidelines document (dated October 28, 2014) and on RF-EME modelling using IXUS™ modelling software.
 I have reviewed the data provided by the client and incorporated it into this Site Compliance Report such that the information contained in this report is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge.

EBI Consulting  21 B Street  Burlington, MA 01803  1.800.786.2346 CCL06126

Page 12 of 18 ends

Reviewed and Approved by:

Michael McGuire
Electrical Engineer
[email protected]

Note that EBI’s scope of work is limited to an evaluation of the Radio Frequency – Electromagnetic Energy (RF-EME) field generated by the antennas and broadcast equipment noted in this report. The engineering and design of the building and related structures, as well as the impact of the antennas and broadcast equipment on the structural integrity of the building, are specifically excluded from EBI’s scope of work.

sealed 19nov2024

EBI Consulting  21 B Street  Burlington, MA 01803  1.800.786.2346 CCL06126

Page 13 of 18 ends

Appendix B: RF Exposure Policy Requirements

AT&T’s RF Exposure: Responsibilities, Procedures & Guidelines document, dated May 27, 2015, requires that:

1. All sites must be analyzed for RF exposure compliance;

2. All sites must have that analysis documented; and

3. All sites must have any necessary signage and barriers installed.

EBI Consulting  21 B Street  Burlington, MA 01803  1.800.786.2346 CCL06126

Page 14 of 18 ends

Appendix C: AT&T Signage and Mitigation
SIgns are the primary means for control of access to areas where RF exposure levels may potentially exceed the MPE. As presented in the AT&T guidance document, the signs must:
 Be posted at a conspicuous point;
 Be posted at the appropriate locations;
 Be readily visible; and
 Make the reader aware of the potential risks prior to entering the affected area.

The table below presents the signs that may be used for AT&T installations.

CRAN / HETNET Small Cell Decals / Signs Alerting Signs

STONEHOUSE

NOTICE DECAL

TRILINGUAL
NOTICE NOTICE 2

STONEHOUSE

NOTICE SIGN

CAUTION 2 –

ROOFTOP

CAUTION 2A

STONEHOUSE

CAUTION
DECAL

CAUTION 2B -
TOWER

CAUTION 2C -

PARAPETS

STONEHOUSE

CAUTION SIGN

WARNING 1B

WARNING 2A

EBI Consulting  21 B Street  Burlington, MA 01803  1.800.786.2346 CCL06126

Page 15 of 18 ends

Appendix D: Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Requirements

The FCC has established Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE) limits for human exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic (RF-EME) energy fields, based on exposure limits recommended by the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) and, over a wide range of frequencies, the exposure limits developed by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. (IEEE) and adopted by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) to replace the 1982 ANSI guidelines. Limits for localized absorption are based on recommendations of both ANSI/IEEE and NCRP.

The FCC guidelines incorporate two separate tiers of exposure limits that are based upon occupational/controlled exposure limits (for workers) and general public/uncontrolled exposure limits for members of the general public.

Occupational/controlled exposure limits apply to situations in which persons are exposed as a consequence of their employment and in which those persons who are exposed have been made fully aware of the potential for exposure and can exercise control over their exposure. Occupational/ controlled exposure limits also apply where exposure is of a transient nature as a result of incidental passage through a location where exposure levels may be above general public/uncontrolled limits (see below), as long as the exposed person has been made fully aware of the potential for exposure and can exercise control over his or her exposure by leaving the area or by some other appropriate means.

General public/uncontrolled exposure limits apply to situations in which the general public may be exposed or in which persons who are exposed as a consequence of their employment may not be made fully aware of the potential for exposure or cannot exercise control over their exposure. Therefore, members of the general public would always be considered under this category when exposure is not employment-related, for example, in the case of a telecommunications tower that exposes persons in a nearby residential area.

Table 1 and Figure 1 (below), which are included within the FCC’s OET Bulletin 65, summarize the MPE limits for RF emissions. These limits are designed to provide a substantial margin of safety. They vary by frequency to take into account the different types of equipment that may be in operation at a particular facility and are “time-averaged” limits to reflect different durations resulting from controlled and uncontrolled exposures.

The FCC’s MPEs are measured in terms of power (mW) over a unit surface area (cm 2). Known as the power density, the FCC has established an occupational MPE of 5 milliwatts per square centimeter (mW/cm2) and an uncontrolled MPE of 1 mW/cm 2 for equipment operating in the 1900 MHz frequency range. For the AT&T equipment operating at 700 MHz, the FCC’s occupational MPE limit is 2.33 mW/cm2 and an uncontrolled MPE limit of 0.47 mW/cm 2. For the AT&T equipment operating at 1900 MHz, the FCC’s occupational MPE is 5.0 mW/cm2 and an uncontrolled MPE limit of 1.0 mW/cm2. These limits are considered protective of these populations.

EBI Consulting  21 B Street  Burlington, MA 01803  1.800.786.2346 CCL06126

Page 16 of 18 ends

Table 1: Limits for Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE)
(A) Limits for Occupational/Controlled Exposure
Frequency
Range (MHz)
Electric Field
Strength (E)
(V/m)
Magnetic Field
Strength (H)
(A/m)
Power Density
(S)
(mW/cm2)
Averaging Time
[E]2, [H]2, or S
(minutes)

0.3-3.0 614 1.63 (100)* 6

3.0-30 1842/f 4.89/f (900/f2)* 6
30-300 61.4 0.163 1.0 6
300-I,500 -- -- f/300 6
1,500-100,000 -- -- 5 6
(B) Limits for General Public/Uncontrolled Exposure
Frequency
Range (MHz)
Electric Field
Strength (E)
(V/m)
Magnetic Field
Strength (H)
(A/m)
Power Density
(S)
(mW/cm2)
Averaging Time
[E]2, [H]2, or S
(minutes)

0.3-1.34 614 1.63 (100)* 30

1.34-30 824/f 2.19/f (180/f2)* 30
30-300 27.5 0.073 0.2 30
300-I,500 -- -- f/1,500 30
1,500-100,000 -- -- 1.0 30
f = Frequency in (MHz)
* Plane-wave equivalent power density

Based on the above, the most restrictive thresholds for exposures of unlimited duration to RF energy for several personal wireless services are summarized below:

Power Density (mW/cm2)

EBI Consulting  21 B Street  Burlington, MA 01803  1.800.786.2346 CCL06126

Page 17 of 18 ends

Personal Wireless Service Approximate
Frequency
Occupational
MPE Public MPE
Microwave (Point-to-Point) 5,000 - 80,000
MHz 5.00 mW/cm2 1.00 mW/cm 2
Broadband Radio (BRS) 2,600 MHz 5.00 mW/cm 2 1.00 mW/cm 2 Wireless Communication (WCS) 2,300 MHz 5.00 mW/cm 2 1.00 mW/cm 2 Advanced Wireless (AWS) 2,100 MHz 5.00 mW/cm 2 1.00 mW/cm2 Personal Communication (PCS) 1,950 MHz 5.00 mW/cm 2 1.00 mW/cm 2 Cellular Telephone 870 MHz 2.90 mW/cm 2 0.58 mW/cm 2
Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR) 855 MHz 2.85 mW/cm 2 0.57 mW/cm 2 Long Term Evolution (LTE) 700 MHz 2.33 mW/cm 2 0.47 mW/cm 2 Most Restrictive Frequency
Range 30-300 MHz 1.00 mW/cm 2 0.20 mW/cm 2
MPE limits are designed to provide a substantial margin of safety. These limits apply for continuous exposures and are intended to provide a prudent margin of safety for all persons, regardless of age, gender, size, or health.

Personal Communication (PCS) facilities used by AT&T in this area operate within a frequency range of 700-1900 MHz. Facilities typically consist of: 1) electronic transceivers (the radios or cabinets) connected to wired telephone lines; and 2) antennas that send the wireless signals created by the transceivers to be received by individual subscriber units (PCS telephones). Transceivers are typically connected to antennas by coaxial cables.

Because of the short wavelength of PCS services, the antennas require line-of-site paths for good propagation, and are typically installed above ground level. Antennas are constructed to concentrate energy towards the horizon, with as little energy as possible scattered towards the ground or the sky.

This design, combined with the low power of PCS facilities, generally results in no possibility for exposure to approach Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE) levels, with the exception of areas directly in front of the antennas.

FCC Compliance Requirement
A site is considered out of compliance with FCC regulations if there are areas that exceed the FCC exposure limits and there are no RF hazard mitigation measures in place. Any carrier which has an installation that contributes more than 5% of the applicable MPE must participate in mitigating these RF hazards.

EBI Consulting  21 B Street  Burlington, MA 01803  1.800.786.2346 CCL06126

Page 18 of 18 ends

Appendix E: RF Compliance Simulation Software

The IXUS electromagnetic field (EMF) calculation software was used to assess all the RF field levels presented in this study. IXUS (https://ixusapp.com/) is a software product of Alphawave Mobile Network Products (Pty) Ltd, who specialize in electromagnetic software and systems. The IXUS software uses a fast and accurate EMF calculation tool that allows for the determination of RF field strength in the vicinity of radio communication base stations and transmitters. At its core, the IXUS EMF calculation module implements field evaluation techniques detailed in the ITU-T K.61, CENELEC 50383, and IEC62232 specifications. The calculation of EMF results at any point in 3-D space is achieved by either a synthetic ray tracing technique, a conservative cylindrical envelope method, or through full-wave EM simulation results obtained from a computational electromagnetic software tool.

The selection of the solution method is determined by the specific antenna being considered. In addition, a conservative and verified modelling technique for 5G beamforming antennas in IXUS is used. The simulation accuracy of the IXUS calculation module has been verified extensively with full-wave EM simulations.

IXUS Version Number: 4.12 (0)2024.2.0 (Calculator: 2024.2).

Compliance Exposure Standard: FCC OET 65.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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
±310' (I) DC9

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

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

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

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

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

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
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 1Nei,ghborhood Residents: (Poineroy Gr,een, Hu.mbolt, Benton Mora .ga, Orthello~ Sa:nta Clara)
AT&T Tower ReJocat,on Group ,
Feb 13th 2025
To: The Honorable Members of the Santa C ara City Council Subject :.Signed Petitions Op,posi:ng the AT&T CeH Tower Proposal a,t 3111 Benton Street {PLN23..()0148) and Sup;portfng the Appea l ~PLN25-00029), Dear Honorable C,ouncH Members and Mayor.

We hereby submit s'gned petitions from neighborhood residents wlth1n a 1,000-foot radius of the proposed AT&T tower, expressing their support for re:jecting this proposal and ref,ocating the tower ·elsewher,e. T he submission includes the following:
• Tota,, residents who signed physi,c.al petitions~ 58
• Number of pages subm itted · 32
• Unique horn addresses: 34
Ple.ase include these 32 signed petitions for rev,iew in the Feb 25th council meeting. We are working on a parall,el ,change.erg onliine petition ; we wiU submi t this next week .

Sincerely,
AT&T Tower Relocatio n Group
58, Residents-Signed Letters Attached
Neighborhood Reside.nts (AT&T Tower Relocation G,mup)
F,eb 20.25
To: The Honorable Members of the Santa Clara City Council Subject: City Council Appeal : Reject AT&T Cell Tower Proposal at 3111 Benton Street (,PL!N23·00148) and Suppo 1rt Addendum to Appeal (PLN25-D0029} Honorabie City Coum:;:H Membersj
We, the undersigned Santa Clara residents, urge you to reject the proposed AT&T eel tower at 3111 8 enton Street , and direct AT&T to explore more ap propr.i.ate locati,ons. We are deeply concerned about the negative impacts and ask you to review the addendum to appeal (PlN25-00029) for ful\ detai\s. Key Reasons for requesting re}ection and reiocation of towers :

1.. Pr,o,ximity & Code Violat1o.n: The proposed cell tower violates the spirit of the olty's new 30O-foot setback rule and is an irresponsibt'e placement by common sense 1nMrpretalion. Many cities, like :Los Altos , Fremont, and Beverly Hills, require 500-1000 feet from homes,

2. Aesthetic Concerns : The towers will be an eyesore, detracting fmm the ne~ghborhood. The Historic Porn eroy Graen a~ mighty need addiition~d review from authorities _

3. P'roperty Value Loss~ Cell towers lower values. Our addendum estimates multi~miBion dollar losses ($SM i,n one scenario) for 1home:owners, impacting city tax revenues. This comes at exp,ense of benefits to AT&T/church.

4. Health Concerns~ We're concerned about h.ealth risks , especiaHy for children, from radio frequency radition. Hipon schools decommissioned towers due to cancer dusters . Santa Clara 'High is within 300ft this location would arso have 8+ base st:aUon s i nci ud ing Ve rizo:n towers .

5. Risk of Fire : Cell towers can catch fire and spread raptdly .

6. !Inadequate Alternatives: AT&T has over!ooked viable a tematrve !ocanons proposed by residents, seemingly choosing the church site for convenience at expense of residents .

Alternative Locations:We urge you to direct AT&T to-fully exp,ore : City· public right~of-way, Central Park, Saratoga Creek right-of-way, Ear1 Carmichael Park , and a commercial property .

These are in our addendum .

This project burdens our comm un i,ty. Prioritize resident well being over financial gains for AT&Tlchmch. We urge rejection ofthe 3i11 Benton St cell towe:r and relocate ,it elsewhere more compatible . Se,e addendum fu,r fuH details.

Sincerely .,
V · v.,.,·~{\ e.1,1..,.
c v I CAf\JGSt' 'th Vet< C<J1 J" -A J
/VV'-~
(A M rvt"'h ~ D\A OJAo. ~ ~( )
1' .(Signature)l(Name) 2.(Signature)/ (Name) 3.(Signature)/(Name) 4.(Signature)/(Name) Address:

S, 0 t:6
> ~ (\J\ fa\ c_ l.'f\6\i\
H u M w (,_! f\ ',J ~
C Ii- 7 Jb~ \
Ne•ig,hborhood Residents (AT&T Tower Retocatiion Group) Feb 2025
To: The Honorable Members of the Santa Clara City CouncH Subject Cit:y Council Appeal i : Reject AT&T CeH Tower Proposal at 3,111 Benton Sbeet (PLN23-00148) and Suppo.rt Addendum to Ap,pea• (PLN125..00029) Honorable City CouncH Members1
We, the undersigned Santa Clara residents ; urge you to reject the proposed AT&T cel,I tower at 3111 Benton Street , and direct AT&T t-o exp lore more .appropriate locatfons. We are deeply concemed about tha negative impacts and ask you to review the addendum to .appeal (PlN26-0(l029} for ful\ detaUs. Key Reasons for requesting rejection and rn\ocaliion of towers:

1. Proximity & Code Violation : The proposed cell tower violates the spirit of the city's new 300~foot setback rul,e and is an irr-espons.ibie placement by common sense interpretat ion. Many cities, like Los Altos, Fremont , and Beverly HiUs, require 500~1000 feet from homes, 2 Aesthetic Concerns= The towers wW be an eyesore , detracfin,g from the n.elghborhood. The Historic Pomeroy Green area mig·htJ need additional review fmm au orities .

3. Property Value Loss : Gen towers lower v.alues. Our addendum estimates multi-million dollar l'osses ($8M in one soenario) for homeowners, impacting city tax revenues. This comes at expense of benefits to AT&T/church.

4. Health Concems~ We're concerned about heaUh risks, especiaUy for cht!dven, from rad;o frequency radition. Ripon schools decommissioned towers due to cancer clusters. Saflta Clara High fs wfthin 300ft; thfs [ocation would also have 8+ base stations including Verizon towers .

5. Risk of Fire: Gell towers can catch fire and spread rapidly.

6. rnadequate A1:1ematives : AT&T has overlooked viable alternative location s proposed by residents, , seemingly choosing the churcll site for convenience at expense of residents.

Alternative Loc.ations :We urge you to direct AT&T to fully explore: Gtty public right-of-way, Central Park, Saratoga Creek right-of-way, Ea,r1 Carmichael Park, and a commercial property.

These are ,fn our adde;ndum.

This project burdens our community. Pr•iolitize resident well being over financial gains for AT&T/church. We urge rejection of the 3111 Benton St cell tower and relocate it elsewnere more compatible. See addendum for full details.

Sincerety

1.(Signaiture)l(Name) 2 (Signature)./ (Name) , 3.(Si,gnatur •e)/(Name) 4.(S~gnature)l(Name) Addre ,ss :. 2._ Co\ . \
~~ ..____.,._......, <;3$0 \
Neighborhood Residents (AT&T Tower Relocation Group)
Feb 2025
To: The Honor able Members of the Santa Clara City Council Subject: City Council Appeal : Reject AT&T Cell Tower Prop osal at 3111 Benton Street (PLN23-00148) and Support Add endum to Appeal (PLN25-0002 9) Honorable City Council Members,
We, the undersigned Santa Clara residents, urge you to reject the proposed AT&T cell tower at 3111 Benton Street, and direct AT&T to explore more appropriate locations. We are deeply concerned about the negative impacts and ask you to review the addendum to appeal (PLN25-00029) for full details. Key Reasons for requesting rejection and relocation of towers:

2. Aesthetic Concerns: The towers will be an eyesore, detracting from the neighborhood. The Historic Pomeroy Green area mighty need additional review from authorities.

3. Property Value Loss: Cell towers lower values. Our addendum estimates multi-million dollar losses ($BM in one scenario) for homeowners, impacting city tax revenues. This comes at expense of benefits to AT&T/church .

4. Health Concerns: We're concerned about health risks, especially for children, from radio frequency radition. Ripon schools decommissioned towers due to cancer clusters. Santa Clara High is within 300ft; this location would also have 8+ base stations including Verizon towers.

5. Risk of Fire: Cell towers can catch fire and spread rapidly.

6. Inadequate Alternatives: AT&T has overlooked viable alternative locations proposed by residents, seemingly choosing the church site for convenience at expense of residents.

Alternative Locations:We urge you to direct A7i&T to fully explore: City public right-of-way, Central Park, Saratoga Creek right-of-way, Earl Carmic hael Park, and a commercial property.

These are in our addendum.

Sincerely,
\
~ '---:~ ~ ~\~"p, \--'10(\\('/\Q.._

1.(Signature)/(Name) 2.(Signature)/ (Name)
Address:
<);, ,-, ("' - .,; ',\ ""
-~ ., ~..) 0',. '"<i. \l-o \N-l.JJI __,

3.(Signature)/(Name) 4.(Signature)/(Name)
Neighborhood Residents (AT&T Tower Relocation Group)
Feb 2025
To: The Honorable Members of the Santa Clara City Council Subject: City Council Appeal : Reject AT&T Cell Tower Proposal at 3111 Benton Street (PLN23-00148) and Support Addendum to Appeal (PLN25-00029) Honorable City Council Members,
We, the undersigned Santa Clara residents, urge you to reject the proposed AT&T cell tower at 3111 Benton Street, and direct AT&T to explore more appropriate locations. We are deeply concerned about the negative impacts and ask you to review the addendum to appeal (PLN25 -00029) for full details. Key Reasons for requesting rejection and relocation of towers:

2. Aesthetic Concerns: The towers will be an eyesore , detracting from the neighborhood. The Historic Pomeroy Green area mightJ need additional review from authorities .

3. Property Value Loss: Cell towers lower values. Our addendum estimates multi-million dollar losses ($8M in one scenario) for homeowners, impacting city tax revenues. This comes at expense of benefits to AT&T/church.

4. Health Concerns: We're concerned about health risks, especially for children, from radio frequency radition . Ripon schools decommissioned towers due to cancer clusters . Santa Clara High is within 300ft; this location would also have 8+ base stations including Verizon towers .

5. Risk of Fire: Cell towers can catch fire and spread rapidly.

6. Inadequate Alternatives: AT&T has overlooked viable alternative locations proposed by residents, seemingly choosing the church site for convenience at expense of residents .

Alternative Locations:We urge you to direct AT&T to fully explore: City public right-of-way, Central Park, Saratoga Creek right-of-way, Earl Carmich ael Park, and a commercial property.

These are in our addendum.

1.(Signature)/(Name) 2.{Signature)/ (Name) 3.(Signature)/(Name) 4.(Signature)/(Name) Address :
\
Neighborhood Residents (AT&T Tower Relocation Group)
Feb 2025
To: The Honorable Members of the Santa Clara City Council Subject: City Council Appeal : Reject AT&T Cell Tower Proposal at 3111 Benton Street (PLN23-00148) and Support Addendum to Appeal (PLN25-00029) Honorable City Council Members,
We, the undersigned Santa Clara residents. urg:e you to reject the proposed AT&T cell tower at 3111 Benton Street, and direct AT&T to explore more appropriate locations. We are deeply concerned about the negative impacts and ask you to review the addendum to appeal (PLN25-00029} for full details. Key Reasons for requesting rejection and relocation of towers:

2. Aesthetic Concerns: The towers will be an eyesore , detracting from the neighborhood. The Historic Pomeroy Green area mightx need additional review from authorities.

3. Property Value Loss: Cell towers lower values . Our addendum estimates multi-million dollar losses ($8M in one scenario) for homeowners, impacting city tax revenues. This comes at expense of benefits to AT&T/church.

4. Health Concerns: We're concerned about health risks. especially for children, from radio frequency radition . Ripon schools decommissioned towers due to cancer clusters. Santa Clara High is within 300ft; this location would also have 8+ base stations including Verizon towers.

5. Risk of Fire: Cell towers can catch fire and spread rapidly.

6. lnad0<1uate Alternatives: AT&T has overlooked viable alternative locations proposed by residents, seemingly choosing the church site for convenience at expense of residents.

Alternative Locations:We urge you to direct AT&T to fully explore: City public right-of-way, Central Park, Saratoga Creek right-of-way, Earl Carmichael Park, and a commercial property.

These are in our addendum .

Sincerely,

1.(Signature)/(Name) 2.(Signature)/ (Name) 3.(Signature)/(Name) 4.(Signature)/(Name) Address : '3 J{f ~~(-k {hr,
~
Neighborhood Residents (AT&T Tower Relocation Group)
Feb2025
To: The Honorable Members of the Santa Cla-ra City Council Subject: City Council Appeal : Reject AT&T Cell Tower Proposal at 3111 Benton Street (PLN23-00148) and Support Addendum to Appeal (PLN25-00029) Honorable City Council Members,
We, the undersigned Santa Clara residents , urge you to reject the proposed AT&T cell tower at 3111 Benton Street, and direct AT&T to explore more appropriate locations. We are deeply concerned about the negative impacts and ask you to review the addendum to appeal (PLN25-00029) for full details. Key Reasons for requesting rejection and relocation of towers:

2. Aesthetic Concerns: The towers will be an eyesore , detracting from the neighborhood. The Historic Pomeroy Green area mighty need additional review from authorities.

3. Property Value Loss: Cell towers lower values . Our addendum estimates multi-million dollar losses ($SM in one scenario) for homeowners, impacting city tax revenues. This comes at expense of benefits to AT&T/church.

5. Risk of Fire: Cell towers can catch fire and spread rapidly.

6. Inadequate Alternatives: AT&T has overlooked viable alternative locations proposed by residents, seemingly choosing the church site for convenience at expense of residents .

Alternative Locat ions:We urge you to direct AT&T to fully explore: City public right-of-way, Central Park, Saratoga Creek right-of-way, Earl Cannichael Park, and a commercial property.

These are in our addendum.

Sincerely,
P.:,·A )7..FlK.c>.. . (;}R v,v -, 3/l·Lr\ I<~ I::iH1vn R.+Ji-)) er; Q, ~,,,, ·r--- C y Kl\~ o ~" "~ ~ \\ ~ ~)

1.(Signature)/(Name) 2.(Signature)/ (Name) 3.(Signature)/(Name) 4.(Slgnature)/(Name) Address:
~ ~ ) 1°' 0~"-~ (.l°L \ t\ \J ~
~ tr\-N' ~ C. U, 6<,.

Neighborhood Residents (AT&T Tower Relocation Group)
Feb 2025
To: The Honorable Members of the Santa Clara City Council Subject: City Council Appeal : Reject AT&T Cell Tower Proposal at 3111 Benton Street (PLN23-00148) and Support Addendum to Appeal (PLN25-00029) Honorable City Council Members,
We, the undersigned Santa Clara residents , urge you to reject the proposed AT&T cell tower at 3111 Benton Street, and direct AT&T to explore more appropriate locations . We are deeply concerned about the negative impacts and ask you to review the addendum to appeal (PLN25 -00029) for full details. Key Reasons for requesting rejection and relocation of towers :

2. Aesthetic Concerns: The towers will be an eyesore , detracting from the neighborhood. The Historic Pomeroy Green area mighty need additiona l review from authorities .

3. Property Value Loss : Cell towers lower values . Our addendum estimates multi-million dollar losses ($8M in one scenario) for homeowners, innpacting city tax revenues. This comes at expense of benefits to AT&T/church.

4. Health Concerns: We're concerned about health risks, especially for children , from radio frequency radition. Ripon schools decommissioned towers due to cancer clusters . Santa Clara High is within 300ft; this location would also have 8+ base stations including Verizon towers .

5. Risk of Fire: Cell towers can catch fire and spread rapidly.

6. Inadequate Alternatives: AT&T has overlooked viable alternative locations proposed by residents , seemingly choosing the church site for convenience at expense of residents .

Alternative Locations:We urge you to direct AT&T to fully explore: City public right-of-way, Central Park, Saratoga Creek right-of-way, Earl Carmichae l Park, and a commercial property.

These are in our addendum.

Sincerely, ~
Cf/;v/jr'-o-, (J,,-e ff e T•r a,J

1.(Signature)/(Name) 2.(Slgnature)/ (Name) 3.(Signature)/(Name) 4.(Signature)/(Name) Address:
\
Neighborhood Residents (AT&T Tower Relocation Group)
Feb 2025
To: The Honorable Members of the Santa Clara City Council Subject: City Council Appeal: Reject AT&T Cell Tower Proposal at 3111 Benton Street (PLN23-00148) and Support Addendum to Appeal (PLN25-00029) Honorable City Council Members,
We, the undersigned Santa Clara residents, urge you to reject the proposed AT&T cell tower at 3111 Benton Street, and direct AT&T to explore more appropriate locations. We are deeply concerned about the negative impacts and ask you to review the addendum to appeal (PLN25-00029} for full details. Key Reasons for requesting rejection and relocation of towers:

2. Aesthetic Concerns: The towers will be an eyesore, detracting from the neighborhood . The Historic Pomeroy Green area mighty need addiliona l review from authorities.

3. Property Value Loss : Cell towers lower values. Our addendum estimates multi-million dollar losses ($8M in one scenario) for homeowners, impacting city tax revenues. This comes at expense of benefits to AT&T/church.

4. Health Concerns: We're concerned about health risks, especially for children, from radio frequency radition. Ripon schoo ls decommissioned towers due to cancer clusters . Santa Clara High is within 300ft; this location would also have 8+ base stations including Verizon towers.

5. Risk of Fire: Cell towers can catch fire and spread rapidly.

6. Inadequate Alternatives: AT&T has overlooked viable alternative locations proposed by residents, seemingly choosing the church site for convenience at expense of residents .

Alternative Locations:We urge you to direct AT&T to fully explore: City public right-of-way, Central Park, Saratoga Creek right-of-way, Earl Carmichael Park, and a commercial property.

These are in our addendum .

Sincer~ly, ,,-/' ,JI ~ & ~ CJ - c) 0 I ~ (.,J'S"" (o /
/✓5_,)(_) c1- ~
70 h vo a°' v- c. 1'c....

1.(Signature)/(Name) 2.(Signature)/ (Name) 3.(Signature)/(Name) 4.(Signature)/(Name) Address:

Neighborhood Residents (AT&T Tower Relocation Group)
Feb2025
To: The Honorable Members of the Santa Clara City Council 'l.S
Subject: City Council Appeal Feb-11, 2025: Reject AT&T Cell Tower Proposal at 3111 Benton Street (PLN23-00148) and Support Addendum to Appeal (PLN25-00029) Honorable City Council Members,
We, the undersigned Santa Clara residents , urge you to reject the proposed AT&T cell tower at 3111 Benton Street, and direct AT&T to explore more appropriate locations . We are deeply concerned about the negative impacts and ask you to review the addendum to our Feb 11 appeal for full details . Key Reasons for requesting rejection and relocation of towers :

2. Aesthetic Concerns: The towers will be an eyesore , detracting from the neighborhood. The Historic Pomeroy Green area might:, need additional review from authorities.

3. Property Value Loss: Cell towers lower values . Our addendum estimates multi-million dollar losses ($8M in one scenario) for homeowners, impacting city tax revenues . This comes at expense of benefits to AT&T/church.

4. Health Concerns: We're concerned about health risks, especially for children , from radio frequency radition. Ripon schoo ls decommissioned towers due to cancer clusters . Santa Clara High is within 300ft; this location would also have 8+ base stations including Verizon towers .

5. Risk of Fire: Cell towers can catch fire and spread rapidly.

6. Inadequate Alternatives : AT&T has overlooked viable alternative locations proposed by residents , seemingly choosing the church site for convenience at expense of residents .

Alternative Locations:We ur{le you to direct AT&T to fully explore: City public right-of-way , Central Park, Saratoga Creek right-of-way , Earl Carmichael Park, and a commercial property.

These are in our addendum .

Sincerely,
~,l'A Ill~ 'T4,,-~~.
~ \{ . '~

1.(Signatur (Na · ) 2.(Signature)/ (Name) 3.(Signature)/(Name) 4.(Signature)/(Name) Address :'"?.c>SG:,-t\u IYl 17C>C\ f\:\Jf;;
~~~ ~
""\°$ D 5 \
Neighborhood Residents (AT&T Tower Relocation Group)
Feb 2025
To: The Honorable Members of the Santa Clara City Council Subject: City Council Appeal Feb lt\-, 2025: Reject AT&T Cell Tower Proposal at 3111 Benton Street (PLN23-00148) and Support Addendum to Appeal (PLN25-00029) Honorable City Council Members,
We, the undersigned Santa Ciara residents , urge you to reject the proposed AT&T cell tower at 3111 Benton Street, and direct AT&T to explore more appropriate locations . We are deeply concerned about the negative impacts and ask you to review the addendum to our Feb 11 appeal for full details. Key Reasons for requesting rejection and relocation of towers:

2. Aesthetic Concerns: The towers will be an eyesore , detracting from the neighborhood . The Historic Pomeroy Green area might:, need additional review from authorities.

3. Property Value Loss: Cell towers lower values . Our addendum estimates multi-million dollar losses ($8M in one scenario) for homeowners, impacting city tax revenues. This comes at expense of benefits to AT&T/church.

4. Health Concerns: We're conce rned about health risks, especially for children, from radio frequency radition. Ripon schools decommissioned towers due to cancer clusters . Santa Clara High is within 300ft; this location would also have 8+ base stations including Verizon towers .

5. Risk of Fire: Cell towers can catch fire and spread rapidly.

6. Inadequate Alternatives: AT&T has overlooked viable alternative location s proposed by residents, seemingly choosing the church site for convenience at expense of residents .

Alternative Locations:We urge you to direct AT&T to fully explore : City public right-of-way, Central Park, Saratoga Creek right-of-way, Earl Carmichael Park, and a commercial properly.

These are in our addendum .

Sincerely,

1.(Signature)/(Name) 2.(Signature)/ (Name) 3.(Signature)/(Name) 4.(Signature)/(Name) Address ~D tt<.J.Me.o,.::r A-.JC
J1 Rfrl1};o {Yjw~J;
._j uD'-/ 2..11 N.eo
1v1·~1:1-A//l.3~
fE.l.l ~!Sf M fl "7-.tl,/lf f3o
_,,d-cv;~ gM#-
1 oA-M«€; ;?,4M;1Jo
Neighborhood Residents (AT&T Tower Relocation Group)
Feb 2025
To: The Honorable Members of the Santa Clara City Council Subject: City Council Appeal Feb~. 2025: Rej ect AT&T Cell Tower Proposal at 3111 Benton Street (PLN23-00148) and Support Addendum to Appeal (PLN25-00029) Honorable City Council Members,
We, the undersigned Santa Clara residents, urge you to reject the proposed AT&T cell tower at 3111 Benton Street, and direct AT&T to explore- more appropriate locations . We are deeply concerned about the negative impacts and ask you to review the addendum to our Feb 11 appeal for full details. Key Reasons for requesting rejection and relocation of towers :

2. Aesthetic Concerns: The towers will be an eyesore , detracting from the neighborhood. The Historic Pomeroy Green area mighty need additional review from authorities .

3. Property Value Loss: Cell towers lower values. Our addendum estimates multi-million dollar losses ($8M in one scenario) for homeowners , impacting city tax revenues . This comes at expense of benefits to AT&T/church.

5. Risk of Fire: Cell towers can catch fire and spread rapidly.

6. Inadequate Alternatives : AT&T has overlooked viable alternative locations proposed by residents, seemingly choosing the church site for convenience at expense of residents .

Alternative Locations:We urge you to direct AT&T to fully explore : City public right-of-way , Central Park, Saratoga Creek right-of-way , Earl Cannichael Park, and a commercial property.

These are in our addendum.

1.(Signature)/(Name) 2.{Signature)/ (Name) 3.(Signature)/(Name) 4.(Signature)/(Name) Address :
,.2<11t l-/t/m.80/-1
0/1,,1_) 74 (!__/J?-/2-R/
Neighborhood Residents (AT&T Tower Relocation Group )
Feb 2025
To: The Honorab le Member s of the Santa Clara City Coun cil Subject : City Council App eal Feb ~ . 2025: Reject AT&T Cell Tower Proposal at 3111 Benton Street (PLN2 3-00148 ) and Support A ddendum to Appeal (PLN2 5-00029) Honorable City Council Members ,
We, the undersigned Santa Clara residents, urge you to reject the proposed AT&T cell tower at 3111 Benton Street, and direct AT&T to explore more appropriate locations. We are deeply concerned about the negative impacts and ask you to review the addendum to our Feb 11 appeal for full details. Key Reasons for requesting rejectio n and relocation of towers:

2. Aesthetic Con cerns : The towers will be an eyesore, detracting from the neighborhood. The Historic Pomeroy Green area mighty need additional review from authorities.

4. Health Concerns: We're concerned about health risks, especia lly for children, from radio frequency radition. Ripon schools decommissioned towers due to cancer clusters. Santa Clara High is within 300ft; this location would also have 8+ base stations including Verizon towers.

5. Risk of Fire: Cell towers can catch fire and :spread rapidly.

6. Inadequate Alternatives: AT&T has overlooked viable alternative locations proposed by residents , seemingly choosing the church site for convenience at expense of residents.

Alternative Location s:We urge you to direct AT&T to fully explore: City public right-of-way, Central Park, Saratoga Creek right-of-way, Earl Carmichael Park, and a comme rcial property.

These are in our addendum.

Sincerely, .3l.3L ~'-"--"\,o\\ ~""' - SC
0 L.Q \) «;._ ~ ... +a V'- - rl.'-"""" ~ -h, '-
G) ~ .

1.(Signature)/(Name)
Address:
"t:-~
4)~
Le<:. r-3e nhV\

2.(Signature)/ (Name) 3.(Signature)/(Name) 4.(Signature)/(Name) Neighborhood Residents (AT&T Tower Relocation Group)
Feb 2025
To: The Honorable Members of the Santa Cla.ra City Council Subject: City Council Appeal Feb~ 2025: Reject AT&T Cell Tower Proposal at 3111 Benton Street (PLN 23-0014 8) and Support Addendum to Appeal (PLN2 5-00029) Honorable City Council Members,
We, the undersigned Santa Clara residents, urge you to reject the proposed AT&T cell tower at 3111 Benton Street, and direct AT&T to explore more appropriate locations. We are deeply concerned about the negative impacts and ask you to review the addendum to our Feb 11 appeal for full details. Key Reasons for requesting rejection and relocation of towers:

2. Aesthetic Concerns: The towers will be an eyesore, detracting from the neighborhood . The Historic Pomeroy Green area mighty need additional review from authorities .

3. Property Value Loss: Cell towers lower values . Our addendum estimates multi-million dollar losses ($BM in one scenario) for homeowners , impacting city tax revenues . This comes at expense of benefits to AT&T/church .

4. Health Concerns: We're concerned about health risks, espec ially for children, from radio frequency radition. Ripon schools decommissio ned towers due to cancer clusters . Santa Clara High is within 300ft; this location would also have 8+ base stations including Verizon towers.

5. Risk of Fire: Cell towers can catch fire and spread rapidly.

6. Inadequate Alternatives: AT&T has overlooked viable alternative locations proposed by residents , seemingly choosing the church site for convenience at expense of residents .

Alternative Locations:We urge you to direct AT&T to fully explore: City public right-of-way, Central Park, Saratoga Creek right-of-way, Eart Carmichael Park, and a commercial property.

These are in our addendum .

Sincerely,

1.(Slgnature)/(Name) 2.(Signature)/ (Name) 3.(Signature)/(Name) 4.(Slgnature)/(Name) Address :
-;.,,/ _ ""'t · /7(.AI(/• ~• \ fv\..t,
Ji-<l\3 i ii ..,,..f+c H if I'·(
._r:-(•1,,--{ n c lu"' '\ ( A I
Neighbo rhood Resid ents (AT&T Tower Relocati on Group) Feb 2025
To: The Honorable Members of the Santa Clara City Council Subject: City Council Appeal Feb~ , 2025: Reject AT&T Cell Tower Proposal at 3111 Benton Street (PLN23-0014 8) and Support ,Addendum to Appeal (PLN25-00029) Honorable City Council Members,
We, the undersigned Santa Clara residents, urge you to reject the proposed AT&T cell tower at 3111 Benton Street, and direct AT&T to explore more appropriate locations. We are deeply concerne d about the negative impacts and ask you to review the addendum to our Feb 11 appeal for full details. Key Reasons for requesting rejection and relocation of towers :

2. Aesthetic Concerns: The towers will be an eyesore , detracting from the neighborhood. The Historic Pomeroy Green area mighty need addrtional review from authorities .

3. Property Value Loss: Cell towers lower values. Our addendum estimates multi-million dollar losses ($8M in one scenario) for homeowners, impacting city tax revenues . This comes at expense of benefits to AT&T/church.

4. Health Concerns: We're concerned about health risks, especially for children, from radio frequency radition. Ripon schoo ls decommiss ioned towers due to cancer clusters. Santa Clara High is within 300ft; this location would also have 8+ base stations including Verizon towers.

5. Risk of Fire: Cell towers can catch fire and spread rapidly.

6. Inadequate Alternatives: AT&T has overlooked viable alternative locations proposed by residents, seemingly choosing the church site for convenie nce at expense of residents .

Alternative Locations:We urge you to direct AT&T to fully explore : City public right-of-way, Central Park, Saratoga Creek right-of-way, Earl Carmichae l Park, and a commercial property.

These are in our addendum.

3.(Signature)/(Name) 4.(Signature)/(Name)
Neighborhood Residents (AT&T Tower Relocation Group)
Feb202S
To: The Honorable Members of the Santa Clara City Council '2S
Subject: City Council Appeal Feb 14, 2025: Reject AT&T Cell Tower Proposal at 3111 Benton Street (PLN23 -00148) and Support Addendum to Appeal (PLN 25-00029) Honorable City Council Members,
We, the undersigned Santa Clara residents, urge you to reject the proposed AT&T cell tower at 3111 Benton Street, and direct AT&T to explore more appropriate locations . We are deeply concerned about the negative impacts and ask you to review the addendum to our Feb 11 appeal for full details. Key Reasons for requesting rejection and relocation of towers :

2. Aesthetic Concerns: The towers will be an eyesore , detracting from the neighborhood. The Historic Pome roy Green area mighty need additional review from authorities.

3. Property Value Loss: Cell towers lower values . Our addendum estimates multi-million dollar losses ($8M in one scenario) for homeowners , impacting city tax revenues. This comes at expense of benefits to AT&T/church.

4. Health Concerns: We're concerned about health risks, especially for children, from radio frequency radition . Ripon schools decommiss ioned towers due to cancer clusters. Santa Clara High is within 300ft; this location would also have 8+ base stations including Verizon towers.

5. Risk of Fire: Cell towers can catch fire and spread rapidly.

6. Inadequate Alternatives: AT&T has overlooked viable alternative locations proposed by residents, seemingly choosing the church site for convenience at expense of residents .

Alternative Locations:We urge you to direct AT:&T to fully explore: City public right-of-way, Central Park, Saratoga Creek right-of-way , Earl Carmichael Park, and a commerc ial property.

These are in our addendum.

1.(Signature)/(Name) 2.(Signature)/ (Name) 3.(Slgnature)/(Name) 4 .(Signature)/(Name) Address :

Neighborhood Residents (AT&T Tower Relocation Group)
Feb2025
To: The Honorable Members of the Santa Clara City Council 2-5
Subject: City Council Appeal Feb tt, 2025: Reject AT&T Cell Tower Proposal at 3111 Benton Street (PLN23-0014 8) and Support Addendum to Appeal (PLN25-00029) Honorable City Councll Members,
We, the undersigned Santa Clara residents , urge you to reject the proposed AT&T cell tower at 3111 Benton Street, and direct AT&T to explore more appropriate locations . We are deeply concerned about the negative impacts and ask you to review the addendum to our Feb 11 appeal for full details. Key Reasons for requesting rejection and relocation of towers:

2. Aesthetic Concerns: The towers will be an eyesore, detracting from the neighborhood . The Historic Pomeroy Green area might:, need additional review from authorities .

3. Property Value Loss: Cell towers lower values. Our addendum estimates multi-million dollar losses ($8M in one scenario) for homeowners, impacting city tax revenues . This comes at expense of benefits to AT&T/church .

4. HeaHh Concerns: We're concerned about health risks, especially for children, from radio frequency radition . Ripon schools decommissio ned towers due to cancer clusters . Santa Clara High is within 300ft; this location would also have 8+ base stations including Verizon towers .

5. Risk of Fire: Cell towers can catch fire and spread rapidly.

6. Inadequate Alternatives: AT&T has overlooked viable alternative locations proposed by residents , seemingly choosing the church site for convenience at expense of residents.

Alternative Locations :We urge you to direct AT&T to fully explore: City public right-of-way , Central Park, Saratoga Creek right-of-way, Earl Carmichael Park, and a comme rcial property.

These are in our addendum.

Sincerely,

1.(Signature)/(Name) 2.(Signature)/ (Name) 3.(Slgnature)/(Name) 4.(Signature)/(Name) Address: 2Cl52. \-\1.AMbtil-t Ave. ~.+~ C,.\,.,-.-~, C A. C\'So ~\ • Neighborhood Residents (AT&T Tower Relocation Group)
Feb 2025
To: The Honorable Members of the Santa Clara City Council Subject: City Council Appeal Feb~ 2025: Reject AT&T Cell Tower Proposal at 3111 Benton Street (PLN23-00148) and Support Addendum to Appeal (PLN25-00029) Honorable City Council Members,
We, the undersigned Santa Clara residents, urge you to reject the proposed AT&T cell tower at 3111 Benton Street, and direct AT&T to explore more appropriate locations. We are deeply concerned about the negative impacts and ask you to review the addendum to our Feb 11 appeal for full details. Key Reasons for requesting rejection and relocation of towers:

2. Aesthetic Concerns: The towers will be an eyesore , detracting from the neighbo rhood. The Historic Pomeroy Green area mighty need additional review from authorities.

4. Health Concerns: We're concerned about health risks, especially for children, from radio frequency radition. Ripon schools decomm issiorned towers due to cancer clusters. Santa Clara High is within 300ft; this location would also have 8+ base stations including Verizon towers.

5. Risk of Fire: Cell towers can catch fire and spread rapidly.

6. Inadequate Alternatives : AT&T has overlooked viable alternative locations proposed by residents, seemingly choosing the church site for convenience at expense of residents .

Alternative Locations:We urge you to direct AT&T to fully explore : City public right-of-way, Central Pari<, Saratoga Creek ri.ght-of-way, Earl Carmichael Park, and a commercial property.

These are in our addendum .

Sincerely,
~ ~<oJ,\•{'j> ,:,...,jc,o\w} l, \/ ~

1.(Signature)/(Name) 2.(Signature)/ (Name) 3.(Slgnature)/(Name) 4.(Signature)/(Name) Address : 1. «., 1. \\""'e.,q i-~E.
~ ~Jl,p,
/
Neighborhood Residents (AT&T Tower Relocation Group)
Feb 2025
To: The Honorable Members of the Santa Clara City Council

7.$
Subject: City Council Appeal Feb 14, 2025: Reject AT&T Cell Tower Proposal at 3111 Benton Street (PLN23-00148) and Support Addendum to Appeal (PLN25-00029) Honorable City Council Members,
We, the undersigned Santa Clara residents, urge you to reject the proposed AT&T cell tower at 3111 Benton Street, and direct AT&T to explore more appropriate locations . We are deeply concerned about the negative impacts and ask you to review the addendum to our Feb 11 appeal for full details. Key Reasons for requesti ng rejection and relocation of towers:

1. Proximity & Code Violation: The proposed -cell tower violates the spirit of the city's new 300-foot setback rule and is an irresponsible placement by common sense interpretation . Many cities, like Los Altos, Fremont , and Beverly Hills, require 500-1000 feet from homes ,

2. Aesthetic Concerns: The towers will be an eyeso re, detracting from the neighborhood. The Historic Pomeroy Green area might:, need additional review from authorit ies.

4. Health Concerns: We're concerned about health risks, especially for children, from radio frequency radition . Ripon schoo ls decommissioned towers due to cancer clusters . Santa Clara High is within 300ft; this location would also have 8+ base stations including Verizon towers.

5. Risk of Fire: Cell towers can catch fire and spread rapid!y.

6. Inadequate Alternatives: AT&T has overlooked viable alternative locations proposed by residents, seemingly choosing the church site for convenience at expense of residents .

Alternative Locations:We urge you to direct AT&T to fully explore : City public right-of-way, Central Park, Saratoga Creek right-of-way, Earl Carmichael Park, and a commercial property.

These are in our addendum .

Sincerely,
~4:-~ Cr1tU5H/ /z 5ft4~)

1.(Slgnature)/(Name) 2.(Signature)/ (Name) 3.(Signature)/(Name) 4.(Signature)/(Name) Addres s~ c<¥ (~ HU/Vl80l -r r ve
~ /4<'\h::. Cf:vv..,_ 1 C_;;z_ 1 fo J- I
Neighborhood Residents (AT&T Tower Relocation Group)
Feb 2025
To: The Honorable Members of the Santa Clara City Council 'lS
Subject: City Council Appeal Feb tt, 2025: Reject AT&T Cell Tower Proposal at 3111 Benton Street (PLN23-00148) and Support Addendum to Appeal (PLN26-00029) Honorable City Council Members,
We, the undersigned Santa Clara residents, urge you to reject the proposed AT&T cell tower at 3111 Benton Street, and direct AT&T to explore more appropriate locations . We are deeply concerned about the negative impacts and ask you to review the addendum to our Feb 11 appeal for full details. Key Reasons for requesting rejection and relocation of towers:

2. Aesthetic Concerns: The towers will be an eyesore , detract.ing from the neighborhood . The Historic Pomeroy Green area mighty need additional review from authorities .

3. Property Value Loss: Cell towers lower values . Our addendum estimates multi-million dollar losses ($8M in one scenario) for homeowners, impacting city tax revenues . This comes at expense of benefits to AT&T/church.

4. Health Concerns: We're concerned about health risks, especially for children, from radio frequency radition. Ripon schools decommissiorned towers due to cancer clusters . Santa Clara High is within 300ft; this location would also have 8+ base stations including Verizon towers .

5. Risk of Fire: Cell towers can catch fire and spread rapidly.

6. Inadequate Alternatives: AT&T has overlooked viable alternative locations proposed by residents , seemingly choosing the church site for convenience at expense of residents.

Alternative Locations:We urge you to direct AT&T to fully explore : City public right-of-way, Central Park, Saratoga Creek right-of-way, Earl Carmichael Park, and a commercia l property.

These are in our addendum .

Sincerely,
,Ji}c_: )2(SlgMW~Y (Namo)
Address: L--
1 'io O \ 'v fl\k--
7,,, 9 J I \.-\ \VI

3.(Signature)/(Name) 4.(Signature)/(Name)
Neighborhood Residents (AT&T Tower Reloc ation Group)
Feb 2025
To: The Honorable Members of the Santa Clara City Council Subject: City Council Appeal Feb 1., 2025: Reject AT&T Cell Tower Proposal at 3111 Benton Street (PLN23-00148) and Support Addendum to Appeal (PLN 25-00029) Honorable City Council Members ,
We, the undersigned Santa Clara residents, urge you to reject the proposed AT&T cell tower at 3111 Benton Street, and direct AT&T to explore more appropriate locations. We are deeply concerned about the negative impacts and ask you to review the addendum to our Feb 11 appeal for full details. Key Reasons for requesting rejection and relocation of towers:

1. Proximity & Code Violation: The proposed oell tower violates the spirit of the city's new 300-foot setback rule and is an irresponsible placement by common sense interpretation. Many cities, like Los Altos, Fremont, and Bever1y Hills, require 500-1000 feet from homes,

2. Aesthetic Concerns : The towers will be an eyesore, detracting from the neighborhood. The Historic Pomeroy Green area mighty need additio nal review from authorities .

5. Risk of Fire: Cell towers can catch fire and spread rapidly.

6. Inadequate Alternatives: AT&T has overlooked viable alternative locations proposed by resident s, seemingly choosing the church site for convenience at expense of residents .

Alternative Locations :We urge you to direct AT&T to fully explore: City public right-of-way, Central Park, Saratoga Creek right-of-way, Earl Carmichael Park, and a commercial property.

These are in our addendum.

Sincerely, --.

1.(Signature)/(Name) 2.(Signature)/ (Name)
3;1d11~Wt ~renµ-t H

3.(Slgnature)/(Name) 4.(Signatur e)/(Name)
1<-{5~~"'" e)Jtr,_dd
Neighborhood Residents (AT&T Tower Reloca ,tion Group)
Feb 2025
To: The Honorable Members of the Santa Clara City Council "2$
Subject : City Council Appeal Feb tt, 2025 : Rej ect AT&T Cell Tower Proposa l at 3111 Benton Street (PLN23-00148) and Support Addendum to Appeal (PLN25-00029) Honorable City Council Members,
We, the undersigned Santa Clara residents, urge you to reject the proposed AT&T cell tower at 3111 Benton Street, and direct AT&T to explore more appropriate locations. We are deeply concerned about the negative impacts and ask you to review the addendum to our Feb 11 appeal for full details. Key Reasons for requesti ng rejection and relocation of towers:

2. Aesthetic Concerns: The towers will be an eyesore, detracti ng from the neighborhood . The Historic Pomeroy Green area mighty need additional review from authorilies .

3. Property Value Loss: Cell towers lower values . Our addendum estimates multi-million dollar losses ($8M in one scenario) for homeowne rs, impact ing city tax revenues. This comes at expense of benefits to AT&T/church.

5. Risk of Fire: Cell towers can catch fire and spread rapidly.

6. Inadequate Alternatives: AT&T has overlooked viable alternative locations proposed by residents, seemingly choosing the church site for convenience at expense of residents.

Alternative Location s :We urge you to direct AT&T to fully explore: City public right-of-way, Central Park, Saratoga Creek right-of-way, Earl Carmichael Park, and a commercial property.

These are in our addendum.

Sincerely,

1.(Signature)/(Name) 2.(Signature)/ (Name) 3.(Signature)/(Name) 4.(Signature)/(Name) Address:

Neighborh ood Residents (AT&T Tower Relocation Group)
Feb 2025
To: The Honorab le Membe rs of the Santa Clara City Counc il -.s
Subject : City Council Appe al Feb 1+, 2025: Reject AT&T Cell Tower Prop osal at 3111 Benton Street (PLN2 3-00 148) and Support Addendum to Appeal (PLN25-00029 ) Honorable City Council Members,
We, the undersig ned Santa Clara residents, urge you to reject the proposed AT&T cell tower at 3111 Benton Street, and direct AT&T to explore more appropriate locations. We are deeply concerned about the negative impacts and ask you to review the addend um to our Feb 11 appeal for full details. Key Reasons for request ing rejection and relocation of towers:

2. Aesthetic Concerns: The towers will be an ,eyesore, detracting from the neighborhood. The Historic Pomeroy Green area might)' need additional review from authorities.

3. Property Value Loss: Cell towers lower values. Our addendum estimates multi-million dollar losses ($8M in one scenario) for homeowners, impactin g city tax revenues. This comes at expense of benefits to AT&T/church.

4. Health Concerns: We're concerned about health risks, especially for children, from radio frequency radition. Ripon schools decomm issioned towers due to cancer clusters. Santa Clara High is within 300ft; this location would also hav,e 8+ base stations including Verizon towers.

5. Risk of Fire: Cell towers can catch fire and spread rapidly.

6. Inad equate Alternativ es: AT&T has overlooked viable alternative locations proposed by residents, seemingly choosing the church site for convenience at expense of residents.

Alternative Loc atio ns:We urge you to direct AT&T to fully explore: City public right-of-way, Central Park, Saratoga Creek right-of-way, Earl Carmichael Park, and a commercial property.

These are in our addend um.

Sincerely,

1.(Signature)/(Name) 2.(Signature)/ (Name) 3.(Signature)/(Name) 4.(Signature)/(Name) Address :

Neig hborhood Residents (AT&T Tower Relocation Group)
Feb202 5
To: The Honorable Members of the Santa Clara City Council "2S
Subject: City Council Appeal Feb 1't-; 2025: Reject AT&T Cell Tower Proposal at 3111 Benton Street (PLN23-0014 8) and Support Addendum to Appeal (PLN2 5-00029 ) Honorable City Council Members,
We, the undersigned Santa Clara residents, urge you to reject lhe proposed AT&T cell tower at 3111 Benton Street, and direct AT&T to explore more appropriate locations. We are deeply concerned about the negative impacts and ask you to review the addendum to our Feb 11 appeal for full details. Key Reasons for requesti ng rejection and relocation of towers:

2. Aesthetic Concerns: The towers will be an eyesore , detracting from the neighborhood. The Historic Pomeroy Green area mighty need additional review from authorit ies.

3. Property Value Loss: Cell towers lower values. Our addendum estimates multi-million dollar losses ($8M in one scenario) for homeowne rs, impacting city tax revenues. This comes at expense of benefits to AT&T/church.

4. Health Concerns: We're conce rned about health risks, especially for children, from radio frequency radition. Ripon schools decommiss ioned towers due to cancer clusters. Santa Clara High is within 300ft; this location would also have 8+ base stations including Verizon towers .

5. Risk of Fire: Cell towers can catch fire and spread rapidly.

6. Inadequate Alternatives: AT&T has overlooked viable alternative locations proposed by residents, seemingly choosi ng the church site for convenience at expense of residents.

Alternative Locations :We urge you to direct AT&T to fully explore : City public right-of-way, Central Park, Saratoga Creek right-of-way, Earl Carmichael Park, and a commercia l property.

These are in our addend um.

Sincerely,
-,
W/ Jo se" ro</,,-e:,,,.c

1.(S1gnature)/~ame) 2.(Signature)/ (Name) 3.(Sign~ture)/(Name) 4.(Signature)/(Name) Address : 1 / /
51ol - 170'.'V\.VV - }'Jv ~
Neighborhood Residents {AT&T Tower Relocation Group)
Feb 2025
To: The Honorable Members of the Santa Clara City Council zS Subject: City Council Appeal Feb~. 2025 : Reject AT&T Cell Tower Proposal at 3111 Benton Street (PLN23-00148) and Support Addendum to Appeal (PLN25-00029) Honorable City Council Members,
We, the undersigned Santa Clara residents, urge you to reject the proposed AT&T cell tower at 3111 Benton Street, and direct AT&T to explore more appropriate locations. We are deeply concerned about the negative impacts and ask you to review the addendum to our Feb 11 appeal for full details. Key Reasons for requesting rejection and relocation of towers:

2. Aesthetic Concerns: The towers will be an eyesore , detracting from the neighborhood . The Historic Pomeroy Green area mighty need additional review from authorities.

3. Property Value Loss: Cell towers lower values . Our addendum estimates multi-million dollar losses ($8M in one scenario) for homeowners , impacting city tax revenues. This comes at expense of benefits to AT&T/church.

4. Health Concerns: We're concerned about health risks, especially for children, from radio frequency radition. Ripon schools decommissio ned towers due to cancer clusters. Santa Clara High is within 300ft; this location would also have 8+ base stations including Verizon towers.

5. Risk of Fire: Cell towers can catch fire and spread rapidly.

6. Inadequate Alternatives: AT&T has overlooked viable alternative locations proposed by residents, seemingly choosing the church site for convenience at expense of residents.

Alternative Locations: We urge you to direct AT&T to fully explore: City public right-of-way, Central Park, Saratoga Creek right-of-way, Ear1 Carmic hael Park, and a commercial property.

These are in our addendum .

Sincerely,
~ ~ ( <JCWV\ 17 , -s(A_}A_i;

1.(Signature)/(Name) 2.(Signature)/ (Name) 3.(Signature)/(Name) 4.(Signature)/(Name) Address :

Neighborhood Residents (AT&T Tower Relocation Group)
Feb2025
To: The Honorable Members of the Santa Clara City Council .,_;;
Subject: City Council Appeal Feb 11, 2025: Reject AT&T Cell Tower Proposal at 3111 Benton Street (PLN23-00148) and Support Addendum to Appeal (PLN25-00029) Honorable City Council Members,
We, the undersigned Santa Ciara residents, urge you to reject the proposed AT&T cell tower at 3111 Benton Street, and direct AT&T to explore more appropriate locations. We are deeply concerned about the negative impacts and ask you to review the addendum to our Feb 11 appeal for full details. Key Reasons for requesting rejection and relocation of towers:

1. Proximity & Code Violation: The proposed cell tower violates the spirit of the city's new 300-foot setback rule and is an irresponsible placem ent by common sense interpretation . Many cities, like Los Altos, Fremont, and Beverly Hills, require 500-1000 feet from homes, i. Aesthetic Concerns : The towers will be an eyesore, detracting from the neighborhood. The Historic Pomeroy Green area mighty need additional review from authorities.

3. Property Value Loss: Cell towers lower values. Our addendum estimates multi-million dollar losses ($SM in one scenario) for homeowners, impacting city tax revenues. This comes at expense of benefits to AT&T/church .

5. Risk of Fire: Cell towers can catch fire and .spread rapidly.

6. Inadequate Alternatives: AT&T has overlooked viable alternative locations proposed by residents, seemingly choosing the church site for convenience at expense of residents.

Alternative Locations:We urge you to direct AT&T to fully explore: City public right-of-way, Central Park, Saratoga Creek right-of-way, Earl Carmichael Park, and a commercial property.

These are in our addendum.

Sincerely,
<...~ A
g ev 't:--, CVV"'\ S •I #~
_3 I 7 Cl -1--t v yVl .130 l t r4 Ll 'E:.__

1.(Signature)/(Name) 2.(Signature)/ (Name) 3.(Signature)/(Name) 4.(Signature)/(Name) Address:

Neighborhood Residents {AT&T Tower Relocation Group)
Feb 2025
To: The Honorable Members of the Santa Clara City Council Subject: City Council Appeal Feb~. 2025: Reject AT&T Cell Tower Proposal at 3111 Benton Street (PLN23-00148) and Support Addendum to Appeal (PLN25-00029) Honorable City Council Members,
We, the undersigned Santa Clara residents, urge you to reject the proposed AT&T cell tower at 3111 Benton Street, and direct AT&T to explore more appropr iate locations. We are deeply concerned about the negative impacts and ask you to review the addendum to our Feb 11 appeal for full details. Key Reasons for requesting rejection and relocation of towers:

2. Aesthetic Concerns: The towers will be an eyesore, detracting from the neighborhood. The Historic Pomeroy Green area mighty need additional review from authorities.

3. Property Value Loss : Cell towers lower values . Our addendum estimates multi-million dollar losses ($8M in one scenario) for homeowners, impacting city tax revenues. This comes at expense of benefits to AT&T/church .

4. Health Concerns: We're concerned about health risks, especially for children, from radio frequency radition. Ripon schools decommission ed towers due to cancer clusters. Santa Clara High is within 300ft; this location would also have 8+ base stations including Verizon towers.

5. Risk of Fire: Cell towers can catch fire and spread rapidly.

6. Inadequate Alternatives: AT&T has overlooked viable alternat ive locations proposed by residents, seemingly choosing the church site for convenience at expense of residents .

Alternative Locations :We urge you to direct AT&T to fully explore: City public right-of-way, Central Park, Saratoga Creek right-of-way, Eart Carmichael Park, and a commercial property.

These are in our addend um.

1.(Signature)/(Name) 2.(Signature)/ (Name) 3.(Signature)/(Name) 4.(Signature)/(Name) Address: ,Sl'tlO I-I"'-"" bo \ \- Ave.., s-,~... C..f o--;-c.. CA 9S' 0 S" l }J<fO //i,,;r bPlf A-t1e .x,~c;- C(c:-r't!-- c,./l 'i$'o n Neighborh ood Res idents {AT&T Tower Relo cation Group) Feb 2025
To: The Honorab le Members of the Santa Clara City Coun cil Subject: City Council Appeal Feb~. 2025: Reject AT&T Cell Tower Proposal at 3111 Benton Street (PLN23-00148) and Support Addendum to Appeal (PLN25-00029 ) Hono rable City Council Members,
We, the undersigned Santa Clara residents, urge you to reject the proposed AT&T cell tower at 31 11 Benton Street, and direct AT&T to explore more appropriate locatio ns. We are deeply concerned about the negative impacts and ask you to review the addendum to our Feb 11 appeal for full detai ls. Key Reasons for reques ting rejection and relocation of towers:

1. Proximity'& Code Violation: The proposed cell tower violates the spirit of the city's new 300-foot setback rule and is an irresponsible placement by common sense interpretation. Many cities, like Los Altos, Fremont, and Beverly Hills. require 500-1000 feet from homes,

2. Aesthetic Concerns : The towers will be an eyeso re, detracting from the neighborhood . The Historic Pomeroy Green area mighty need additional review from authorities.

3. Property Value Loss: Cell towers lower values. Our addendum estimate s multi-millio n dollar losses ($SM in one scena rio) for homeowners, impacti ng city tax revenues. This comes at expense of benefits to AT&T/church.

4. Health Concerns: We're concerne d about health risks, especially for children, from radio frequency radition . Ripon schools decomm issioned towers due to cancer clusters. Santa Clara High is within 300ft; this location would also have 8+ base stations including Verizon towers .

5. Risk of Fire: Cell towers can catch fire and spread rapidly.

6. Inadequate Alternatives: AT&T has overlooked viable alternative locatio ns proposed by residents, seemingly choosing the church site for convenience at expense of residents.

Alternative Locations:We urge you to direct AT&T to fully explore: City public right-of-way, Central Park, Saratoga Creek right-of-way, Earl Carmichael Park, and a commercial property.

These are in our addendum.

Sincerely,
J:a.ol,j & ~
'
~ <'Z./

1.(Sig - re)i~e) 2.(Signature)/ (Name) 3.(Signature)/(Name) 4.(Signature)/(Name) Address:
1; 1 r () r1 wrn-b() 1-1: A v'e. • s ,:>,-,1.-t... . Vh-/t{, Neighborhood R esidents (AT&T Tow er Relocation Group)
Feb 2025
To: The Honorable Members of the Santa Clara City Coun cil 1,.5'
Subject; City Cou ncil Appe al Feb K, 2025: Reject AT& T Cell Tower P roposal at 3111 _,1 Benton Street and Support Add e~dum to Appe al (l? L fJ .?.. 5" ,._ C> O c .:2 9 Honorable City Council Members,
We, the undersigned Santa Clara residents, urge you to reject the proposed AT&T cell tower at 3111 Benton Stree t, and direct AT&T to explore more appropriate locations. We are deeply concerned about the negative impacts and ask you to review the addendum to our Feb 11 appeal for full details. Key Reasons for requesting rejection and relocation of towers:
f-.. 1. Proximi ty & Code Violation: ,The proposed cell tower violates the spirit of the city's new 300-foo t setback rule and is an irresponsible placement by common sense interpretation. Many cities, like Los Altos, Fremont, and Beverly Hills, require 500- 1000 feet from homes,

2. Aestheti c Concerns: The towers will be an eyesore , detracting from the neighborhood . The Historic Pomeroy Green area mighty need additional review from author ities.

3. Property Value Loss: Cell towers lower values . Our addendum estimates multi-million dollar losses ($SM in one scenario) for homeowne rs, impacting city tax revenues. This comes at expense of benefits to AT&T/church .

4. Health Concerns: We're concerned about health risks, especially for children, from radio frequency radition. Ripon schools decommissioned towers due to cancer clusters . Santa Clara High is within 300ft; this location would also have 8+ base stations including Verizon towers.

5. Risk of Fire: Cell towers can catch fire and spread rapidly.

6. I nadequate Altern atives: AT&T has overlooked viable alternative locations proposed by residents, seemingly choosing the church site for convenience at expense of residents.

Alternative Loca tions:We urge you to direct AT&T to fully explore : City public right-of-way , Central Park, Saratoga Creek right-of-way, Earl Carmichael Park, and a comme rcial property.

These are in our adden dum .

This project burdens our community . Prioritize resident well being over financial gains for _,J'
/.

AT& T/church. We urge rejection of the 3111 Benton St cell tower and relocate it elsewhe re I more compatible. See addendum for full details.
f'17 c.. VI o (u-s R c '~~; 10 L1 I '17c,,l,1 .El~ c 'I ff I. r - - · •G "71. 1,-j?_uff\~f St,,(/!J.11!1 ''K1 t11 It (nti: I+ l Es=-Ro.s<:.i Iv 111,· .,t (Signature) (Printed Name) (Address)
Neighborhood Residents (AT&T Tower Relocation Group)
Feb 2025
To: The Honorable Members of the Santa Clara City Council .....,_ g__ ~
Subject: City Council Appeal Feb :1-r, 2025 : Reject AT&T Cell Tower Proposal at 3111 Benton Street and Support Addendum to Appeal p L t./ ~ ~ ·-O O O ,;>. ~ Honorable City Council Members,
We, the undersigned Santa Clara residents, urge you to reject the proposed AT&T cell tower at 3111 Benton Street, and direct AT&T to explore more appropriate locations. We are deeply concerned about the negative impacts and ask you to review the addendum to our Feb 11 appeal for full details. Key Reasons for requesting rejection and relocation of towers:
;... 1. Proximity & Code Violation : The proposed cell tower violates the spirit of the city's new 300-foot setback rule and is an irresponsible placement by common sense interpretation. Many cities, like Los Altos, Fremont, and Beverly Hills, require 500-1000 feet from homes,

2. Aestheti c Concerns : The towers will be an eyeso re, detracting from the neighborhood . The Historic Pomeroy Green area mighty need additional review from authorit ies.

3. Property Value Loss: Cell towers lower values . Our addendum estimates multi-million dollar losses ($8M in one scenario) for homeowners , impacting city tax revenues. This comes at expense of benefits to A f& T/church.

4. Health Concerns : We're concerned about health risks, especially for children, from radio frequency radition. Ripon schoo ls decommissioned towers due to cancer clusters. Santa Clara High is within 300ft; this location would also have 8+ base stations including Verizon towers .

5. Risk of Fire: Cell towers can catch fire and spread rapidly.

6. Inadequate Alternativ es: AT&T has overlooked viable alternative locations proposed by residents, seemingly choosing the church site for convenience at expense of residents .

Alternativ e Locations:We urge you to direct AT&T to fully explore: City public right-of-way , Central Park, Saratoga Creek right-of-way, Eart Carmichael Park, and a commercia l property .

These are in our addendum.

Sincerely,
(Signature) (Printed Name) (Address)
Neighborhood Residents (AT&T Tower Relocation Group)
Feb 2025
To: The Honorable Members of the Santa Clara City Council JS'
Subject: City Council Appeal Feb .tt", 2025: Reject AT&T Cell Tower Proposal at 3111 Benton Street and Support Addendum to Appeal p L,N;;_ S - {} 0 0 ~ Cf Honorabl e City Council Members,
We, the undersigned Santa Clara residents, urge you to reject the proposed AT&T cell tower at 3111 Benton Street, and direct AT&T to explore more appropriate locations . We are deeply concerned about the negative impacts and ask you to review the addendum to our Feb 11 appeal for full details . Key Reasons for requestin,g rejection and relocation of towers:
1-. 1. Proximity & Code Violation: The proposed cell tower violates the spirit of the city's new 300-foot setback rule and is an irresponsible placement by common sense interpretation. Many cities, like Los Altos, Fremont, and Beverly Hills, require 500-1000 feet from homes,

2. Aesthetic Concerns : The towers will be an eyesore , detracting from the neighborhood . The Historic Pomeroy Green area mighty need additional review from authorities.

3. Property Value Loss: Cell towers lower values . Our addendum estimates multi-million dollar losses ($8M in one scenario) for homeowners, impacting city tax revenues. This comes at expense of benefits to AT&T/church.

5. Risk of Fire: Cell towers can catch fire and spread rapidly.

6. Inadequate Alternatives: AT&T has overlooked viable alternative locations proposed by residents, seemingly choosing the church site for convenience at expense of residents .

Alternative Locations:We urge you to direct AT&T to fully explore: City public right-of-way, Central Park, Saratoga Creek right-of-way, Earl Carmichael Park, and a commercial property.

These are in our addendum .

Sincerely,
~
(Signature)
~
(Printed Name)
!(en l<vc--r-z-
Neighborhood Residents (AT&T Tower Relocation Group)
Feb 2025
To: The Honorabl e Members of the Santa Clara City Counc il \ j.S'
Subject: City Cou ncil Appeal Feb 41', 2025: Reject AT&T Cell Tower Proposal at 3111 Benton Street and Support Addendum to Appeal ·f L N ;). 5" - Ot:> o .;l. e, Honorab le City Council Members,
We, the undersigned Santa Clara residents , urge you to reject the proposed AT&T cell tower at 3111 Benton Street, and direct AT&T to explore more appropriate locations . We are deeply concerned about the negative impacts and ask you to review the addendum to our Feb 11 appeal for full details. Key Reasons for requesting rejection and relocation of towers:
,,__ 1. Proximity & Code Violation: The proposed cell towe r violates the spirit of the city's new 300-foot setback rule and is an irresponsible placemen t by common sense interpretation. Many cities, like Los Altos, Fremont, and Beverly Hills, require 500-1000 feet from homes,

2. Aesthetic Concerns: The towers will be an eyesore , detracting from the neighborhood. The Historic Pomeroy Green area mighty need additional review from authorities.

5. Risk of Fire: Cell towers can catch fire and spread rapidly.

6. Inadequate Alternatives: AT&T has overtoo'ked viable alternative locations proposed by residents, seemingly choosing the church site for convenience at expense of residents.

Alternative Locatio ns:We urge you to direct AT&T to fully explore: City public right-of-way, Central Park, Saratoga Creek right-of-way, Eart Carmichael Park, and a commercial property.

These are in our addendum.

This project burdens our community . Prioritize resident well being over financial gains for AT&T/church . We urge rejection of the 3111 Benton St cell tower and relocate it elsewhere more compatible. See addendum for full details.
(Printed Name)
GG.0Rrpt3 :3oH0.50 V
PrJ?/r.~'J0k---V
_fl\Ait f DJ o / I
I \I;:\~ Pol'\€ rcy
Ito 5 folk(a)
(Address) ) 1/
~~I /'3.EtiVT<J ,J
J;J.. IS- f!>(d-.1> ~
\(6) fotv'--e,,r-{)t
Neighborhood Residents (AT&T Tower Relocation Group)
Feb 2025
To: The Honorable Members of the Santa Clara City Council \ ~.5'
Subject: City Council Appeal Feb K , 2025: Reject AT&T Cell Tower Proposal at 3111 Benton Street and Support Addendum to Appeal p l-/V ~ S-- O (:J o a_ Cj_ Honorable City Council Members,
We, the undersigned Santa Clara residents , urge you to reject the proposed AT&T cell tower at 3111 Benton Street, and direct AT&T to explore more appropriate locations . We are deeply concerned about the negative impacts and ask you to review the addendum to our Feb 11 appeal for full details . Key Reasons for requesting rejection and relocation of towers:
~ 1. Proximity & Code Violation: The proposed cell tower violates the spirit of the city's new 300-foot setback rule and is an irresponsible placement by common sense interpretation . Many cities, like Los Altos , Fremont, and Beverly Hills, require 500-1000 feet from homes,

2. Aesthetic Concerns : The towers will be an eyesore , detracting from the neighborhood. The Historic Pomeroy Green area mighty need additional review from authorities.

3. Property Value Loss: Cell towers lower values . Our addendum estimates multi-million dollar losses ($8M in one scenario) for homeowners, impact ing city tax revenues. This comes at expense of benefits to AT&T/church .

4. Health Concerns: We're concerned about health risks, espec ially for children, from radio frequency radition. Ripon schools decomm issioned towers due to cancer clusters . Santa Clara High is within 300ft; this location would also have 8+ base stations including Verizon towers.

5. Risk of Fire: Cell towers can catch fire and spread rapidly.

6. Inadequate Alternatives: AT&T has overlooked viable alternative locations proposed by residents, seeming ly choosing the church site for, convenience at expense of residents .

Alternative Locations :We urge you to direct AT&T to fully explore : City public right-of-way , Centra l Park , Saratoga Creek right-of-way, Earl Carmichael Park, and a commercia l property .

These are in our addendum .

Sincerely,
(Printed Name)
From: Planning Public Comment
To: Planning Public Comment
Subject: Automatic reply: Regarding PLN23-00148, installation of a 60-foot-monotree or an alternative 3 lower cell towers in the parking lot by AT&T in Santa Clara First Baptist Church Date: Monday, December 2, 2024 9:40:37 AM
Auto Reply: Your email has been received in the Planning Public Comment email box.

Code Enforcement complaints should be submitted via MySantaClara located on the City’s website or by downloading the MySantaClara App from your mobile device.

For more information on services provided by the Planning Division please visit the City of Santa Clara Planning Division webpage. COVID-19 Updates are also available on the City’s website.

Thank you for your patience and cooperation. We wish you a happy holiday season! Thank you,
City of Santa Clara
Community Development Department
Planning Division

PMM
PC Meeting 12/04/24
RTC 24-1194
Item 2
From: Planning Public Comment
To: Planning Public Comment; Lesley Xavier; Elizabeth Elliott Cc: Eric Crutchlow; Nancy Biagini; Priya Cherukuru; Qian Huang; Lance Saleme; Mario Bouza; Yashraj Bhatnagar; [email protected];
Subject: RE: Regarding PLN23-00148, installation of a 60-foot-monotree or an alternative 3 lower cell towers in the parking lot by AT&T in Santa Clara First Baptist Church Date: Monday, December 2, 2024 9:40:33 AM
Attachments: AT&T cell tower rejection signatures_ 11_26_2024.pdf image001.png
image003.png
Good Morning,
Your email has been received in the Planning Division and will be part of the public record on this item.

Thank you for taking the time to provide your input.

Regards,
ELIZABETH ELLIOTT | Staff Aide II
Community Development Department | Planning Division
1500 Warburton Avenue | Santa Clara, CA 95050
O : 408.615.2450 Direct : 408.615.2474
From: Yongli Wen
Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2024 2:17 AM
To: Planning Public Comment <[email protected]>; Lesley Xavier <[email protected]>; Elizabeth Elliott <[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]>; [email protected]; Sudharani Ravi Subject: Re: Regarding PLN23-00148, installation of a 60-foot-monotree or an alternative 3 lower cell towers in the parking lot by AT&T in Santa Clara First Baptist Church Dear Sir/Madam,
I'm Yongli Wen, the immediate neighbor of Santa Clara First Baptist Church. I'm writing regarding PLN23-00148, installation of a 60-foot-monotree or an alternative 3 lower cell towers in the parking lot by AT&T in Santa Clara First Baptist Church.

Almost all of the neighbors and I strongly oppose the above two cell tower installation plans, our comment is a BIG NO. We stated our comments, the reasons for the objection and the suggestions in the attached letter. So far 29 neighbors signed the letter. We hope you can consider the neighbor's opinions seriously.

Sincerely,

Yongli Wen
Cc: First Baptist Church and AT&T
A TT& T cell tower rejection letter and signatures
J L
November 26, 202 4
From: Neighborhood Residen ts
To: Santa Clara Planning Commission Board Members:

Re: Proje ct File No.: PLN2 3-00148 ("Proposedh1st .allation ") This letter is regarding the installation of a 60-foot-monotree, or an alte1native design with 3 sho1ter sho1ted cell towers located in the parking lot by AT&T on the premises of Santa Clara First Baptist Chu rch at 3111 Benton Sb'eet.

On the 10/23/2024 meeting, we all knew the proposal of the installation of a 60-foot-mono treehad been denied by the planning commissione rs, and we already stated our objections and the reasons for the objection s.

Our neighiborhood communi ty hereby fo1mally submits our letter with signatures opposing this new proposed plan which is the alte1native design with 3 sho1ter sho1ted cell towers located in the parking lot p rior to the meeting which is schedu led for Wednesday , December 4th, 202 4.

We are still stl'ongly opposed to the Proposed New Installation as we believe this plan is not in the best interest of our communi ty. Our response to the Proposed New Installation is l bicr NO.

1. There are two parking lots on t11e premises of the church, not sure which parking lot it will be located in. But on the Google Map, we can see the cell towers will be still less than 500 feet away from the backya1·d fence of nearby houses no matter which parking lot it will be.

Meanwhile many municipali ties, includ ing in Califo1nia, have strict requiremen ts for erecting cell towers near residen tial areas. The following municipali ties, districts, or zones have a l\tllNIMUM of 500 feet setback require1nent to 1,000 feet or 1nore from residen tial prope1ties and/or prope1ty line :

A TT& T cell tower rejection letter and signatures
~ L
require1nent to 1,000 feet 01· 1nore from residen tial prope1t ies and/or property line:
• Los Altos , CA
• Fremon t, CA
• Pleasan ton, CA
• Laguna Beach, CA
• West Los Angeles , CA
• Sou th Los Angeles , CA
• Hollywood , CA
• San Diego, CA
• Beverly Hills, CA
• Calabasas , CA
• Encini tas, CA
• Palm Springs , CA

2. There are already more than FIVE "wireless cell phone base stations" from Verizon at the roof of the main church building , which sits just ~80 feet away from the new AT&T location and is already of major conce1n.

Therefore , with 3 lower cell towers, there will be more than EIGHT wireless base stations on the same premises on the church prope1ty, also 3 lower towers sitting together will make the radiation energy to the nearby residences even more strong, thereby ftuther increasing the potential health risks to the sunoundingresiden ts.

3. We, the neighborhood community , have the followings conce1ns:

A. 11le negati ve health effect .s caused by wireless radiation f1·01n the towers. Illere has NOT been a clear conclusion that cell towers are not hannful to health.

Tilis is a se1ious enough issue that the hlte1uational
Association of Fire Fighters has O})})Osed the inst.allation of cell towers at fire st.ations , where it.s fire fighters live.

A TT& T cell tower rejection letter and signatures
J
Fu1ther reading can be done on their website
httns :/ /vr,l\'W .ia ff. org/ cell-tower-radiation /
B. Risk of fu·e. lllere is a 1isk of fu·e, potentiall y f1"01n a 1nalf1nlction in equip1nent., weather related such as a lightning shike , or arson and ,.,ill be devast.ating for the neighbo1ing houses should one occ,u·.

Cell towers can catch fu·e due to the elechical infl"astn1chu-e required for wireless facilities. vViiing fault.s can create elechical arcs that rea ch te1nperahu·es up to 35,000 degrees fahrenheit., which is hotter than the s1u·face of the stnl, and is oftenrefe1Ted to as an "arc flash."
l\tlalf1nlctions iil trans1nitters, antennas , or wiiing can lead to elechical fu·es. Lightuiilg shikes could also potentiall y cause a fu·e. Due to 1nlpredict.able weather patte1us iil recent years, lightuiilg shikes are also of conce1u. lllere have also been repo1ts of fu·es caused by arson. Ille following are exa1nples of cell phone towers fu·es:
• 2020- ViI·giilia: Entire cell tower caught fire ove1nigh t.

The cause was believed to be equi pment malfunc tion
related to a transfo1mer.
• 2019- Califonlia: Cell tower in Sonoma Coun ty caught fire, potentially due to an electrical fault.
• 2018- New ,Jersey: A fire at a cell tower was attributed to arson . Local authorities investigated the inciden t due to suspiciou s circumstances.
• 2017 - Texas: Cell tower fire occun ed, likely due to equipmen t malfunc tion, as heavy winds and sto1ms were present.
• 2016- Flo1ida: Cell tower caught fire after being stn1ck by lightning .

L
A TT& T cell tower rejection letter and signatures
J
• 2015- Illinois: Cell tower fire was repo1t ed. attributed to equipmen t failure. The fire spread to nearby vegetation. • 2014- No1tb Carolina: A fire was caused by an elecb'ical issue related to the cell tower's lighting equipmen t.
• 2012- Michigan: Cell tower fire occuned , believed to be caused by an equipmen t malfunc tion.

L
• 2011-Alaba1na : Cell tower fire occuned due to a
lightning strik e, causing significan t damage to the stn1cture. • 2009- Georgia : A fire was repo1t ed at a cell tower site, attl'ibuted to equipmen t failure and overhea ting.
• 2008- Colorado : A fire broke out at a cell tower,
suspected to ibe caused by an electl'ical sho1t circuit. • 2006- Ohio: Cell tower caught fire due to a malfunc tion in the power supply system.
• 2005- New York: A fire was linked to an electrical issue at a cell tower site.
• 2004- Louisiana : Cell tower fire was attributed to a lightning strik e.
• 200 3 - Maryland : A fire occuned at a cell tower site due to suspected electrical malfhnc tions.
• 2002- Flo1ida: Cell tower fire was repo1t ed, believed to be caused by equipmen t overheating during extl'eme weather condi tions.
• 2001- Texas : A fire at a cell tower was linked to an arson investigation, where the tower was set on fire delibera tely.

C. Prooe1ty Values. Even with three lower cell towers, we believe they still can be seen f1·01n the backyards 01· the dindows of nearby houses. S01neday, if we decide to sell our houses , we ,.,ill need to disclose to the buyer that 0111· ho1nes are 1ight under two wireless c01noanies' EIGHT cell ohone towers, not to 1nention that the towers will be e:\.1re1nely consoicuous.

A TT& T cell tower rejection letter and signatures
_J
l\tlany real est.ate profess ionals agree tbat potential buyers will not consider purchasing ho1nes in tile nearby vicinity of a cell phone tower. As such, tile Propose d h1st.allation could nega tively iinpact prope1ty values iil tile neighborhood.

4. Se1ious aesthetic 1n·oble1ns to nearby P o1neroy Green Co1mnunity 1) Putting the monotree at said location would present serious aesthetic prnblems. The 60 foot stn1cture or the lower 3 towers planned are much higher and most trees in the neighborhood and will detract from the overall aesthetic qualities of the complex and neighborhood . At Pomeroy Green, all our utilities are placed underground to create a beautifol environment for our residents.
2) Whether it' s the 60 foot monotree or 3 sho1ter monotrees, it will be an eyesore, and will be visible n ot only to all residents of Pomeroy Green but nearby houses i11 the su11"otmding areas.
3) It will be inconsistent with the development in the neighborhood. Pomeroy Green. The Pomeroy Green Coop erative housing complex is registered in the National Register of Historic Places (THE NRHP) and therefore the tower p roject may be required to be reviewed for environmental impacts, including aesthetic, by local and higher government agencies. The tower project may require a pe1mit from the FCC, making the project subject to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. The mnge of envirnnmental impacts may extend to another nearby multifamily complex, Pomeroy West (potentially histolic) and the city' s Earl Crumichael Pru"k.

Those residents and the City' s Pru·ks and Recreation Deprutment should be provided with the notice of public hearing so that those residents and the public can comment on the project
L
4) The Project could easily be located elsewhere i n the City at a location that will solve most of the problems we have enumerated above, as stated in more detail in our letter of November 14, 2024, also on file a nd is pa1t o f the public record in this item. AT&T h as provided no evidence that they have done due diligence in examining other more suitable locations.

ATT&T cell tower rejection letter and signatures
If AT&T really needs to install a new tower in this area, why don't they choose a location that is not so close to someone's backyard? We respectfully urge you to honor the wishes of this community and reject this plan from AT&T, and let them seek out alternate sites.

Sincerely,
S~of~~orh:teY;tsj;
? Jr (J h1~o/i Av€ .
)A.wrvj 3 ~ -i ~A . ,
3'2 /G th~o)~ A1t:f.
\JZ Sv ~\YU-~ u
~];I- tr [-WIV\PD/1 kf e_;
-yct/11 !JM J (J !1tJ17 f/(i ri
31zL(( f-J(}/!11POl-T t?t {tt
5ctf Y\R ~lCU--U o..,f
l l $',..('" Po Me. yo\( ,4 v-e.
~'V\\~ ,½o.Y\.-0c,._\
I\ rr r Or<\(_'Y"6
1 A-v--e.-
'F7c,o.Jv{,'- 0>uf
~:J.-tS t Jbe,n1')Y\ _sk.e_t ·
ATT&T cell tower rejection letter and signatures
~ ~JZ-,{,(_____, Vi~-
:32 }--\'5 1 ~t"6Y\ ~+.

Sa.lm=-- s I d»/IA ~
3 170 ,Hvrmka.fll- µ v
.z?A1(/l-P\ w(µ\ I ~ 00~
31 bo l~~/rol+A~
fv\~U~~
~\~o r\0 MXJO\t Ave
3 tJ1( (
J) I '(V L (\iJ l --- >-/ c
G1~ !li~ ~ Ve /(1.J.A~
; / 4-, t-L~cnbol-t /2 ve
jw-) ~ ~V!
b \:S' I H 1-11')/i) It A t/(l
\1-0s~ -r~~
~UY\ -\\v~C( ~
~ I 7::\'\v\
~' ~ \ \-\V\Y\f\bo\+ hJJ2.

ATT&T cell tower rejection letter and signatures
\f 10\~ \f 1 \\_~ \[ ~¼~
1?-sL ~-:\-, 1.AA..,bol + ~
Jvt,j~D
~sv ~t:.1 h)t,.
~~~
-
..$q ,J-t Ci. c\ ~ '11"t CA- '}S" o .s, l
A TT& T cell tower rejection letter and signatures
J
Appendix: suggested locations instead of
Re: PL 23-00148, APN 290-27-006
3111 Benton Street,
AT&T telecommunication facility, Installation of 60 foot tall monotree.

Planning Commission Hearing; October 23, 2024 (past) &
December 4, 2024 (pending)
Dear Ms. Leslie Xavier,
Please find and consider our sugges tions for alternative sites (map attached) for the installation of the telecommunications monotree facility proposed by AT&T at the 3111 Benton Street site. We believe our suggested locations, rather than the 3111 Benton Avenue site, are more compatible with the neighborhood , particularly neighborhood aesthetics , and will provide the signal coverage desired by AT&T.

Please fonvard our suggested alternatives to AT&T for their consideration and discussion prior to the next Plannin g Cornmission meeting hearing on this project scheduled for December 4.

We consu lted the AT&T coverage maps (" Existing Sites ... Coverage" and " Existing Sites + ... Coverage") provided by AT&T that were included in the attachments for Planning Commission meeting held on October 23. We used those maps to find compatible locations for the monotree in the dark purple and yellow colored areas on the "Existing Sites ... " map where indoor coverage is lacking or less reliable in our neighborhood.

The following are our suggested alternatives for the tower in the dark purple areas of the AT&T coverage map (areas of no coverage to date) that shou ld provide equal or better coverage than the 3 l 11 Benton site; these locations are indicated by a dots on the attached map):

A TT& T cell tower rejection letter and signatures
J

1. Earl Carmichael Park, 3445 Benton Street, rear of park

2. Stratford School, 890 Pomeroy Avenue near school or rear parking lot (*Best Location*)

3. Curtis Field, 890 Pomeroy Avenue, field near Stratford School parking lot

4. Hon1cstcaders 4-H Ranch, 3450 Brookdale Drive, parking lot

5. The Church of Jesus of Latter Day Saints, 875 Quince Avenue, rear parking lot

6. Church in Santa Clara, 3550 Benton Street, parking lot or field next door

7. Church of Chr ist of Santa Clara , 850 Pomeroy Avenue, nortt parking lot, in so il area

8. Neighborhood Christian Center , 887 Pom eroy Avenue , parki lot or lawn in front
The following alternatives for the tower are located in the yellow colored areas of the AT&T ,nap (areas of less reliabl e coverage) th should provide enhance d coverage than the 3 111 Benton site; thes< locations are indica ted by ~ellow co lored dot s on the attached n1ap

1. Central Park, 909 Kiely Blvd. ,especially the area near the baseball field (*Best Location*)

2. Pomeroy Elementary School, 1250 Pomeroy Ave nue, north s of site or field in back

3. Kiely Plaza, 1052- 1092 Kiely Blvd. sout hwest corner of intersection with Benton St.

4. Benton Shopping Center, 3565 Benton St., landscaped areas front of the mall
From: Planning Public Comment
To: Planning Public Comment; Lesley Xavier
Subject: RE: AT&T tower proposed for 3111 Benton Street, Planning Commission meeting scheduled for Dec. 4, 2024; another suggested alternative location
Date: Monday, December 2, 2024 9:42:15 AM
Attachments: AT&T monotree, 3111 Benton Street , Ken Kratz letter to Planning Commision, suggestions; alternative locations for the tower, Salvation Army site.doc
image001.png
image003.png
Good Morning,
Your email has been received in the Planning Division and will be part of the public record on this item.

Thank you for taking the time to provide your input.

Thank you,
Ken Kratz

Nove
mber 25, 2024
3283 Benton Street
Santa Clara, California 95051
Lesl
ie Xavier
Planning Manager
Community Development Department
City of Santa Clara
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
[email protected]
Re: P
LN23-00148, APN 290-27-006
3111 Benton Street (project address),
AT&T telecommunication facility, proposed 60' tall monotree or alternative Planning Commission Hearing; December 4, 2024 (meeting body & date) Dear M
s. Leslie Xavier,
Pleas
e consider relocating the proposed tower for 3111 Benton Street to the Salvation Army located at 3090 Homestead Road. I also submitted to you in an earlier email sent to you on November 25 many other lsuggested alternative locations to site the tower(s).

I bel
ieve my suggested locations, rather than the 3111 Benton Avenue site, are more compatible with the neighborhood, particularly neighborhood aesthetics, and will provide the signal coverage desired by AT&T. I don't' like AT&T's currently proposed alternative to the monotree, the three towers proposed along the frontage of the church at 3111 Benton street will be ugly.

Pleas
e forward this suggested alternative to AT&T for their consideration and discussion prior to the next Planning Commission meeting hearing on this project scheduled for December 4.

I con
sulted the AT&T coverage maps (“Existing Sites...Coverage” and “Existing Sites +... Coverage”) provided by AT&T that were included in the attachments for Planning Commission meeting held on October 23. I used those maps to find compatible locations for the monotree in the dark purple and yellow colored areas on the “Existing Sites... ” map where indoor coverage is lacking or less reliable in the neighborhood. The Homestead location is on the border of purple and yellow areas.

Pleas
e consider all my suggested alternative locations for the installation of the telecommunications facility proposed by AT&T.

Than
k you for considering my alternatives.

Sinc
erely,
Ken Kratz
From: Planning Public Comment
To: Planning Public Comment; Lesley Xavier
Subject: RE: AT&T tower proposed for 3111 Benton Street, Planning Commission meeting scheduled for Dec. 4, 2024 Date: Monday, December 2, 2024 9:43:04 AM
Attachments: AT&T tower, 3111 Benton Street, Ken Kratz letter to City Plan Dept. 11-27-2024.doc image001.png
image003.png
Good Morning,
Your email has been received in the Planning Division and will be part of the public record on this item.

Thank you for taking the time to provide your input.

Thank you,
Ken Kratz

November 27, 2024
3283 Benton Street
Santa Clara, California 95051
Lesli
e Xavier
Planning Manager
Community Development Department
City of Santa Clara
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
[email protected]
Re: P
LN23-00148
APN 290-27-006
Address: 3111 Benton Street
Subject: Conditional Use Permit for unmanned AT&T telecommunication facility Meeting: Planning Commission Hearing Date: December 4, 2024 Dear M
s. Leslie Xavier,
I ob
ject to the above-named project for the following reasons, as explained in my earlier email to you dated October 23, 2024, and request the project be continued to another time until all my concerns below are addressed:

1. Pro
per public notice not provided.

My com
plex where I live, Pomeroy Green located directly west of the project location, still did not receive notice of the project. he City Planning Commission's “Notice of Public Hearing” was not mailed to all of the townhouse units in Pomeroy Green nor was the Pomeroy Green Board of Directors nor the Pomeroy Green Property Manager notified of the proposed tower project.

Pome
roy Green Cooperative has a parcel map filed with the County Assessor’s Office (Book 290, page 69; attached) as well as water/sewer. Solar system bills; therefore, the City should have mailed the notice to all the townhouses in the complex as well as the Pomeroy Green Cooperative Corporation, not just those residents within 500' of the project. The people in this area should have been provided with proper notice in order to consider the ramifications of such a serious project.

2. Aes
thetic concerns that may subject the project to environmental review.

The
tower project will cause aesthetic damage to our complex and neighborhood. The 60-foot structures as well as the alternative towers proposed for he front of the church site are much higher

than all the houses and most trees in the neighborhood and therefore will detract from the overall aesthetic qualities of the complex and neighborhood.

At Po
meroy Green all our utilities are placed underground to create a beautiful environment for our residents. If the tower(s) is/are constructed it will be an eyesore that will be visible from all locations within Pomeroy Green. It will aesthetically impact not only Pomeroy Green but also all the surrounding homes too, those to the north and east of the project.

The P
omeroy Green Cooperative housing complex is registered in the National Register of Historic Places (the NRHP) and, therefore, the tower project may be required to be reviewed for environmental impacts, including aesthetic impacts, by local and higher government agencies. The tower project may require a permit from the FCC, making the project subject to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.

The
range of environmental impacts may extend to another nearby multifamily complex, Pomeroy West (potentially historic) and the City's Earl Carmichael Park. Those residents and the City's Parks and Recreation Department should be provided with the notice of public hearing so that those residents and the public can comment on the project.

We
request the city provide those notices of public hearings and also have the project reviewed under the City's Architectural Review process.

3. Radi
ation danger
Rad
iation and cancer danger to all persons within 500-foot radius of the aforementioned 60 foot telecommunication towers, and all residents of Pomeroy Green, where we live, which has 78 housing units that stand to be impacted by this project. This is a very serious issue because the installation of this tower will generate continuous radiation exposure which will impact health in a negative way according to many medical sources conducted by government agencies, such as Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Food and Drug Administration (FDA) & World Health Organization (WHO), and others.

The
se tall telecommunication towers will be irradiating us 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. AT&T, as well as the Baptist Church, must not take economic advantage, for economic purpose, while endangering the health and well-being of so many residents.

Duri
ng my conversation with the manager of the adjacent Baptist Church, he mentioned that AT&T came to them offering monthly compensation for allowing this project. AT&T wants to use the church property; the personnel at AT&T, as well as the most members of the Baptist Church, likely do not live in this area and are only exposed to the radiation a few hours a week.

It is
very well known in scientific literature by institutions such as National Cancer Institute (NCI), International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) & Federal Drug Administration (FDA) that radiation is a health hazard, that exposure to RF energy can have harmful effects. We know that we are subject to some radiation, but this project will expose us to 24 hours a day of powerful radiation. We don’t want future clusters of cancer in this neighborhood, especially since there are other areas in Santa Clara where this tower can be placed. For instance, Santa Clara Central Park & open areas not near to residential areas where this project would be such a threat to harm people

4. Attrac
tive nuisance
The pr
oposed tower will create an attractive nuisance. Young people including preteens from our neighborhood and schools nearby (Santa Clara High School. Pomeroy Elementary, Strafford Schools) may find the tower a challenge to climb. Pomeroy Green has problems with young people and children crossing our property and entering our pool area that is surrounded by a 6’ high cyclone fence.

5. Pro
ject could be located elsewhere in the city
The pr
oject could easily be placed in another location in the city that will solve most of the problems we have enumerated above. I provided many alternative locations for the tower(s) in earlier emails to you.

Than
k you for considering my concerns and please continue/postpone the project to a alter date so that my concerns can be explored and addressed.

Sinc
erely,
Ken
Kratz
From: Planning Public Comment
To: Planning Public Comment; Lesley Xavier; Elizabeth Elliott Cc: Eric Crutchlow; Nancy Biagini; Priya Cherukuru; Qian Huang; Lance Saleme; Mario Bouza; Yashraj Bhatnagar; [email protected];
Subject: RE: Lee Benton"s letter, Regarding PLN23-00148, installation of a 60-foot-monotree or an alternative 3 lower cell towers in the parking lot by AT&T in Santa Clara First Baptist Church Date: Monday, December 2, 2024 9:41:28 AM
Attachments: image001.png
Lee"s letter.pdf
image002.png
Good Morning,
Your email has been received in the Planning Division and will be part of the public record on this item.

Thank you for taking the time to provide your input.

Regards,
ELIZABETH ELLIOTT | Staff Aide II
Community Development Department | Planning Division
1500 Warburton Avenue | Santa Clara, CA 95050
O : 408.615.2450 Direct : 408.615.2474
From: Yongli Wen
Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2024 2:27 AM
To: Planning Public Comment <[email protected]>; Lesley Xavier <[email protected]>; Elizabeth Elliott <[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]>; [email protected]; Sudharani Ravi Subject: Re: Lee Benton's letter, Regarding PLN23-00148, installation of a 60-foot-monotree or an alternative 3 lower cell towers in the parking lot by AT&T in Santa Clara First Baptist Church Dear Sir/Madam,
I'm Yongli Wen, the immediate neighbor of Santa Clara First Baptist Church. I'm sending you a letter on behave of my neighbor Lee and Laura Benton. Because somehow they can't deliver their letter to you by email.

Their letter is regarding PLN23-00148, installation of a 60-foot-monotree or an alternative 3 lower cell towers in the parking lot by AT&T in Santa Clara First Baptist Church. Please see the attached letter. As almost all of the neighbors, they strongly oppose the two cell tower installation plans.

Sincerely,

Yongli Wen
Cc: First Baptist Church and AT&T
Lee and Laura Benton
3232 Humbolt Ave
Santa Clara CA 95051
November 26. 2024
Dear City Official's Santa Clara Planning Department,
I am writing to express my concern regarding the proposed installation of a communication tower near our property, specifically in close proximity to our backyard .

As a resident of this community for over 20 years, I have grown deeply fond of the peaceful and family-friendly environment that Santa Clara offers. The prospect of this tower being constructed in our neighborhood has raised several concerns for my family and me, and I hope that the city will take these issues into careful consideration before moving forward with the project.

1. Health Concerns: Our primary concern is the potential health risks associated with the installation of the tower. We are aware of ongoing debates surrounding the safety of electromagnetic radiation and the possible long-term effects of exposure. While we understand that current regulations may deem such installations safe, we are still apprehensive about the proximity of the tower to our home, where our children and family members spend much of their time. We kindly request that the city provide more information about the safety measures in place and the steps being taken to ensure that residents are not exposed to harmful levels of radiation.

2. Noise and Disruption: Another concern is the potential noise that may result from the installation and operation of the tower. We are concerned that the equipment could create noise pollution that would disrupt the tranquility of our home and the surrounding area. We ask that the city evaluate the potential for noise disturbanc e, especia lly during installation and maintenance periods, and take necessary actions to mitigate this issue.

3. Preserving the Character of the Neighborhood: Our family chose to move to Santa Clara two decades ago because of its welcoming and peaceful atmosphere, which is something we deeply value. We are concerned that the installation of this tower so close to residential homes could alter the character of our neighborhood, making it less. family-friendly and potentially decreas ing property values. We would appreciate the city's consideration of alternative locations for the tower, ideally in areas that are less densely populated and where fewer residents would be affected .

4. Alt~rnative locations : We also believe that there are other locations within the city that would be more appropriate for the tower, such as commercial or industrial areas with fewer homes nearby. We urge the city to explore these options to minimize the impact on the residential areas surrounding the proposed site.

We understand that Santa Clara, like many growing cities, requires infrastructure to support its development. However, we hope that the city will prioritize the health, safety, and well-being of its residents as it moves forward with this project. We respectfully request that the city conduct a thorough review of the proposed tower installation and take all community concerns into account before proceeding.

Thank you for your time and attention to this important matter. We look forward to your response and to further discussions about how we can work together to ensure that Santa Clara remains a safe and vibrant community for all residents .

Sincerely,
Lee and Laura Benton
~~~
LL -~~
Lesley Xavier
From:

Sent:

To:

Cc:

Subject:

Sudharani Ravi
Saturday, November 23, 2024 6:46 PM
Correspondence
12/4/24 Planning Commission Meeting
3111 Benton Street
RTC 24- 1194
Planning Public Comment; tvien@santac laraca.gov; Lesley Xavier; Eric Crutchlow; Nancy Biagini; Priya Cherukuru; Qian Huang; Lance Saleme; Mario Bouza; Yashraj Bhatnagar; [email protected]; Elizabeth Elliott
Rajiv Pendyala; Sudharani Ravi
Re: PLN23-00148 ("Proposed installation of a 60-foot-monotree by AT&T in Santa Clara First Baptist Church
, Some people who received this message don't often get email from Learn why this is important From: Neighborhood Residents
To: Santa Clara Planning Commission Board Members and to the Church board members:

This letter is regarding the installation of a 60-foot-monotree, or an alternative design with 3 shorter shorted cell towers located in the parking lot by AT&T on the premises of Santa Clara First Baptist Church at 3111 Benton Street.

On the 10/23/2024 meeting, we all knew the proposal of the installation of a 60-foot-monotree had been denied by the planning commissioners, and we already stated our objections and the reasons for the objections.

Our neighborhood community hereby formally submits our letter with signatures opposing this new proposed plan which is the alternative design with 3 shorter shorted cell towers located in the parking lot prior to the meeting which is scheduled for Wednesday, December 4th, 2024.

We are still strongly opposed to the Proposed New Installation as we believe this plan is not in the best interest of our community . Our response to the Proposed New Installation is a big NO.

1. There are two parking lots on the premises of the church, not sure which parking lot it will be located in.

But on the Google Map, we can see the cell towers will be still less than 500 feet away from the backyard fence of nearby houses no matter which parking lot it will be.

Meanwhile many municipalities, including in California, have strict requirements for erecting cell towers near residential areas. The following municipalities, districts, or zones have a MINIMUM of 500 feet setback requirement to 1,000 feet or more from residential properties and/or property line:
•
•
• Los Altos, CA
•
•
•
• Fremont, CA
•
•
•
• Pleasanton, CA
•
•
•
• Laguna Beach, CA
•
•
•
• West Los Angeles, CA
•
•
•
• 2020 - Virginia:
• Entire cell tower caught fire overnight. The cause was believed to be equipment • malfunction related to a transformer .
•
•
•
• 2019 - California:
• Cell tower in Sonoma County caught fire, potentially due to an electrical fault. •
•
•
• 2018 - New Jersey:
• A fire at a cell tower was attributed to arson. Local authorities investigated • the incident due to suspicious circumstances .
•
•
•
• 2017 - Texas:
• Cell tower fire occurred, likely due to equipment malfunction, as heavy winds • and storms were present.
•
•
•
• 2016 - Florida:
• Cell tower caught fire after being struck by lightning . •
•
•
• 2015 - Illinois:
• Cell tower fire was reported, attributed to equipment failure. The fire spread • to nearby vegetation .
•
•
•
• 2014 - North Carolina:
• A fire was caused by an electrical issue related to the cell tower's lighting • equipment.
•
•
•
• 2012 - Michigan:
• Cell tower fire occurred, believed to be caused by an equipment malfunction . •
•
•
• 2011 - Alabama:
• Cell tower fire occurred due to a lightning strike, causing significant damage to the •
•
•
structure .
• 2009 - Georgia:
3 3. Putting the monotree at said location would present

4. serious aesthetic problems .

5. The 60 foot structure or the lower 3 towers planned are much higher and most trees in the neighborhood will detract from the overall aesthetic qualities of the complex and neighborhood. At Pomeroy Green, all our utilities are placed underground to create

6. a beautiful environment for our residents .

7. 8.

9. 10. Whether it's the 60 foot monotree or 3 shorter monotrees , it will be an eyesore, and will be visible

11. not only to all residents of Pomeroy Green but nearby houses in the surrounding areas.

12. 13.

14. 15. It will be inconsistent with the development in the neighborhood . Pomeroy Green. The Pomeroy Green

16. Cooperative housing complex is registered in the National Register of

17. Historic Places (THE NRHP]

18. and therefore the tower project may be required to be reviewed for environmental

19. impacts , including aesthetic, by local and higher

20. government agencies.

21. The tower project may require a permit from the FCC, making the project subject 22 . to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. The range of 23 . environmental impacts

24. may extend to another nearby multifamily complex , Pomeroy West (potentially historic) and the city's Earl Carmichael Park . Those residents and the City 's Parks and Recreation Department should be

25. provided with the notice of public hearing

26. so that those residents and the public can comment on the project.

27. 28.
29 .

30. The Project could easily be
31 . located elsewhere in the City

32. at a location that will solve most of the problems we have enumerated above , as stated

33. in more detail in our letter of November 14, 2024, also on file and is part of

34. the public record in this item. AT&T has provided no evidence that they have done due diligence in examining other more suitable locations.

35. If AT&T really needs to install a new tower in this area, why don't they choose a location that is not so close to someone's backyard?
We respectfully urge you to honor the wishes of this community and reject this plan from AT&T, and let them seek out alternate sites .

Sincerely,
Sudharani Pendyala and Rajiv Pendyala
On Fri, Nov 22, 2024 at 6:34 PM Sudharani Ravi
From :

Sudharani Pendyala
Rajiv Pendyala
wrote :
5 Lesley Xavier
From:

Sent:

To:

Cc:

Sudharani Ravi
Friday, November 22, 2024 6:34 PM
Planning Public Comment; [email protected]; Lesley Xavier; Eric Crutchlow; Nancy Biagini; Priya Cherukuru; Qian Huang; Lance Saleme; Mario Bouza; Yashraj Bhatnagar; [email protected]; Elizabeth Elliott
Rajiv Pendyala; Sudharani Ravi
Subject: PLN23-00148 ("Proposed installation of a 60-foot -monotree by AT&T in Santa Clara First Baptist Church
Some people who received this message don't often get email from From:

Sudharani Pendyala
Rajiv Pendyala
Dear Ms. Xavier and Ms . Elliot:

Learn why this is important
This is an addendum to our lett er or October 22, 2024 and our letter of November 14, 2024, both of which are already on file and part of the public record on this item. \Ve reiterate that we strongly object to the location of the proposed 60 foot tall monotree, or any monotree on the 3111 Benton Street site, at the Santa Clara Baptist Church or either of the parking lots or buildings which are adjacent to it or anywhere on that site.

As stated in our letter o {. October 22, 2024, we object for the following reasons :

I . !nstallation of the mono tree at said location is a health hazard to the people livin g in our home and many homes nearby. Nobody should be subjected to being radiated 24 hours a day for 7 days a week.

This is an unacceptable risk to us and many other people living in homes so close to the location of the mono tree .

2. Putting the monotree at said location would present serious aesthetic problems. The 60 foot structure planned is much higher and most trees in the neighborhood will detract from the overall aesthetic qualities of the comp lex and neighborhood . At Pomeroy Green , all our utilities are placed underground to create a beautiful environment for our residents.

3. \Vhether it ' s the 60 foot monotree or 3 shorter monotrees , it will be an eyesore, and will be visible not only to all residents of Pomeroy Green but nearby houses in the surrounding areas.

4. It wil l be inconsistent with the development in the neighborhood---Pomeroy Green. The Pomeroy Green Cooperative housing comp lex is registered in the National Register of Historic Places (THE NRHP] and therefore the tower project may be required to be reviewed for environmental impacts, including aesthetic, by local and higher government agencies. The tower project may require a pennit from the FCC, making the project subject to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. The range of environmental impacts may extend to another nearby multifamily complex, Pomeroy West (potentially historic) and the city 's Earl Cannichael Park . Those residents and 1 Lesley Xavier
From: Xiaoling Wang
Sent:

To:

Friday, November 22, 2024 3:59 PM
Planning Public Comment; Lesley Xavier; Lesley Xavier; Elizabeth Elliott Cc: Eric Crutchlow; Nancy Biagini; Priya Cherukuru; Qian Huang; Lance Saleme; Mario Bouza; Yashraj Bhatnagar; [email protected]
Subject: Fw: Regarding PLN23-00148, installation of a 60-foot-monotree by AT&T in Santa Clara First Baptist Church
Follow Up Flag:

Flag Status:

You don't often get email from
Follow up
Flagged
Leslie Xavier, Planning Manager
Elizabeth Elliot, Staff Aide ii
Community Development Department
City of Santa Clara
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
Re: PLN23-00148, APN 290-27-008
3111 Benton Street
. Learn why this is important
3190 Humbolt Ave.

Santa Clara, California 95051
AT&T telecommunication facility, Installation of 60 foot tall monotree Planning Commission Hearing: October 23, 2024(past) & December 4, 2924(pending) Dear Ms. Xavier and Ms. Elliot:

Lesley Xavier
From:

Sent:

To:

Cc:

Subject:

Xiaoling Wang
Sunday, November 24, 2024 2:55 AM
Planning Public Comment; Lesley Xavier; Elizabeth Elliott Eric Crutch low; Nancy Biagini ; Priya Cherukuru; Qian Huang ; Lance Saleme; Mario Bouza; Yashraj Bhatnagar; [email protected]
Re: Regarding PLN23-00148, installation of a 60-foot-monotree by AT&T in Santa Clara First Baptist Church
3190 Humbolt Ave.

Santa Clara, California 95051
Leslie Xavier, Planning Manager
Elizabeth Elliot, Staff Aide ii
Community Development Department
City of Santa Clara
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
Re: PLN23-00148, APN 290-27-008, 3111 Benton Street, AT&T telecommunication facility, Installation of 60 foot tall monotree, or an alternative design with 3 lower cell towers in the parking lot.

Planning Commission Hearing: October 23, 2024(past) & December 4, 2924(pending) Dear Ms. Xavier and Ms. Elliot:

This Email is regarding the installation of a 60-foot-monotree, or an alternative design with 3 shorter shorted cell towers located in the parking lot by AT&T on the premises of Santa Clara First Baptist Church at 3111 Benton Street.

On the l 0/23/2024 meeting, we all knew the proposal of the installation of a 60-foot monotree had been denied by the planning commissioners, and we already stated our objections and the reasons for the objections.

2. There are already more than FIVE "wire less cell phone base stations" from Verizon at the roof of the main church building, which sits just ~80 feet away from the new AT&T location and is already of major concern.

Therefore, with 3 lower cell towers, there will be more than EIGHT wireless base stations on the same premises on the church property, also 3 lower towers sitting together will make the radiation energy to the nearby residences even more strong, thereby further increasing the potential health risks to the surrounding residents.

3. We, the neighborhood community, have the followings concerns:

A. The negative health effects caused by wireless radiation from the towers. There has NOT been a clear conclusion that cell towers are not harmful to health.

This is a serious enough issue that the International Association of Fire Fighters has opposed the installation of cell towers at fire stations, where its fire fighters live.

Further reading can be done on their website Cell Tower Radiation Health Effects - IAFF
Cell Tower Radiation Health Effects - IAFF
Cell Tower Radiation Health Effects - IAFF
B. Risk of fire. There is a risk of fire, potentially from a malfunction in equipment, weather related such as a lightning strike, or arson and will be devastating for the neighboring houses should one occur.

Cell towers can catch fire due to the electrical infrastructure required for wireless facilities. Wiring faults can create electrical arcs that reach 3 • 2006 - Ohio: Cell tower caught fire due to a malfunction in the power supply system.
• 2005 - New York: A fire was linked to an electrical issue at a cell tower site.
• 2004 - Louisiana: Cell tower fire was attributed to a lightning strike.
• 2003 - Maryland: A fire occurred at a cell tower site due to suspected electrical malfunctions.
• 2002 - Florida: Cell tower fire was repo1ied, believed to be caused by equipment overheating during extreme weather conditions. • 2001 - Texas: A fire at a cell tower was linked to an arson investigation, where the tower was set on fire deliberately.

C. Property Values. Even with three lower cell towers, we believe they still can be seen from the backyards or the dindows of nearby houses.

Someday, if we decide to sell our houses, we will need to disclose to the buyer that our homes are right under two wireless companies' EIGHT cell phone towers, not to mention that the towers will be extremely conspicuous.

Many real estate professionals agree that potential buyers will not consider purchasing homes in the nearby vicinity of a cell phone tower.

As such, the Proposed Installation could negatively impact property values in the neighborhood.

4. Serious aesthetic problems to nearby Pomeroy Green Community I) Putting the monotree at said location would present serious aesthetic problems. The 60 foot strncture or the lower 3 towers planned are much higher and most trees in the neighborhood and will detract from the overall aesthetic qualities of the complex and neighborhood. At Pomeroy Green, all our utilities are placed underground to create a beautiful environment for our residents.
2) Whether it's the 60 foot monotree or 3 shorter monotrees , it will be an eyesore, and will be visible not only to all residents of Pomeroy Green but nearby houses in the sun-ounding areas.
3) It will be inconsistent with the development in the neighborhood. Pomeroy Green. The Pomeroy Green Cooperative housing complex is registered in the National 5 Lesley Xavier
From:

Sent:

To:

Cc:

Subject:

Yongli Wen
Sunday, November 24, 2024 2:46 AM
Planning Public Comment; Lesley Xavier; Elizabeth Elliott Eric Crutchlow ; Nancy Biagini; Priya Cherukuru; Qian Huang; Lance Saleme; Mario Bouza; Yashraj Bhatnagar; [email protected]
Regarding PLN23-00148, installation of a 60-foot -monotree or an alternative 3 lower cell towers in the park ing lot by AT&T in Santa Clara First Baptist Church November 24, 2024
3 190 Humbolt Ave.

Santa Clara, California 95051
Leslie Xavier, Planning Manager
Elizabeth Elliot , Staff Aide ii
Community Development Depatiment
City of Santa Clara
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
Re: PLN23 -00148, APN 290-27-008, 3111 Benton Street, AT&T telecommunication facility, Installation of 60 foot tall monotree, or an alternative design with 3 lower cell towers in the parking lot.

Planning Commission Hearing: October 23, 2024(past) & December 4, 2924(pending) Dear Ms. Xavier and Ms. Elliot:

2. There are already more than FIVE "wire less cell phone base stations" from Verizon at the roof of the main church building, which sits just ~80 feet away from the new AT&T location and is already of major concern.

3. We, the neighborhood community, have the followings concerns:

A. The negative health effects caused by wireless radiation from the towers. There has NOT been a clear conclusion that cell towers are not harmful to health.

This is a serious enough issue that the International Association of Fire Fighters has opposed the installation of cell towers at fire stations, where its fire fighters live.

Further reading can be done on their website Ce ll Tower Radiation Health Effects - IAFF
Cell Tower Radiation Health Effects - IAFF
B. Risk of fire. There is a risk of fire, potentially from a malfunction in equipment, weather related such as a lightning strike, or arson and will be devastating for the neighboring houses should one occur.

C. Property Values. Even with three lower cell towers, we believe they still can be seen from the backyards or the dindows of nearby houses.

Many real estate professionals agree that potential buyers will not consider purchasing homes in the nearby vicinity of a cell phone tower.

As such, the Proposed Installation could negatively impact property values in the neighborhood.

4. Serious aesthetic problems to nearby Pomeroy Green Community 1) Putting the monotree at said location would present serious aesthetic problems. The 60 foot structure or the lower 3 towers planned are much higher and most trees in the neighborhood and will detract from the overall aesthetic qualities of the complex and neighborhood. At Pomeroy Green, all our utilities are placed underground to create a beautiful environment for our residents.
2) Whether it's the 60 foot monotree or 3 shorter monotrees, it will be an eyesore, and will be visible not only to all residents of Pomeroy Green but nearby houses in the surroµnding areas.
3) It will be inconsistent with the development in the neighborhood. Pomeroy Green. The Pomeroy Green Cooperative housing complex is registered in the National Register of Historic Places (THE NRHP] and therefore the tower project may be required to be reviewed for environmental impacts, including aesthetic, by local and higher government agencies. The tower project may require a permit from the FCC, making the project subject to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. The range of environmental impacts may extend to another nearby multifamily complex, Pomeroy West (potentially historic) and the city's Earl Carmichael Park. Those 5 Lesley Xavier
From:

Sent:

To:

Cc:

Subject:

Follow Up Flag:

Flag Status:

YongliWe •-~ 1 111-..1
Friday, November 22, 2024 355 PM
Planning Public Comment; Lesley Xavier; Elizabeth Elliott Eric Crutchlow; Nancy Biagini; Priya Cherukuru; Qian Huang; Lance Saleme; Mario Bouza; Yashraj Bhatnagar ; [email protected]
Re: Regarding PLN23-00148, installation of a 60-foot-monotree by AT&T in Santa Clara First Baptist Church
Follow up
Flagged
November 22, 2024
3190 Humbolt Ave.

Santa Clara, California 95051
Leslie Xavier, Planning Manager
Elizabeth Elliot , Staff Aide ii
Community Development Depa1tment
City of Santa Clara
1500 Warburton A venue
Santa Clara , CA 95050
Re : PLN23-00148, APN 290-27-008
3111 Benton Street
AT&T telecommunication facility, Installation of 60 foot tall monotree Planning Commission Hearing: October 23, 2024(past) & December 4, 2924(pending) Dear Ms. Xavier and Ms. Elliot:

From:

To:

Subject:

Date:

Attachments:

Good Morning,
PlanninqCommission
PlanninqCommission; Lesley Xavier
RE: - Proposed tower at 3111 Benton St. - Meeting 4Dec2024 Tuesday, November 26, 2024 9:52:00 AM
image00l. png
imaqe003.png
Your email has been received in the Planning Division and will be part of the public record on this item.

Thank you for taking the time to provide you input.

Regards,
ELIZABETH ELLIOTT I Staff Aide 11
Communit y Development Department I Planning Division
1500 Warburton Avenue I Santa Clara, CA 95050
0: 408.615.2450 Direct: 408.615.2474
From:

Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2024 1:00 AM
To: PlanningCommission <[email protected]> Subject: Consent Calendar Item #24-1194 - Propo sed tow er at 3111 Benton St. - Meeting 4Dec2024 Dear Planning Commission,
As I've communicated before, my husband and I live in the historic (Federal & State) complex next to the church and continue to be concerned about the location of this cell tower. It looks like it'll be right up against our complex and a major eyesore. If it must be done, please consider all the alternative locations suggested by Ken Kratz and Nick Rossi. Those other locations don't directly overlook residences.

I'm also concerned about cancer-causing radiation, but I've been told that the city doesn't care about that. We have no cell phones, no smart appliances, no wifi of any kind in our house, so we're doing the best we can.

Thanks!
Sincere ly,
Diane Harrison
3283 Benton St.

Santa Clara, CA 95051
(land of the Oh lone and Muwekma Ohlone people)
Member: Santa Clara County Green Party County Council
P.S. If AT&T is paying anyone for this tower, the money should be divided up among everyone impacted. That, in fact, is a good argument for putting it at the high school since I expect they could use the money.

From: Planning Public Comment
Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2024 9:36 AM
To: Ken Kratz ; Planning Public Comment
<[email protected]>; Lesley Xavier <[email protected]> Subject: RE: AT&T tower proposed for 3111 Benton Street, Planning Commission meeting scheduled for Dec. 4, 2024; suggested alternative locations
Thank you for your email . It has been received in the Planning Division and will be part of the public record on this item.

Thank you,
Elizabeth Elliott I Staff Aide 11
Community Development Department I Planning Division
1500 Warburton Avenue I Santa Clara, CA 95050
0: 408.615.2450 I D: 408.615.2474
www .SantaClaraCA.gov
From: Ken Kratz
Sent: Monday, November 25, 2024 3:42 PM
To: Planning Public Comment <PlanningPub licComment@santaclaraca .gov> Subject: AT&T tower proposed for 3111 Benton Street, Planning Commission meeting scheduled for Dec. 4, 2024; suggested alternative locations
Dear Planning Department,
Please find attached my letter and attachment regarding the AT&T tower project proposed for 3111 Benton Street. Please forward the attachments to the Planning Commission for their meeting scheduled for Dec. 4, 2024.

Please download (not preview) the PDF file of the map in order to see all the information.

Thank you,
Ken Kratz
Leslie Xavier
Planning Manager
Community Development Department
City of Santa Clara
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara , CA 95050
PlanningPublicComment@SantaClaraCA .gov
Re: PLN23-00148, APN 290-27-006
3111 Benton Street (project address),
November 25, 2024
3283 Benton Street
Santa Clara, California 95051
AT&T telecommunication facility, proposed 60' tall monotree or alternative Planning Commission Hearing; December 4, 2024 (meeting body & date) Dear Ms. Leslie Xavier,
Please find and forward to the Planning Commission this letter and my suggestions for alternative sites (map attached ; please download map to see all the information) for the installation of the telecommunications monotree facility proposed by AT&T at the 3111 Benton Street site. My recommendations are in substantial agreement with ones provided to you by the Rossi family in their email to you recently .

I believe my suggested locations , rather than the 3111 Benton Avenue site , are more compatible with the neighborhood, particularly neighborhood aesthetics , and will provide the signal coverage desired by AT&T. I don't' like the proposed alternativ e to the monot ree: the three towers proposed along the frontage of the church at 3111 Benton street will be ugly.

Please forward my suggested alternatives to AT&T for their consideration and discussion prior to the next Planning Commission meeting hearing on this project scheduled for December 4.

I consulted the AT&T coverage maps (" Existing Sites ... Coverage" and "Existing Sites+ ... Coverage") provided by AT&T that were included in the attachments for Planning Commission meeting held on October 23. I used those maps to find compatible locations for the monotree in the dark purple and yellow colored areas on the "Existing Sites ... " map where indoor coverage is lacking or less reliable in the neighborhood.

The following are my suggested alternatives for the tower in the dark purple areas of the AT&T coverage map (areas of no coverage to date) that should provide equal or better coverage than the 3111 Benton site: these locations are indicated by ■ dots on the attached map):

1. Earl Carmichael Park, 3445 Benton Street, rear of park

2. Stratford School, 890 Pomeroy Avenue near school or rear parking lot (*Good Location*)

3. Curtis Field, 890 Pomeroy Avenue, field near Stratford School parking lot

4. Homesteaders 4-H Ranch, 3450 Brookdale Drive, parking lot

5. The Church of Jesus of Latter Day Saints, 875 Quince Avenue, rear parking lot

6. Church in Santa Clara, 3550 Benton Street, parking lot or field next door

7. Church of Christ of Santa Clara, 850 Pomeroy Avenue, north parking lot , in soil area (*8.e..s.t._ Location* , monotree will complete a row of existing trees)

8. Neighborhood Christian Center, 887 Pomeroy Avenue, parking lot or lawn in front

9. (not numbered) Santa Clara High School, west side in back of school) The following alternatives for the tower are located in the yellow colored areas of the AT&T map (areas of less reliable coverage) that should provide enhanced coverage than the 3111 Benton site; these locations are indicated by yellow colored dots on the attached map :

1. Central Park, 909 Kiely Blvd.,especially the area near the baseball field (*Good Location*)

2. Pomeroy Elementary School, 1250 Pomeroy Avenue, north side of site or field in back

3. Kiely Plaza, 1052-1092 Kiely Blvd. southwest corner of intersection with Benton St.

4. Benton Shopping Center, 3565 Benton St., landscaped areas in front of the mall Please consider all the above sites for the installation of the telecommunications facility proposed by AT&T. I highly recommend the parking lot or field behind Stratford School, 890 Pomeroy Avenue, or the Church of Christ of Santa Clara, 850 Pomeroy Avenue, or Santa Clara Central Park, especially near the baseball field .

Thank you for considering my alternatives .

Sincerely,
Ken Kratz
att : map of suggested alternative locations
Alteranative location for the monotr ee.
iii (7,386 unrud) • bl J(. D Tht< Mort 8uuttfu X
. ., ... CityofS.. n1acta r1 ,II( 0 Google Maps G how do ldro,wor1 -... + CJ @] IT]
November 20, 2024
R:ECEIVED
NOV 21 2024
1091 Pomeroy Ave. PLANNING DIVISION
Leslie Xavier, Planning Manager
Elizabeth Elliot, Staff Aide ii
Community Development Department
City of Santa Clara
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
Re: PLN23-00148, APN 290-27-008
3111 Benton Street
Santa Clara, California 95051
(408) 892-0621
AT&T telecommunication facility, Installation of 60 foot tall monotree Planning Commission Hearing: October 23, 2024(past) & December 4, 2924(pending) Dear Ms. Xavier and Ms. Elliot:

This is an addendum to our letter of October 22, 2024 and our letter of November 14, 2024, both of which are already on file and part of the public record on this item. We reiterate that we strongly object to the location of the proposed 60 foot tall monotree, or any monotree on the 3111 Benton Street site, at the Santa Clara Baptist Church or either of the parking lots or buildings which are adjacent to it or anywhere on that site.

As stated in our letter of October 22, 2024, we object for the following reasons:

1. Installation of the monotree at said location is a health hazard to the people living in our home and many homes nearby. Nobody should be subjected to being radiated 24 hours a day for 7 days a week. This is an unacceptable risk to us any many other people living in homes so close to the location of the monotree.

2. Putting the monotree at said location would present serious aesthetic problems. The 60 foot structure planned are much higher and most trees in the neighborhood and will detract from the overall aesthetic qualities of the complex and neighborhood. At Pomeroy Green, all our utilities are placed underground to create a beautiful environment for our residents.

3. Whether it's the 60 foot monotree or 3 shorter monotrees, it will be an eyesore, and will be visible not only to all residents of Pomeroy Green but nearby houses in the surrounding areas.

4. It will be inconsistent with the development in the neighborhood. Pomeroy Green. The Pomeroy Green Cooperative housing complex is registered in the National Register of Historic Places {THE NRHP] and therefore the tower project may be required to be reviewed for environmental impacts, including aesthetic, by local and higher government agencies. The tower project may require a permit from the FCC, making the project subject to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. Ther range of environmental Impacts may extend to another nearby multifamily complex, Pomeroy West (potentially historic) and the city's Earl Carmichael Park. Those residents and the City's Parks and Recreation Department should be provided with the notice of public hearing so that those residents and the public can comment on the project .

5. The Project could easily be located elsehere in the City at a location that will solve most of the problems we have enumerated above, as stated in more detail in our letter of November 14, 2024, also on file and is part of the public record in this item. AT&T has provided no evidence that they have done due diligence in examining other more suitable locations.

Ainc,~re~i A n ~ q~~s~
N~ a ~ o-Js, 1 '
Cc: First Baptist Church and AT&T
Leslie Xavier
Planning Manager
Community Development Department
City of Santa Clara
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
Re: PLN23-00148, APN 290-27-006
3111 Benton Street,
November 14, 2024
1091 Pomeroy Ave.

Santa Clara, California 95051
408 892-0621
AT&T telecommunication facility, Installation of 60 foot tall monotree.

Planning Commission Hearing; October 23, 2024 (past) & December 4, 2024 (pending) Dear Ms. Leslie Xavier,
Please find and consider our suggestions for alternative sites (map attached) for the installation of the telecommunications monotree facility proposed by AT&T at the 3111 Benton Street site . We believe our suggested locations, rather than the 3111 Benton Avenue site, are more compatible with the neighborhood, particularly neighborhood aesthetics, and will provide the signal coverage desired by AT&T.

Please forward our suggested alternatives to AT&T for their consideration and discussion prior to the next Planning Commission meeting hec1ring on this project scheduled for December 4.

We consulted the AT&T coverage maps ("Existing Sites ... Coverage" and "Existing Sites+ ...

Coverage") provided by AT&T that were included in the attachments for Planning Commission meeting held on October 23. We used those maps to find compatible locations for the monotree in the dark purple and yellow colored areas on the "Existing Sites ... " map where indoor coverage is lacking or less reliable in our neighborhood.

The following are our suggested alternatives for the tower in the dark purple areas of the AT&T coverage map (areas of no coverage to date) that should provide equal or better coverage than the 3111 Benton site; these locations are indicated by e dots on the attached map):

1. Earl Carmichael Park, 3445 Benton Street, rear of park

2. Stratford School, 890 Pomeroy Avenue near school or rear parking lot (*Best Location*)

3. Curtis Field, 890 Pomeroy Avenue, field near Stratford School parking lot

4. Homesteaders 4-H Ranch, 3450 Brookdale Drive, parking lat

5. The Church of Jesus of Latter Day Saints, 875 Quince Avenue, rear parking lot

6. Church in Santa Clara, 3550 Benton Street, parking lot or field next door

7. Church of Christ of Santa Clara, 850 Pomeroy Avenue, north of parking lot, in soil area

8. Neighborhood Christian Center, 887 Pomeroy Avenue, parking lot or lawn in front The following alternatives for the tower are located in the yellow colored areas of the AT&T map (areas of less reliable coverage) that should provide enhanced coverage than the 3111 Benton site; these locations are indicated by yellow colored dots on the attached map:

1. Central Park, 909 Kiely Blvd.,especially the area near the baseball field (*Best Location*)

2. Pomeroy Elementary School, 1250 Pomeroy Avenue, north side of site or field in back

3. Kiely Plaza, 1052-1092 Kiely Blvd. southwest corner of intersection with Benton St.

4. Benton Shopping Center, 3565 Benton St., landscaped areas in front of the mall Please consider all the above sites for the installation of the telecommunications facility proposed by AT&T. We highly recommend the parking lot or field behind Stratford School, 890 Pomeroy Avenue, or Santa Clara Central Park, especially near the baseball field.

Thank you for considering our alternatives.

Sincerely, lE /' A~
1/4 ~ !P8d4-e , 114,u_ lfoucJloo-f)oS ~
~ las & Ritha anales Rossi
att: map of suggested alternative locations

Exi5ting ~~ n:es + CC 06126 LTE 700 C v e rag e
•
•
... ~-.- ~ ~ $.
,•[i'-;;,. -

0.2ml
.,.:.:·..i.·
·-:;
-'<'"")"::"' 'J
fl.
·' .., .. ~ ·-· •-~--~· ,.
•
,~~T&'r ?~:lP~!~T"''\:"'..!'." - -~"i-:!s ~;"?f~rr;;~1::!ci"J .:o':Jstit~ ~cs cc¼;~c.cnt::~~- t:--~"'!dc ',cc r cts ,-:nd co::-m"?cr-::7~~ or fi~_1;1c1 .. 1! i~1:·cr-.:1,·LlC"" c·",'';"'~d c-;:: ~c::~~ In~r,-,~~i'"LlCl.:t.:~·:! Prot.:::::..::Uc,1 ~ui"pc~:;\!'~ on~\J. ::t :';ex.! pt...--:-...,---, di,..,d os1.:r•·· , . .., ·,~ .. t.::"'! F .. ( .. t::c.i t- ., .. !, .... l .. ·,-: t t. ,'.c . . •·:::i l~ :,.,: .. Jt-ut··,. "'" -;.rr.:,·•:;•'I:• . .:.. L!9'•1t• .... 11,. ·· .• ,}. ... '.~1 t·· •. 1 t .. ".{.:' . ; • .. S:. ._-'ffJ" , l ,,. '_,-, ,,-_.. ;ra • •hf"', 1\1 t :, '.l ' ·cc~•· ,.,; . '
0 .!"'..: ··- : J .. :.:: •-•' r. ll r: ·;'"I"" ~.('>r ~~ l'"f;: · '"'- .J 1 C,. fr').1~1(,'" r u, i . ('<·,.:.~ 1 t·:-·7 ~:::·:·':i.•~ 'nf' t:1.!.:·,.:.•!i.,;Ok .. 'b 1 .;,•.Jt."!•~ , •. t.' ( ,r,,b ., .. , Ut,!: nJt •·•·t.--it, .. r· •
•
Legend
~clal:le ~ l"':ice tr.C!-:i::r,;;,1 C;,:tC:eors
Rc~Ck: eo-.~r;,ge Ir. Trar:~t
1r.c::>orc::vcr,Jp;('lC:.: ~r.ll.ib:c
I ~~~b l;_, ccvr.rn~ O'Jtfo::r:;
\ndC'1Y.Cc·.·cr;i,zc~ z Rciutr,c
e ~ istms:.1t1~
• Prope:;ed s.tc
Existing Sites L TE 700 Coverage
~
..
~
'1ttt ... ,..
,.
. . •;- le;,; .. -~ ~
~ •
.J k
+

0.1 0.2m\
"AT&T PROPRIETARY·· This information constitutes confidential trade secrets and commercial or financial infor'l!.'!.l.!Jilll.WIVJ:l~" ·b•I.A,ii,ll...,_r,,.l!l"""'~n-, Critical Infrastructure Protection purposes only . It is exelJ)pt from disclosu(,a.••n•w.,.,i.... ,nd It chsclosur< 1s proh, 1t .d und th 1 s t 8
, r local IJW requiring d1sclosu re of anf<>r ,
or other recording) or distributed to other~ m,t agreed up Executive Order 12600.''
Legend
I Reliable Service lndocrs/OUtdoors
Reliable eo,·erage In Transit
Indoor Coverage Less Reliable
I ~~:ble Coverage Outdoorl
Indoor Co\'erage Less Reliable
e Existing site
• Proposed site
PMM
PC 10/23/24
RTC 24-987
From:

To:

Planning Public Comment
; Planning Public Comment; Lesley Xavier; Eric Crutchlow; Nancy Biagini; Priya Cherukuru; Qian Item 4 t!l&0.9; Lane Saleme; Mario Bouza; Yashraj Bhatnagar
Subject:

Date:

Attachments:

RE: Project File No.: PLN23-00148 ("Proposed Installation") Monday, October 21, 2024 12:27:00 PM
image001.png
image003.png
Thank you for your email, it has been received in the Planning Division and will be part of the public record on this item.

ELIZABETH ELLIOTT I Staff Aide 11
Community Development Department I Planning Division
1500 Warburton Avenue I Santa Clara, CA 95050
0: 408 .615. 2450 Direct: 408.615.2474
From: Leilani Shields
Sent: Friday, October 18, 2024 5:18 PM
To: Planning Public Comment <[email protected]>; Tiffany Vien <[email protected]>; Lesley Xavier <[email protected]>; Eric Crutch low <ecrutchlow@santac laraca.gov >; Nancy Biagini <NBiagini@SantaClaraCA .gov>; Priya Cherukuru <[email protected] >; Qian Huang <[email protected]>; Lance Saleme <[email protected]>; Mario Bouza <[email protected]>; Yashraj Bhatnagar <YB hatnaga [email protected]>
Subject: Project File No.: PLN23-00148 ("Proposed Installation") Some people who received this message don't often get email from important
To: Santa Clara Planning Commission Board Members:

Re: Project File No.: PLN23-00148 {"Proposed Installation") Dear sir/Madam,
Learn why this is
This letter is regarding the installation of a 60-foot-monotree by AT&T on the premises of Santa Clara First Baptist Church at 3111 Benton Street
Our neighborhood community hereby formally submits our letter with signatures opposing this plan prior to the meeting which is schedu led for Wednesday, October 23, 2024.

We are strong ly opposed to the Proposed Installation as we believe this plan is not in the best interest of our community. Our response to the Proposed Installation is a big NO.

1. The "monotree" is actually a "wire less cell phone tower" or "ce ll phone base station." Its location is a mere 20~30 feet away from the backyard fence of the neighboring residential houses and is extremely close to the immediately surrounding residential area.

Los Altos, CA
Fremont, CA
Pleasanton, CA
Laguna Beach, CA
West Los Angeles, CA
South Los Angeles, CA
Hollywood, CA
San Diego, CA
Beverly Hills, CA
Calabasas, CA
Encinitas, CA
Palm Springs, CA

2. There is already another Verizon "wireless cell phone base station" at the roof of the main church building, which sits just ~go feet away from the new AT&T location and is already of major concern . .

Therefore, there will be TWO wireless base stations on the same premises on the church property, thereby further increasing the potential health risks to the surrounding residents.

3. We, the neighborhood community, have the followings concerns:

A. The negative health effects caused by wireless radiation from the tower. There has NOT been a clear conclusion that cell towers are not harmful to health.

This is a serious enough issue that the International Association of Fire Fighters has opposed the installation of cell towers at fire stations, where its fire fighters live.

Further reading can be done on their website Cell Tower Radiation Health Effects - IAFF
Cell Tower Radiation Health Effects - IAFF
The International Association of Fire Fighters'
position on locating cell towers commercial
wireless infrastruct.. .

B. Risk of fire. There is a risk of fire, potentially from a malfunction in equipment, weather related such as a lightning strike, or arson and will be devastating for the neighboring houses should one occur .

C. Property Values. Someday, if we decide to sell our houses, we will need to disclose to the buyer that our homes are right under two wireless companies' cell phone towers, not to mention that the towers will be extremely conspicuous.

Many real estate professionals agree that potential buyers will not consider purchasing homes in the nearby vicinity of a cell phone tower. As such, the Proposed Installation could negatively im pact property values in the neighborhood.

If AT&T really needs to install a new tower in this area, why don't they choose a location that is not so close to someone's backyard?
We respectfully urge you to honor the wishes of this community and reject this plan from AT&T, and let them seek out alternate sites.

Regards,
Leilani
From: Planning Public Comment
To: ; Planning Public Comment; Tiffany Vien; Lesley Xavier; Eric Crutchlow; Nancy Biagini; Eriv.a LneruKuru : Oian Huang: Lance Saleme; Mario Bouza; Yashraj Bhatnagar Subject: RE: Project File No.: PLN23-00148 ("Proposed Installation") Date: Monday, October 21, 2024 12:27:00 PM
Attachments: imageOOl.png
image003. png
Thank you for your email, it has been received in the Planning Division and will be part of the public record on this item.

ELIZABETH ELLIOTT I Staff Aide II
Commu nity Development Department I Planning Division
1500 Warburton Avenue I Santa Clara, CA 95050
0: 408.615.2450 Direct: 408.615.2474
Cityof
Santa Clara
From: Raj Sudhani
Sent: Friday, October 18, 2024 4:45 PM
To: Planning Public Comment <[email protected]>; Tiffany Vien <[email protected] >; Lesley Xavier <[email protected] >; Eric Crutchlow <[email protected] >; Nancy Biagini <[email protected]>; Priya Cherukuru <PCherukuru@SantaClara CA.gov>; Qian Huang <[email protected]>; Lance Saleme <LSaleme@ SantaClaraCA.gov >; Mario Bouza <mbouza@ Sa ntaclaraca.gov >; Yashraj Bhatnagar <YBhatnaga r@Sa ntaclaraca .gov>
Subject: Project File No.: PLN23-00148 ("Proposed Installation") You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important To: Santa Clara Planning Commission Board Members:

Dear sir/Madam,
This letter is regarding the installation of a 60-foot-monotree by AT&T on the premises of Santa Clara First Baptist Church at 3111 Benton Street.

I hereby formally submit my letter opposing this plan prior to the meeting which is scheduled for Wednesday, October 23, 2024.

I am strongly opposed to the Proposed Installation as I believe this plan is not in the best interest of our community. My response to the Proposed Installation is a big NO.

1. The "monotree" is actually a "wireless cell phone tower" or "cell phone base station." Its location is a mere 20~30 feet away from my backyard fence and is extremely close to the immediately surrounding residential area.

2. There is already another Verizon "wireless cell phone base station" at the roof of the main church building, which sits just ~80 feet away from the new AT&T location and is already of major concern.

Therefore , there will be TWO wireless base stations on the same premises on the church property , thereby further increasing the potential health risks to the surrounding residents.

3. I have the followings concerns:

A. The negative health effects caused by wireless
radiation from the tower. There has NOT been a clear
conclusion that cell towers are not harmful to health.

This is a serious enough issue that the International
Association of Fire Fighters has opposed the installation of cell towers at fire stations, where its fire fighters live.

Further reading can be done on their website Cell Tower Radiation Health Effects - IAEE
Cell Tower Radiation Health Effects - IAFF
The International Association of Fire Fighters' position on locating cell towers commercial wireless infrastruct ...

B. Risk of fire, There is a risk of fire, potentially from a malfunction in equipment, weather related such as a
lightning strike, or arson and will be devastating for the neighboring houses should one occur.

Cell towers can catch fire due to the electrical
infrastructure required for wireless facilities. Wiring faults can create electrical arcs that reach temperatures up to 35,000 degrees fahrenheit, which is hotter than the surface of the sun, and is often referred to as an "arc flash." Malfunctions in transmitters, antennas, or wiring can lead to electrical fires. Lightning strikes could also potentially cause a fire. Due to unpredictable weather patterns in
recent years, lightning strikes are also of concern. There have also been reports of fires caused by arson. The
following are examples of cell phone towers fires:
• September 2023: Sacramento: Near Capital City
Freeway. Flames and sparks were seen coming
from the tower.
• 2020 - Virginia: Entire cell tower caught fire
overnight. The cause was believed to be equipment
malfunction related to a transformer.
• 2019 - California: Cell tower in Sonoma County
caught fire, potentially due to an electrical fault.
• 2018 - New Jersey: A fire at a cell tower was
attributed to arson. Local authorities investigated
the incident due to suspicious circumstances.
• 2017 - Texas: Cell tower fire occun-ed, likely due
to equipment malfunction, as heavy winds and
storms were present.
• 2016 - Florida: Cell tower caught fire after being
struck by lightning.
• 2015 - Illinois: Cell tower fire was reported,
attributed to equipment failure. The fire spread to
nearby vegetation.
• 2014 - North Carolina: A fire was caused by an
electrical issue related to the cell tower's lighting
equipment.
• 2012 - Michigan: Cell tower fire occurred,
believed to be caused by an equipment
malfunction.
• 2011 - Alabama: Cell tower fire occurred due to a
lightning strike, causing significant damage to the
structure.
• 2009 - Georgia: A fire was reported at a cell tower
site, attributed to equipment failure and
overheating.
• 2008 - Colorado: A fire broke out at a cell tower,
suspected to be caused by an electrical short circuit.
• 2006 - Ohio: Cell tower caught fire due to a
malfunction in the power supply system.
• 2005 - New York: A fire was linked to an electrical
issue at a cell tower site.
• 2004 - Louisiana: Cell tower fire was attributed to
a lightning strike.
• 2003 - Maryland: A fire occurred at a cell tower
site due to suspected electrical malfunctions.
• 2002 - Florida: Cell tower fire was reported,
believed to be caused by equipment overheating
during extreme weather conditions.
• 2001 - Texas: A fire at a cell tower was linked to
an arson investigation, where the tower was set on
fire deliberately.

C. Property Values, Someday, if I decide to sell my house, I will need to disclose to the buyer that my home is right under two wireless companies' cell phone towers, not to mention that the towers will be extremely conspicuous.

If AT&T really needs to install a new tower in this area, why don't they choose a location that is not so close to someone's backyard? I respectfully urge you to honor the wishes of this community and reject this plan from AT&T, and let them seek out alternate sites.

Sincerely
Raj Sudhani
Concerned Resident
From: Planning Public Comment
To: Lesley Xavier; Eric Crutchlow; Nancy Biagini; Priya Cherukuru: Qian Huang: Lance Saleme; Mfili.O tiouza; r nr i Bhatnagar: Planning Public Comment
Subject:

Date:

Attachments:

RE: Project File No.: PLN23-00148 ("Proposed Installation") Monday, October 21, 2024 12:26:00 PM
image00l.p ng
image003.png
Thank you for your ema il, it has been received in the Planning Division and will be part of the public record on this item.

ELIZABETH ELLIOTT I Staff Aide 11
Community Development Department I Planning Division
1500 Warburton Avenue I Santa Clara, CA 95050
o: 408.615 .2450 Dire ct: 408.615 .2474
City of
Santa Clara
Thfll Cen 1t1r of WhaO Possible
From: Rajasri Banka
Sent: Friday, October 18, 2024 12:39 PM
To: Tiffany Vien <TVien@SantaC laraCA.gov>; Lesley Xavier <[email protected]>; Eric Crutch low <ecrutchlow@santaclaraca .gov>; Nancy Biagini <[email protected]>; Priya Cherukuru <PCherukuru@SantaC laraCA.gov>; Qian Huang <[email protected] >; Lance Saleme <[email protected]>; Mario Bouza <mbouza@Santac laraca.gov>; Yashraj Bhatnagar <YBhatnagar@Santaclaraca .gov>; Planning Public Comment <[email protected]>
Subject: Project File No.: PLN23-00148 {"Proposed Installation") Some people who received this message don't often get email from important
Learn why this is
To: Santa Clara Planning Commission Board Members: Re: Project File No.: PLN23-00148 ("Proposed Installation " ) Dear sir/Madam, This letter is regarding the installation of a 60-foot-monotree by AT&T on the premises of Santa Clara First Baptist Church at 3111 Benton Street. Our neighborhood community hereby formal ly submits our letter with signatures opposing this plan prior to the meeting which is schedu led for Wednesday, October 23, 2024. We are strong ly opposed to the Proposed Installation as we believe this plan is not in the best interest of our community. Our response to the Proposed Installation is a big NO. 1. The "monotree" is actua lly a "wire less cell phone tower" or "cel l phone base station." Its location is a mere 20~30 feet away from the backyard fence of the neighboring residential houses and is extreme ly close to the immediately surrounding residential area. Meanwhile many municipalities , including in California, have strict requirements for erecting cell towers near residential areas. The fo llow ing municipalities, districts, or zones have a MINIMUM of 500 feet setback requirement to 1,000 feet or more from residential properties and/or property line: Los Altos , CA Fremont, CA Pleasanton, CA Laguna Beach, CA West Los Angeles, CA South Los Angeles, CA Hollywood, CA San Diego, CA
Beverly Hills, CA Calabasas, CA Encinitas, CA Palm Springs, CA 2. There is already another Verizon "wire less cell phone base station" at the roof of the main church building, which sits just ~so feet away from the new AT&T location and is already of major concern. Therefore, there will be TWO wireless base stations on the same premises on the church property, thereby further increasing the potential health risks to the surround ing residents. 3. We, the neighborhood community, have the followings concerns: A. The negative health effects caused by wireless radiat ion from the tower.

There has NOT been a clear conclusion that cell towers are not harmful to health. This is a serious enough issue that the International Association of Fire Fighters has opposed the installation of cell towers at fire stations, where its fire fighters live. Further reading can be done on their website Cell Tower Radiation Health Effects- lAFF
B. Risk of fire. There is a risk of fire, potentially from a malfunction in equ ipment, weather related such as a lightning strike,
or arson and will be devastating for the neighboring houses should one occur.

Cell towers can catch fire due to the electr ical infra structure required for wireless faciliti es. Wiring faults can create electr ica l arcs that reach temperatures up to 35,000 degrees fahrenheit, which is hotter than the surface of the sun, and is often referred to as an "arc flash." Malfunctions in transmitters, ante nnas, or wiring can lead to electri ca l fires. Lightning strikes could also potentially cause a fire. Due to unpredictable weather patterns in recent years, lightning str ikes are also of concern. There have also been reports of fires caused by arson. The following are examp les of cell phone towers fires:
2020 -Virginia: Entire cell tower caught fire overnight. The cause was believed to be equipment malfunction related to a transformer.
2019 - Ca lifornia: Cell tower in Sonoma County caught fire, potentially due to an electr ical fault. 2018 - New Jersey: A fire at a cell tower was attributed to arson. Loca l authorit ies investigated the incident due to suspicious circumstances.
2017 - Texas: Cell tower fire occurred, likely due to equipment malfunction, as heavy winds and storms were present.
2016 - Florida: Cell tower caught fire after being struck by lightning. 2015 - Illinoi s: Cell tower fire was reported, attributed to equipment failure. The fire spread to nearby vegetation.
2014 - North Carolina : A fire was caused by an electrica l issue related to the cell tower's light ing equipment.
2012 - Michigan: Cell tower fire occurred, believed to be caused by an equipment malfunction. 2011 - Alabama: Cell tower fire occurred due to a lightnin g str ike, causing significant damage to the structure.
2009 - Georgia : A fire was reported at a cell tower site, attributed to equipment failure and overheating.
2008 - Colorado: A fire broke out at a cell tower, suspected to be caused by an electrical short circuit.
2006 - Ohio: Cell tower caught fire due to a malfunction in the power supply system. 2005 - New York: A fire was linked to an electrica l issue at a cell tow er site. 2004 - Louisiana: Cell tower fire was attributed to a lightnin g strike . 2020 -Virginia: Entire cell tower caught fire overn ight. The cause was believed to be equ ipment malfunction related to a transformer.
2019 - Ca liforni a: Cell tower in Sonoma County caught fire, potentially due to an electrical fault. 2018 - New Jersey: A fire at a cell tower was att ribut ed to arson. Local author it ies investigated the incident due to suspicious circumstances.
2017 - Texas: Cell tower fire occurred, likely due to equ ipment malfunction, as heavy winds and storms were present.
2016 - Florida: Cell tower caught fire after being struck by lightning. 2015 - Illinois: Cell tower fir e was reported, attributed to equipment failure. The fire spread to nearby vegetation.
2014 - North Carolina: A fir e was caused by an electrica l issue related to the cell tower's lighting equ ipm ent.
2012 - Michigan: Ce ll tower fire occurred, believed to be caused by an equipm ent malfunction. 2011-A labama: Cell tower fire occurred due to a lightning str ike, causing significant damage to the structure .
2009 - Georgia: A fire was reported at a cell tower site, attributed to equipment fa ilur e and overheating.
2008 - Colorado: A fire broke out at a cell tower, suspected to be caused by an electrical short circuit.
2006 - Ohio: Cell tower caught fire due to a malfunction in the power supp ly system. 2005 - New York: A fire was linked to an electrical issue at a cell tower site . 2004 - Louisiana: Cell tower fire was attributed to a lightning strike.

C. Property Va lues. Someday, if we decide to sell our houses, we will need to disclose to the buyer that our homes are right under two wireless companies' ce ll phone towers, not to mention that the towers will be extremely conspicuous .

Many real estate professionals agree t hat potential buyers will not consider purchasing homes in the nearby vicinit y of a ce ll phone tower. As such, the Proposed Installation could negatively impact property values in the neighborhood.

C. Property Values. Someday, if we decide to se ll our houses, we will need to disclose to the buyer that our homes are right under two wire less companies' ce ll phone towers, not to mention that the towers will be extreme ly conspicuous.

Regards: Rajasri Banka
Ravinder Banka
3281 benton st santa clara
From: Planning Public Comment
To: - Planning Public Comment; Lesley Xavier; Eric Crutchlow; Nancy Biagini; Priya Cherukuru: Qian Huang:
~ leme; Mario Bouza; Yashrai Bhatnagar
Subject :

Date:

RE: Project File No.: PLN23-00148 ("Proposed Installation") Monday, October 21, 2024 12:26:00 PM
Attachments: image001.png
image003.png
Thank you for your email, it has been received in the Planning Division and wil l be part of the public record on this item.

ELIZABETH ELLIOTT I Staff Aide 11
Community Development Department I Planning Division
1500 Warburton Avenue I Santa Clara, CA 95050
0: 408.615.2450 Direct: 408.615.2474
City of
Santa Clara
f hA Ctrnter ol Whats Pou1ble
From: Suma G
Sent: Friday, October 18, 2024 11:52 AM
To: Planning Public Comment <[email protected] >; Tiffany Vien <[email protected]>; Lesley Xavier <[email protected]>; Eric Crutchlow <ecrutchlow@ sa ntaclaraca.gov>; Nancy Biagini <NBiagini@Sa ntaClaraCA.gov>; Priya Cherukuru <[email protected]>; Qian Huang <[email protected]>; Lance Saleme <LSaleme@Sa ntaClaraCA.gov>; Mario Bouza <mbouza@Sa ntaclaraca.gov >; Yashraj Bhatnagar <YBhatnagar@Sa ntacl a raca .gov>
Subject: Project File No.: PLN23-00148 ("Proposed Installation") You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important To: Santa Clara Planning Comm ission Board Members:

Re: Project File No.: PLN23-00148 ("Proposed Installation") Dear sir/Madam,
This letter is regarding the insta llat ion of a 60-foot-monotree by AT&T on the premises of Santa Clara First Baptist Church at 3111 Benton Street.

Our neighborhood community hereby formally submits our letter with signatures opposing t his plan prior to the meeting wh ich is scheduled for Wednesda y, October 23, 2024.

We are strongl y opposed to the Proposed Insta llat ion as we believe t his plan is not in the best int erest of our commun ity . Our response to the Proposed Installation is a big NO .

1. The "monotree" is actual ly a "wireless cell phone tower" or "cell phone base stat ion." Its location is a mere 20"'30 feet away from the backyard fence of the neighboring residential houses and is extreme ly close to the imm ediate ly surround ing residential area.

Meanwhile mariy municipalities, including in Californi a, have str ict requirements for erecting cell towers near residential areas. The following municipalities, districts, or zones have a MINIMUM of 500 feet setback requirement to 1,000 feet or more from resident ial properties and/or property line:

Los Altos, CA Fremont, CA Pleasanton, CA Laguna Beach, CA West Los Angeles, CA South Los Angeles, CA Hollywood, CA
San Diego, CA
Beverly Hills, CA Calabasas, CA Encinitas, CA Palm Springs, CA

Therefore, there will be TWO wireless base stations on the same premises on the church property, thereby further increasing the potential health risks to the surrounding residents. 3 . We, the neighborhood community, have the followings concerns:

A. The negative health effects caused by wireless radiation from the tower. There has NOT been a clear conclusion that cell towers are not harmful to health.

This is a serious enough issue that the International Association of Fire Fighters has opposed the installation of cell towers at fire stations, where its fire fighters live.

Further reading can be done on their website Cell Tower Radiat ion Health Effects - IAFF
Cell Tower Radiation Health Effects - IAFF
The Internat iona l Assoc iation of Fire Fighters' posit ion on locati ng cell towers commercia l wireless infrastruct .. .

B. Risk of fire. There is a risk of fire, potentially from a malfunction in equipment, weather related such as a lightning strike,
or arson and will be devastating for the neighboring houses should one occur.

Lightning strikes could also potentially cause a fire. Due to unpredictable weather patterns in recent years, lightning strikes are also of concern. There have also been reports of fires caused by arson. The following are examples of cell phone towers fires:
2020 - Virginia: Entire cell tower caught fire overnight. The cause was believed to be equipment malfunction related to a transformer.
2019 - California: Cell tower in Sonoma County caught fire, potentially due to an electrical fault.
2018 - New Jersey: A fire at a cell tower was attributed to arson. Local author iti es investigated the incident due to susp iciou s circumstances. 2017 - Texas: Cell tower fire occurred, lik ely due to equ ipm ent malfunction, as heav y winds and storms were present.
2016 - Florida: Cell tower caught fire after being struck by lightning . 2015 - Illinois: Cell tower fire was reported, attr ibut ed to equipment failure. The fire spread to nearby vegetation.2014 - North Carolina: A fire was caused by an electrica l issue related to the cell tower's lighting equipm ent.
2012 - Michigan: Cell tower fire occurred, believed to be caused by an equ ipm ent malfunction.
2011 - Alabama: Cell tower fire occurred due to a lightnin g strike, caus ing s igni ficant damage to the str uct ure.
2009 - Georgia: A fire was reported at a cell tower site, attributed to equ ipment fai lure and overheating.
2008 - Colorado: A fire broke out at a cell tower, suspected to be caused by an electr ical short circuit.
2006 - Ohio: Cell tower caught fire due to a malfunction in t he power supp ly system. 2005 - New York: A fire was lin ked to an electrical issue at a cell tower site. 2004 - Louisiana: Cell tower fire was attr ibuted to a lightning strike. 2003 - Maryland: A fire occurred at a cell tower site due to suspected electrica l malfunctions.
2002 - Florida : Cell tower fire was reported, believed to be caused by equipment overheating dur ing extreme weather conditions.
2001 - Texas: A fire at a cell tower was linked to an arson investigation, where the tower was set on fire deliberately.

If AT&T rea lly needs to insta ll a new tower in this area, why don't they choo se a location that is not so close to someone's backyard?
We respectfully urge you to honor the wishes of th is commun ity and reject this plan from AT&T, and let them seek out alternate sites.

Regards,
Sumangala Moogi
Santa Clara resident .

R·ECEIVED
?. '70/1

PLANNING DIVISION
Leslie Xavier
Planning Manpger
Community Development Department
City of Santa Clara
1500 Warburton Avenue
Senta Clara, CA 95050
Re: PLN23-00148, APN 290-27-0 06
October 16, 2024
1091 Pomeroy Ave.

Santa Clara California 95051
3111 Benton Street, 3.15 acre lot located northeast of Benton Street and Pomeroy Avenue Applicant: Steve Proo, Complete Wireless Cons ulting
Owner: Santa Clara Flrst Baptist Church
Subject: Cond ltiona~ Use Permit for a new unmanned AT& Ttelecommunlcation facility, lnsta llation of 60 foot tall monotree.

Hearing Date: October 23, 2024, at 6:00 PM, City 1-iall Council Chambers Deat Ms. Leslie Xavier,
We hereby object to the above named project for the following reasons and request the project be continued to another time until all our concerns below are addressed:

1. Radiation dariger
Radiation and cancer danger to all persons within 500 foot radius of the aforementioned 60 foot telecommunication towers, and all residents of Pomeroy Green, where we live, which has of 78 housing 1,1nits that stand to be ltnl)acted by this project . Ttiis is very serious issue because the installation of this tower will generate a continuous radiation e)(posure which Will impact health In a negative way according to many medical sources (name them if you have tlm~ from the sources I provided to you).

These tall telecommunication towers will be irradiating us 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. AT&T, as well as the Baptist Church, must not take economic advantage, for economic purpose, while endangering the health and well being of so many residents.

During my +rt-conversation with the manager of the adjacent Baptist Church, he mentioned that AT&T came to them offering monthly compensation for allowing. AT&T to use the church property - The personnel per~or,e at ¼ff AT&T, as well as the most members of the Baptist Church likely do not live In th is area and are only exposed to the radiation a few hours a week .

It Is very well known in the scientific literature that st:te+t radiation is health hazard, that exposure to RF energy can have harmful effects .. (cite medical sources I provided to you in my email to you). We know that we are subject to some radiation, but this project will expose us to 24 hours a day of powerful radiation. We don't want future clusters of cancer in this neighborhood, especially since there are other areas in. Santa Cla.ra wh.ere this tower can be placed . (provide suggestions to alternative locations).

2. Aesthetic concerns that may subject the project to environmental review The tower project will cause aesthetic damage to our complex and neigh neighborhood . The 60 foot structures are much higher than all the houses and most trees in the neighborhooi;:t and therefore will detract from the overall aesthetic qualities of the complex and heigh neighborhood .

At Pomeroy Green all our utilities are burred to create a beautiful environment for our residents. If the tower is constructed it Ill be an eyesore that wilt be visible form all locations within Pomeroy Green. It will aesthetically Impact not only Pomeroy Green but also all the surrounding hqtnes too, those to the north and east of the project.

The Pomeroy Green Cooperative housing complex is registered in the National Register of Historic Places (the NRHP) and, therefore, the tower project may be required to be reviewed for environmental impacts, including aesthetic impacts, by local and higher government agencies. The tower project may require a permit from the FCC, making the project subject to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.

The range of the environmental impacts may extend to nearby multifamily complex, Pomeroy West (potentially historic) and the City
1 s Earl Carmichael Park. Those residents and the City's Parks and Recreation Department should be provided a notice of public hearing and notified respectively so that those residents and the public can comment on the project .

We request the city provide those notices of public hearings and also have the project reviewed under the City's Architectural Review process .

3. Collapsing hazard
There is a potential hazard to the surrounding housing from the tower collapsing due to natural disasters. For-ff.for instance, a powerful earthquake or storm could cause the 60 foot structures to fall on one or more of the residences In the area.

4. Proper public notice not provided
The City Planning Commission's "Notice ot Public Hearing" was not mailed to all of the townhouse units in Pomeroy Green nor was the Pomeroy Green Board of Directors nor Property Manager notified of the prqposed tower project.

Pomeroy Green Cooperative has a parcel map filed with the County Assessors Office. (Book 290, pags 69); therefore, the City shoulct have mailed the notice to all the townhouses in the complex, not just those within 500' of the project. The people in this area have not been given notice to for the public to consider the ramifications of such a serious project.

6. Project could be located elsewhere in the city
The project could easily be placed in another location In the city that will solve most of the problem we have enumetated above. We suggest alternatives such as Santa Clara Central Park, which has room to provide more distance between homes and the tower, so that residents ir'I those locations are not impacted by radiation, aesthetic effect or danger from natural disasters.

Slnferely, /';J (' ---;7 ,
fl~~ i\ ('~ VJ.M~ ~ () s
Nicholas & Ritha Canales Rossi
cc : Santa Clara First Baptist Church, AT&T
Pomeroy Green Residents
Non-Ionizing radiation exposure
Questions that need answers
from
City of Santa Clara
Cell Tower Emitted Power Information needed:
• What is the total RF power emitted on a daily basis by the SG towers installed on the Church property?
Although the FCC permits an effective radiated power (ERP) of up to 500 watts per channel (depending on the tower height), the majority of cellular sites in urban and suburban areas operate at an ERP of 100 watts per channel or less. • How often is the emitted radiation measured at this site to ensure it conforms to the permitted limit?
FCC Guideline:

The FCC limits public exposure from cell towers to a maximum of 580 microwatts per square centimeter.
htt ps://ww w.fcc.gov/con sumers/g uides/ hum a n-ex posur e- radio-fre qu e ncy-fi e lds-guide lines-cellul ar-and -pcs-sites Calculations corresponding to a "worst -case" situation (all transmitters operating simultaneously and continuously at the maximum licensed power) show that, in order to be exposed to RF levels near the FCC's guidelines, an individual would essentially have to remain in the main transmitting beam and within a few feet of the antenna for several minutes or longer .

Consideration points:
• T-Mobile SG tower on the roof of the Church.
• Proposed AT&T tower in the Church parking area.
• Upstairs bedroom windows of PG homes are directly in line-of-sight of the towers. For homes closest to towers, the downstair patio doors face the towers and are in line-of-sight.
• People spend most of the day and night (16-20 hours/day) in these bedrooms due to working from home including retirees.
• People spend time (at least 2 hours/day) in their backyard or swimming pool during the day.

What is the combined TOTAL exposure to residents nearest to the SG cell towers (both T-Mobile and AT&T tower)
What is the combined TOTAL exposure to residents in the swimming pool area spending a minimum of 2 hours during the day.

What is the combined TOTAL exposure to residents furthermost to the SG cell towers (both T-Mobile and AT&T tower)
What about 5G networks?
Fifth generation (SG) cellular networks are now being rolled out rn many parts of the United States and in other countries. SG networks are capable of transmitting much larger amounts of data over shorter periods of time than previous generations (4G, 3G, etc.).

Earlier generation networks have used RF wavelengths below G gigahertz (GHz). SG networks will use some wavelengths in this range, but will also use some higher frequency wavelengths, at the lower end of the millimeter wave spectrum (which ranges from 30 GHz lo 300 GHz). While these RF waves are higher frequency (higher energy) than those used by older generations, they are still forms of non-ionizing radiation, so they stil l lack the ability to directly damage DNA.

The higher frequency waves used by SG travel shorter distances and don·t go through objects (such as buildings, or even tree leaves) as well as lower frequency waves. Because of this, SG networks require many more, smaller versions of base stations (often referred to as small cells) in some places, especially in densely populated areas. These small cells can be mounted on streetli hls util il oles, buildin s and other structures. This could result in the antennas being closer to people, although small cells typically The addition of the higher wavelengths from SG networks could also expose people to more RF waves overall.

At the same lim e, these higher frequency RF waves are less able to penetrate the body than lower frequency waves, so in theory they might be less likely to have any potential health effects. But so far this issue has not been well studied.

At this time, there has been very little research showing that the RF waves used in SG networks are any more (or less) of a concern than the other RF wavelengths used in cellular communication.

Written by Additional resources Resources
I American
w cancer
T Society·
The Ameflcan Cancer soc,ety med1GI and edironal coment team Our team 1s made up of doctors and oncology ce,11fied nurses with deep knowledge of cancer care as well as editors and uanslator'i> with extef'\s1ve e>,:per 11:nce m medical writing.

Will there be more towers
located in the neighborhood ?
How many more towers will
be permitted?
From: Nicholas H Rossi
Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2024 3:40 PM
To: Planning Public Comment <Planni ngPublicComment@santa clar aca.gov> Subject: Telecommunications tower proposed for 3111 Benton Street;, PLN 23-00148; APN: 290-27- 006
You don't often get email from Learn why th is is important Please find the letter to Leslie Xavier, Planning Manager, Community Development Department, City of Santa Clara (attached). Please bring this to the attention of the Planning Commission at their meeting scheduled for Wednesday, October 23, 2024.

This letter supercedes our earlier letter on this subject dated October 16, 2024 regarding the telecommunications tower proposed for 3111 Benton Street; PLN 23- 00148; APN : 290-27-006 .

Thank you,
Nick Rossi
Leslie Xavier
Planning Manager
Community Development Department
City of Santa Clara
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara , CA 95050
Re: PLN23-00148 ,
APN 290-27-006
October 22, 2024
1091 Pomeroy Ave.

Santa Clara, California 95051
3111 Benton Street , 3.15-acre lot located northeast of Benton Street and Pomeroy Avenue Applicant: Steve Proo, Complete Wireless Consulting
Owner: Santa Clara First Baptist Church
Subject : Conditional Use Permit for a new unmanned AT&T telecommunication facility, Installation of 60-foot tall monotree .

Planning Commission Hearing Date : October 23, 2024, at 6:00 PM, City Hall Council Chambers Dear Ms. Leslie Xavier,
We hereby object to the above-named project for the following reasons and request the project be continued to another time until all our concerns below are addressed :

1. Radiation danger
Radiation and cancer danger to all persons within 500-foot radius of the aforementioned 60 foot telecommunication towers, and all residents of Pomeroy Green, where we live, which has 78 housing units that stand to be impacted by this project. This is a very serious issue because the installation of this tower will generate continuous radiation exposure which will impact health in a negative way according to many medical sources conducted by government agencies, such as Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Food and Drug Administration (FDA) & World Health Organization (WHO), and others .

These tall telecommunication towers will be irradiating us 24 hours a day, 7 days a week . AT&T, as well as the Baptist Church , must not take economic advantage, for economic purpose , while endangering the health and well -being of so many residents .

During my conversation with the manager of the adjacent Baptist Church, he mentioned that AT&T came to them offering monthly compensation for allowing this project . AT&T wants to use the church property ; the personnel at AT&T, as well as the most members of the Baptist Church , likely do not live in this area and are only exposed to the radiation a few hours a week.

It is very well known in scientific literature by institutions such as National Cancer Institute (NCI), International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) & Federal Drug Administration (FDA) that radiation is a health hazard, that exposure to RF energy can have harmful effects. We know that we are subject to some radiation, but this project will expose us to 24 hours a day of powerful radiation . We don't want future clusters of cancer in this neighborhood, especially since there are other areas in Santa Clara where this tower can be placed . For instance , Santa Clara Central Park & open areas not near to residential areas where this project would be such a threat to harm people

2. Aesthetic concerns that may subject the project to environmental review The tower project will cause aesthetic damage to our complex and neighborhood. The 60-foot structures are much higher than all the houses and most trees in the neighborhood and therefore will detract from the overall aesthetic qualities of the complex and neighborhood .

At Pomeroy Green all our utilities are placed underground to create a beautiful environment for our residents . If the tower is constructed it will be an eyesore that will be visible from all locations within Pomeroy Green . It will aesthetically impact not only Pomeroy Green but also all the surrounding homes too, those to the north and east of the project.

The Pomeroy Green Cooperative housing complex is registered in the National Register of Historic Places (the NRHP) and, therefore, the tower project may be required to be reviewed for environmental impacts, including aesthetic impacts, by local and higher government agencies. The tower project may require a permit from the FCC, making the project subject to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.

The range of environmental impacts may extend to another nearby multifamily complex, Pomeroy West (potentially historic) and the City's Earl Carmichael Park. Those residents and the City's Parks and Recreation Department should be provided with the notice of public hearing so that those residents and the public can comment on the project.

We request the city provide those notices of public hearings and also have the project reviewed underthe City's Architectural Review process .

3. Collapsing hazard
There is a potential hazard to the surrounding housing from the tower collapsing due to natural disasters. For instance, a powerful earthquake or storm could cause the 60 foot structure to fall on one or more of the residences in the area.

4. Proper public notice not provided
The City Planning Commission's "Notice of Public Hearing " was not mailed to all of the townhouse units in Pomeroy Green nor was the Pomeroy Green Board of Directors nor Property Manager notified of the proposed tower project .

Pomeroy Green Cooperative has a parcel map filed with the County Assessor's Office (Book 290, page 69); therefore, the City should have mailed the notice to all the townhouses in the complex as well as the Pomeroy Green Cooperative Corporation, not just those residents within 500' of the project. The people in this area should have been provided with proper notice in order to consider the ramifications of such a serious project.

5. Attractive nuisance
The proposed tower will create an attractive nuisance. Young people including preteens from our neighborhood and schools nearby (Santa Clara High School. Pomeroy Elementary, Strafford Schools) may find the tower a challenge to climb. Pomeroy Green has problems with young people and children crossing our property and entering our pool area that is surrounded by a 6' high cyclone fence.

6. Project could be located elsewhere in the city
The project could easily be placed in another location in the city that will solve most of the problems we have enumerated above. We suggest alternatives such as Santa Clara Central Park, which has room to provide more distance between homes and the tower so that residents in those locations are not impacted by radiation, aesthetic effect or danger from natural disasters.

Sincerely,
Nicholas & Ritha Canales Rossi
cc: Santa Clara First Baptist Church, AT&T
From: Planning Public Comment
Sent: Wednesday , October 23, 2024 9:39 AM
To: Lesley Xavier <[email protected]>
Cc: Eric Crutchlow <[email protected] >; Lance Sa leme <[email protected]>; Mario Bouza <[email protected]>; Nancy Biagini <NBiagini@SantaC laraCA.gov>; Priya Cherukuru <[email protected] >; Qian Huang <[email protected]>; Yashraj Bhatnagar <[email protected] >
Subject: FW: Telecommunication tower proposed for 3111 Benton Street;, PLN 23-00148; APN: 290- 27-006; Ken Kratz's public comments
Good Morning Ken,
Your email and attached documents have been received in the Planning Division and will be part of the public record on thi s item.

Thank you,
Elizabeth Elliott
Planning Division
From: Ken Kratz
Sent: Wedne sday, October 23, 2024 2:17 AM
To: Planning Public Comment <PlanningPub licComment@santac laraca.gov > Subject: Telecommunication tower proposed for 3111 Benton Street;, PLN 23-00148; APN: 290-27- 006; Ken Kratz's pub lic comments
You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important Hello Community Development Department,
Please find my attached letter, "AT&T telecommunications tower, 3111 Benton St., K. Kratz ltr. to City.doc", addressed to Leslie Xavier, Planning Manager, Community Development Department, City of Santa Clara with attachments regarding the AT&T telecommunications project proposed for 3111 Benton Street.

Please bring my letter with attachments to the attention of the Planning Commission for their public hearing on this project scheduled for Wednesday, October 23, 2024; the letter with the attachments is my public comment in regard to this project.

Thank you,
Ken Kratz
Pomeroy Green Cooperative shareholder
3283 Benton Street
Santa Clara Ca. 95051
Leslie Xavier
Planning Manager
Community Development Department
City of Santa Clara
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
PlanningPublicComment@SantaClaraCA .gov
Re: 3111 Benton Street
PLN23-00148,
APN 290-27-006
October 22, 2024
3283 Benton Street
Santa Clara, California 95051
Conditional Use Permit for a new unmanned AT&T telecommunication facility Planning Commission Hearing Date: October 23, 2024, 6:00 PM Dear Ms. Leslie Xavier:

I object to the above-named project for the following reasons and request the project be continued to another time until my concerns below are addressed :

1. Proper public notice not provided.

Please provide proper notice of the public hearing to all residents of Pomeroy Green, the Pomeroy Green Board of Directors and the Pomeroy Green Property Manager and provide any further notification required by the National Historic Preservation Act, Section 106 that may include a wider notification area due to the height of the tower according to the Act.

Please provide further notification per the Act that may include the residents of Pomeroy West condominiums, a multi-family complex of 138 units located west of Pomeroy Green across Pomeroy Avenue. Pomeroy West is in the process of submitting an application to National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) for their complex and has been in contact with the State of California Office of Historic Preservation concerning registration of Pomeroy West in the NRHP. Pomeroy West was designed by the same architect who designed Pomeroy Green and has the same distinctive architecture as Pomeroy Green and, therefore is potentially historic. project. The HLC routinely evaluates and advises the City Council on impacts to proposed projects on historic resources on adjacent properties .

The tower will be seen from many points within Pomeroy Green and will therefore cause aesthetic damage to Pomeroy Green and the surrounding neighborhood - the tower will be an eyesore. The 60-foot tower structure will be much higher than all the townhouses in Pomeroy Green (20' tall) and the single-family detached homes to the north of the tower . The tower is also taller than most of the trees in Pomeroy Green and the neighborhood at large and therefore the tower will detract from the overall aesthetic qualities of the complex and neighborhood .

Also the utilities at Pomeroy Green are installed underground in order to create a beautiful environment for our residents; unfortunately an existing City overhead utility line runs along the property line shared with the church . The tower will be add another ugly element along the property line with the church where that existing overhead utility line now runs. Again, if the tower is constructed it will be an eyesore that will be visible from many locations within Pomeroy Green.

Furthermore, the Pomeroy Green Cooperative housing complex is listed in the National Register of Historic Places (the NRHP listing : https://www .n~gov/s _ubiects/ nationalregister/weel<ly-list-202l::
03-26.htm and the California Register listing : http s://ohp_,_parl<s.ca.gov/?Qage id=30705); therefore, the tower project may be required to be reviewed for environmental impacts, including aesthetic impacts , by local and higher level government agencies. The tower project requires a permit from the FCC, making the project subject to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act :

The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 is implemented through the FCC's environmental rules. Section 106 of the NHPA requires federal agencies to consider the effects of federal undertakings on historic properties. The FCC treats the construction of communications towers and the collocation of communications equipment using FCC licensed spectrum as federal undertakings subject to Section 106 review. While Antenna Structure Registration (ASR) is required for some communications towers , Section 106 review may be required even if ASR Registration is not required . (from htt ps://www.fcc .gQ':L/wireless/b ureau-divisions/com Qfiliti on-infrastru cture-poliC}"..:
division/tower-and-ante nna-siti ng#Sec106 accessed 10 -22-2024).

I do not think the tower project is " ... categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) ... " as the Community Development Department asserts in the Report to the Planning Commission asserts . According to the California Office of Historic Preservation :

Listing in the National Register may result in design or environmental review, administered locally pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) or through local zoning and land use planning regulations. (from http s://o hp.parl<s.ca.gov/?page id=21 237 accessed 10-22-2024)
The range of environmental impacts may extend to another nearby multifamily complex, Pomeroy West (potentially historic) and the City's Earl Carmichael Park. Those residents and the City's Parks 3 Please notify the City's Parks and Recreation Department about the tower project so that environmental impacts to the City's Earl Carmichael Park, located to the west of Pomeroy West on Benton Street, are considered .

The Planning Commission's " Notice of Public Hearing" was not mailed to all of the townhouse units in Pomeroy Green (Pomeroy Green is the multi -family townhouse complex located to the west of the church property and the proposed tower), nor were the Pomeroy Green Board of Directors and Pomeroy Green Property Manager notified of the public hearing to consider the proposed tower project .

Many of the common areas in Pomeroy Green complex are contiguous with the church property where the telecommunication project is proposed. See attached copy of the Parcel Map, Book 290, page 69.

Also, the Pomeroy Green Cooperative Corporation should have been notified of the hearing for the tower project by the City's Community Developmen t Department because the complex is identified in many City files . The complex's name (Pomeroy Green Corporation) and address is identified on the utility bills that Pomeroy Green receives from the City (attached water/sewer/solar system bills).

The same address is used on the gas bills from PG&E.

Furthermore, a property Development Agreement, though I have only an unsigned copy, was evidently filed between the City and Pomeroy Green (attached) .

Therefore the City's Community Development Department should have been aware of the Pomeroy Green complex and should have mailed the hearing notice to all the townhouses in the comple x as well as the Pomeroy Green Cooperative Corporation and its manager, Property Pro, rather than the limiting the distribution to residents within 500' of the project.

With proper notice , all Pomeroy Green shareholders, the Pomeroy Green Board of Directors and the Pomeroy Green Property Manager will be able to consider the ramifications of such a serious project to Pomeroy Green

2. Aesthetic concerns may subject the project to environmental review.

Please request AT&T contact the California Office of Historic Preservation (COHP) to inquire about the government review process required to determine the environmental impacts , inclusive of aesthetic impacts , if any, to Pomeroy Green, the historic resource.

AT&T should also mention to the COHP that Pomeroy West condominiums , a potentially historic resource located nearby, should be included in an environmental impact review.

Also, please have the tower project reviewed by the City's Historical and Landmarks Commission (HLC) for impacts to Pomeroy Green prior to the public hearing to consider the approval of the tower 2 and Recreation Department should be provided with the notice of public hearing so that those residents and the public can comment on the project.

I suggest the City's Historical and Landmarks Commission review the tower project's impact on Pomeroy Green and any other historic or potentially historic property located nearby as required by government regulations. That City commission regularly reviews impacts of projects adjacent to historic properties.

3. Attractive nuisance
Please relocate the proposed tower out of the neighborhood, away from youths gathering places (schools, there are three in the neighborhood and the high school is located directly across the street form the proposed lower location) because it will create an attractive nuisance.

Young people from our neighborhood and the nearby schools (e.g., Santa Clara High School.

Pomeroy Elementary, and the Stratford School), may be interested in attempting to climb the tower and its large foundation . We already have enough problems in the neighborhood without the addition of this tower project that will prove to be an attractive nuisance; there is ongoing vandalism occurring in the neighborhood .

For example of this ongoing problem in this neighborhood, though intermittent, youth who do not live at Pomeroy Green occasionally enter the property enter the private property and we are seeing some random acts of vandalism by the public . For instance, Pomeroy Green has problems with young people entering the property and, on one occasion, entering the fenced pool area (I witnessed that personally). I think the fence for the proposed tower will not be adequate.

Also, the pool at Pomeroy Green was vandalized; paint was poured into the pool; the perpetrator was not identified. Although the pool area is surrounded by a 6' high cyclone fence and locked doors and gates, people and youths were able to gain access to the pool area; the 6' high fence to be constructed around the proposed tower will not deter unauthorized access by youths and the general public.

The public sidewalks on Benton Street that front Pomeroy Green have been graffiti -tagged by vandals indicating further problems in our neighborhood. I expect the large concrete foundation required for the tower (15' in diameter) will attract more graffiti to the neighborhood .

The large foundation for the tower will also provide a hiding place for vandals and criminals form passing police department surveillance from the public street.

4. Collapsing hazard
Please relocate the tower to another location to reduce the danger to residents in Pomeroy Green and the residents of the nearby single-family detached homes due to the tower collapsing in and earthquake, storm or other other natural disaster.
4 There is a potential hazard to the surrounding housing from the tower collapsing due to natural disasters. For instance , a powerful earthquake or storm could cause the 60 foot tall structure to fall on one or more of the residences in the area. The Pomeroy Green property line it shares with the church is approximately 50' from the tower location and, if the the tower falls, it could reach the backyards of those Pomeroy Green units and injure those residents .

4. Radiation danger
Please relocate the tower to another location to reduce the exposure of radiation to the neighborhood residents.

There is a chance of cancer developing in persons exposed to exposure to RF radiation from the proposed tower, particularly the two Pomeroy Green townhouse buildings located at the northeast corner of the Pomeroy Green property and the single -family detached homes to the north of the proposed tower . According to the radiation study included in the agenda report, those two Pomeroy Green buildings will need a sign posted in the vicinity to warn people about the radiation hazard.

The AT&T personnel who will be maintaining the tower as well as the most members of the Baptist Church who likely do not live in this area will only be exposed to the radiation a few hours a week at the most . On the other hand, the neighborhood residents, the Pomeroy Green residents and those residents of the homes to the north of the project site, will be exposed to the radiation 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

According to many scientific and medical sources, government agencies, and professional organizations such as Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Food and Drug Administration (FDA), World Health Organization (WHO), National Cancer Institute (NCI), International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) the Federal Drug Administration (FDA) and the International Association of Fire Fighters, claim exposure to RF energy may have harmful effects on humans.

Although the effects of this level of radiation are inconclusive, I don't want to take chance on future clusters of cancer in the neighborhood ; I remember the long time it took for air-borne asbestos to be declared a health problem by the government.

There are other areas in Santa Clara where the tower can be placed to reduce exposure to radiation. For instance, Santa Clara Central Park and other more open areas in the neighborhood (e.g., parking lots and the tops of commercial properties nearby) that are farther from residences and are visited infrequently where this tower project would not be a health threat to residents .

We request the city provide those notices of public hearings and also have the project reviewed under the City's Architectural Review process.

6. Project could be located elsewhere nearby in the city 5 Please consider relocating the tower to another, nearby location .

The project could easily be placed in another nearby location that will solve most of the problems I have enumerated above while still providing the cell phone coverage desired by AT&T. I suggest alternatives such as Santa Clara Central Park, which has room to provide more distance between homes and the tower so that residents in those locations are not impacted by radiation, aesthetic effect or danger from natural disasters.

Thank you for considering my concerns listed above and please continue/postpone the project's public hearing to a later date to allow the Community Development Department to provide proper notice of the public hearing to neighborhood residents and to allow ample time for the Department and AT&T to investigate and respond to my concerns . Please consider locating the tower to a more compatible location nearby ..

Sincerely,
Ken Kratz
Pomeroy Green Cooperative shareholder
att:

Parcel map of Pomeroy Green
Bills to Pomeroy Green for water/sewer/solar panel use from City of Santa Clara Bill to Pomeroy Green for gas service form PG&E
Property Development Agreement between City of Santa Clara and Pomeroy Green 6 /0 4?
PROPERTY DEVEtOP~lENt AGREEMENT
AGREEMENT FOR EXTENSIONS OF ELECTRIC A~D W TER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS TO SUBDIVISIONS; Il-tPROVEMENT OP STREETS· INSTALLATION OF SEWERS, STORM DRAINS AND OTf{ER PUBLIC >l'ORKS FACILITIES.

This agree ment made and entered i nto this ___ day of
19_, by and. bet . een the City of Santa Cl ra, uni. cipal corporation, herein cal led the "City" and-----------------> a real properi;y owner, developer or subdi rider I herein cal ed tho "Develcperrr • \'IITNESSETH t
',lHEREAS, a final map of s\lbdivision, r ecord of survey or building permit (Sit.e Clear ance) application has p.ow been submitted to the City for approval and acceptance, co ering certain real estate known as and called ~1tEREAS, the "Deve loper" requires certain utilities and public works facilities in order to service the property- under the minimum standard s estab lished by the City and,
\'IHEREAS, the City, by and thr ough its City Council, has enacted cer taL~ Ordinances and Resolutions and certain Rules and Regulations have be~n promulgated concerning the subject ma.tter of this agreement and, 1:/HEREAS1 the City has cer tain responsibilities .for maintenance and operation for the estimated useful life of the required ut ilities and public sc;rvice facilities and f'o r provi din g the necessary connecting sys t em, general plaat. and appurtena nce s , and the City is agreeing to disch arge those respon sii>ili ties•
NO\f THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises, and in ord_r to carry out the intent and" purpose of said Ordipances , Reso lut ions and Regu la tio ns, it is agreed. by and between the parties · as f ollo ws:

SECTION l:

That all Ordinances, Resolutions, nules and Re ulati ons and estab li.sheQ policies of the City and the laws of t he State of California coqcerning the s•J!:: j ec-;. matter of this agreement a re hereby r eferred to ·and incorporated ?lerei:1 to tee same effect as if they were set out ,ai; length he ein. 3aid Ordinances and Regulations include, but a re not limited to, the following:

Cil;Y Or<lin nee No . 6)1 as a:nended by Ordinance Nos. 705, 71~, 758 and 8) (Subdivis ion ~1ap Act, Subdivision Procedure, etc.); Ordinanc e No. 775 as amended by Ordinance Nos. 787, 789, 830, $39, 846t 848, 850 and a72 (Zoning Ordinance); Ordinance No. a52 as amended (195g ~nifot"lll Building Code); Ord inance No. g59 (Improvement Code); Resolution No. 6)5 (Subdivision or Develop ment o.f Real Property); Rules and Regulations. Included in the above are all of the above referred to regulatio11s and substitutions therefor, as amended to the time of execution of this agreement.

SECTION 2:

The Developer agrees:
a. To perform each and every provision required by the City to be performed by the Developer in each and every one of said Ordinances and other regul~tions.
b. To grant to the City without charge, free and clear of en cumbr nces, any and all stipulated easements and rights of way in and to his said real property necessary for the City in order that its water, electricity and/or sewer lines in or to said real property may be extended. '
c. To indemnify and hold the City ha,rmless and free from all damage and injury done to any utility, public facility or other material or installation of the City on said real estate which the Developer or any contractor or subcontrac ·tor of the Developer, or any employee thereof, shall do in grading or working upon said real estate.
d. To construct and improve all public works facilities and other improvements as set out herein, according to the standards here tofore estab lished, and according to the gra~es, plans and speci fications thereof, all as approved by the City Engineer; and 1 as security for said improvements and facilities, to furni~p and post a good sufficient corporate surety company bond running in favor of the City in the face amount of no less than--,.--,.--- ~.000 Dollars, all as provided for by provisions
of $ec. 1161:Z ol the Business and Professions Code of the State of California;the ordinances of the City, and this agreement. e. That upon approval of the final map of the subdivis~on, the record of survey or the building permit covering the real estate to be improved, and before any ~rork is done tbere_in. the Developer shall pay to the City all sums, except costs to be borne by the Ci~y, shown in Section_,Z hereof to be due under the terms and provisions oi this agreement.

SECTION J:

That all sums shown herein to be payable by the Developer to tbe City are due and payable to the City upon the execution o.f thi1;1 agreement; provided however, that at Developer's option, the development costs for electric and water utility imp:t'ovements (as shown in Sec ~_z,__subsecti ons i and j herein) may be paid to the City in two installments as follows:
a. At least one-half thereof upon execution of this agreement; b, Remaining balance upon completion of the project.

Each installation to be accompll~hed by the City shall constitute a separate project for this purpose.
-2 -
SEC'rION 4-:

That nl1 of the ' provisions of this agreement and all work. to be done pursuant to the terms of this agree~ent are to be ~ompleted within one year from and ai'ter the date and year first above written.

SECUOl 5:

That the special provisions concerning the particular real estate referred to bove, bein g attache~ hereto, are hereb1 incorporated herein and expressly made a part of this agreement.

SECTION 6:

The faithfyl and prompt perfonnance by tbe Developer of each and every term and cond ition contained her~in il:i 11\clde an express condition precedent to the duty of the City to perf'onn any act in connection with this transaction, and the failure, ne= ect or ,refu .sal or the Developer to so perform, or to pay any moneys due hereunder when due shall release the City from any and all Qbligations hereunder and the City, at its election, may enforc e the parformanee of any provision herein, or any right .accruing to the City qr may pursue any remedy whatsoever it may have under the iaws of the State of California or the Ordinance or Resolutions of the City, in the event or any such default by Developer.

SECTION 7:

That the following are the estimated amounts of costs to be bortie by the respective parties hereto, and it is t"urther ,understood and agreed that said am.ounts are estimates only and ar~ subj~ct to .final determ .ination upon completion of the work:

FACILITY
a. Easements&. Rights-of-way
"On site"; see Res. 635,
Sec. 61 9: Table II
See Stipulation No. l
b. Easements&; Rigbts~of-way
"Off site" ; see Res. 635,
Sec. 9 ~ 10: Table II
c. Street Paving &-Improvements;
see Ord. 6Jl, Sec. 55; Rea.635,
Table ll, S.c. ll,l.a,l),14.

DEVELOPl•!ENT COSTS CITY'S COSTS
l<X/;C by developer 6 None ... ____ _
v none reqµj..red $ ____ _
.,,_ ____ _ • e.,921.00
....

FACILITY DEVEOPMENX COSTS :CITY1S COSTS
d. Street Curbing, guttering
and Improvements; see Ord.63i
Sec.55;Res.635,Table I~,Sec.11 $ -------
See Stipulation No. 2
. . .
e. ·Sidewalk Improvements; see
drd.631LSec.55; Res. 035, Table Ii, Sec. 11
See . Sti pulatfon No. 2
f. Street Name Signs; see
- Res.6J5, Table II, .Sec.11
g. Street Tree Planting & Park
way Improvements; see Ord.
631; Sec. JJ & 55; Res.635, Table II, Sec. 11
h. Street Lighting; See Ord.631,
Sec.55; Res. 6J5i Sec. 5; Table II, Sec. 1 ; Electric
Department Regulations
i. Electric Utility Improvements;
Res. 635,Sec.5; Table Ill Sec,
18; Ele·ct.Dept. Regs. 2- 8
j. Water Utility Improvements;
see Res.635,Sec.5,6 & 18,
Table Il
includes meters
I
.k. Sanitary Sewer Improvements
ffon site~; see Ord. 631,Sec.

S5; Res.635 1Sec~5,19-Table II
$ _____ _
$ by developer $ None
$ by developer $ None
$_ included in " i tt
See Special. Electrical Agreement
$_______ $ ______ _
$ 8,115.17 $ 100% Labor
• I
FACrLITY DElffiLOPMENT COSTS CITYt S COSTS
l. Sanitary Sewer Improvements
"off site"; See Res.6J5,
Table II; Sec. 19
m. Storm Drainage Improvements
"on site"; see Ord.631 Sec.
55; 'Res.635, Se c. 5; Tab!e II
Sec. 19 .
$ None
$ 4659.00 $ 9183.00
n. Storm. Drainage Improvements
"off siten; see Ord. 63lt5ec.

58.1; Ord.758; Res.6J5t
Table II, Sec. 19 $ ______ _ $ 18 2 600 .Estimated
See Stipul ati on !fo. 3
o. Recreation charg e; see Ord.
631, Sec. 56 as amended by
Ord. 705
p. City Engineering 2c Inspection;
see Res. 635, Sec. 4
Es~. ,;a% of Bond deferred . charge
$ 1700.00
$ 1542.00
TOT AL DEVELOPMEll.'T COSTS . AS SHOWN ABOVE:

TOTAL CIT7'S COST AS SHOWN ABOVE:

DUE FROM DEVELOPER:

DEFERRED CREDITS: see special conditions attached
DEFERRED CHARGES: see special conditions attached
AMOUNT PAYABLE:
$ None.
$ -(20,179.os)
$ 2-6,627 .00
$ 84S,J4
Developer d~ elect to pay only ~ of said utility
(does) -)
costs upon execution of this agreement as aforesaid.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, said parties have caused these presents to be executed the date and year first above written.

CALCULATI ON SIIBE,T
EICH¥R BOl·.F.S POl1.EROY GREE.~
Sanitary Sm.-ers~
Fees : ~.212 Ac. 3 S750/Ac •
Construction Credits:
12" VCP 825 L.f.@ $3 ,75
611 VCP 506 LF @ $1. 75
MH 4 @ $250 each
Clean Out ·
Storm Drain:

Fees: 6.212 Ac,@ $750/Ac •
Const~~ction Credits:
12u RCP 628 L.f.@ $3.50 •
18" RCP 795 L.F. @ $7. 00
C. B, 12.,~ @ $140 each
MH 4 @ $250 each
$3,093.75
885, 50
1,000.00

65.00 I
$5,044.25
City ' ~ Co::
$2,198 . 00
5,565.00
l;.20.00
1,000.00
$9,12),00
$4,659. 00
City ' ~ Cost
City Paving Coets:

Centerline paving - Benton - 9500 Sq. rt.

Grading 0.05
Roclt 0.13
J" Pt-lS ..Q..,1.1
$0.Jl $2,945.00
Po~eroy Avenue -
RelllOve ex.1st. paving,
15,664 Sq. Ft.@ ~0.08 - $1,253,00
9'' Base Rock
17,722 Sq. Ft.@ $0.13 • $2,304,00
J'' Pl-IS 11,731 S~.~ ~ '"' $1,525,00
Deferred Credits:

P&vif18. POllleroy Avenue
P01Dero:, Storm se..,er
Deferred Charges:
¼ Water
Er€r, & Inspection
$5,082.00
$8,027.00
$8, 027,00

18.600,00
$26,627.00
$ 4,057,58
1,542.00
$ 5,599.58
--.,JS5.25
Stipulation Ho. 1:

STIPULATION SHEET
EICHLER HOhES POl-iEROY GREE?f
'f lJ
The developer shall dedicate a'<f.5--foot R/W for Benton Stre'3l and 80 foot R/1'1 for Pollleroy Avenue inclu.ding_ that portion frontini;- the exclu,jed parcel .

Stipulation Mo ·2;
The developer shall consttuct tho paving, curb and gutte _r, and !lide"1alk in llerrton Street and in Poceroy Avenue. The improvements in Benton Street shall extend to the center line of the street. Tho daveloper shall be reimbursed for the oost of the improvemchts of th e southerly l2 foot wide otrip of Benton Street, E,ti.mated cost - $2,945,00, to be reicliursed "'1.thin two years.

The developer eh&l.l construct :31 feet of paving =d the curb, eutt.er and sicle,~lk in Pomeroy, adjacent to this development including the (rontag_e of the residual parcel.

The developer shall also conotruct JO feet Qf perm.ri.nent improvem;nt.s !or a distance of approximately- 127 feet nort~erl:, from this devolopment . 'the iclprove.oents in l:'orneroy Avenue shall µiclude the replacement of the axisting 5 foot ~~lk-way adjacent to the westerly edge of the pa.Vint:, ldth one of si.ltll.ir construction.

The developer shall also 'Provide a smooth transition, at the soutr ,erly end of the nell' coll!ltruction to join with the e:--.isting paving.

The City shall reimburse the develoi;er 11ithin two years westerly lJ. feet" the northerly 127 feet extension, and of 9" of base ro<ik in the souther].J t.ra.'lsition section. port.ion is $5,082.00.

St-ipt1la.tion No. 3:
for the cost of improvinr- the
the costr-of. pavwnent, the pl.ar.:i.ng
The estimated cost of th e City
Th1;1 cof>t. of the offsite storm drain in Pomeroy Avenue shall be paid to the developer in the form of progress p~yments as follows:
4(Jf, ...tien 4,of, of the work is colllplete, 80% when Bo% complete, and the final 20% upon acceptance of the work by the City.

The developer sha.11 not start work on th" Pomeroy A.venu_e storm drain line until thee City Engineer has reviewed and accepted the unit. prices submi t ted by th.o developc:' s contractor .

Stipulation No, 4:

All City costs are eotit:.a.ted onl;r and shall be recalculated upon acceptance of the work by the City.
j I
I w :,.
l .,,
I
>-
0 Q:
w
~
0 a.

OF COUNTY ASSESSOR -- SANTA Cl AR A COUNTY, CAL I FORNIA

POMEROY GREEN
COOPERATIVE , . ~ 75'
R. 0. S. 125/:?9
0[ TA I L 1": 20 '

10.91.; Uollll'0.0 C4.POll1
I
I I L ______ _I
NPS Form 10-900
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
0MB No. 1024-0018
National Register of Historic Places Registration Form
This form is for use in nominating or requesting determinations for individual properties and districts. See instructions in National Register Bulletin , How to Complete the National Register of Historic Places Registration Form. If any item does not app ly to the property being documented , enter "NIA" for "not applicable." For functions , architectural clas sification , materials , and areas of significa nce , enter on ly categories and subcategories from the instructio ns.

1. Name of Property
Historic nam e: Pomeroy Green
Other names/site number:
-------------------Name of related multiple property listin g: _N'---'-'-'/A--=--------------- (Enter "NI A" if property is not part of a multiple property listing

2. Location
Street & number: 1087- 1151 Pomeroy Avenue and 3201-3289 Benton Street City or town: Santa Clara State: California County: Santa Clara Not For Publication: D Vicinity: □

3. State/Federal Agency Certification
As the designated authority under the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended, I hereby certify that this __x_ nomination _ request for determination of eligibility meets the documentation standards for registering properties in the National Register of Historic Places and meets the procedural and professional requirements set forth in 36 CFR Part 60.

In my opinion, the property _x_ meets _ does not meet the National Register Criteria. I recommend that this propet1y be considered significant at the following level(s) of significance:
__ national _statewide _.X_local
Applicable National Register Criteria:
_.X_A B _x_c _D
State Historic Preservation Officer February 17, 2021
Signature of certifying officialffitle: Date
California State Office of Historic Preservation
In my opinion, the property meets does not meet the National Register criteria.

Signature of commenting official: Date
Title: State or Federal agency/bureau or Tribal Government United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service/ National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 0MB No. 1024-0018
Pomeroy Green
Name of Property

4. National Park Service Certification
I hereby certify that this property is:
_entered in the National Register
_determined eligible for the National Register
_determined not eligible for the National Register
_removed from the National Register
_other (explain:) _________ _
Signature of the Keeper

5. Classification
Ownership of Property
(Check as many boxes as apply.)
Private: c=J
Public - Local □
Public - State D
Public - Federal □
Category of Property
(Check only one box.)
Building(s)
District
Site
Structure
Object
□ 0
□
□
□
Sections 1-6 page 2
Santa Clara, California
County and State
Date of Action
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service/ National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 0MB No. 1024-0018
Pomeroy Green
Name of Property
Number of Resources within Property
(Do not include previously listed resources in the count) Contributing Noncontributing
17 19 0
Santa Clara, California
County and State
buildings
sites
structures
objects
Total
Number of contributing resources previously listed in the National Register --'O'-_

6. Function or Use
Historic Functions
(Enter categories from instructions.)
DOMESTIC/multiple dwelling
SOCIAL/clubhouse
LAND SCA PE/park
Current Functions
(Enter categories from instructions.)
DOMESTIC/multiple dwelling
SOCIAL/clubhouse
LANDSCAPE/park
Sections 1-6 page 3
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service/ National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 0MB No. 1024-0018
Pomeroy Green
Name of Property

7. Description
Architectural Classification
(Enter categories from instructions.)

MODERN MOVEMENT
Materials: ( enter categories from instructions .)
Santa Clara, California
County and State
Principal exterior materials of the prope1ty: Plywood, Concrete, Stucco, Glass Narrative Description
(Describe the historic and current physical appearance and condition of the property . Describe contributing and noncontributing resources if applicable . Begin with a summary paragraph that briefly describes the general characteristics of the property , such as its location, type, style, method of construction, setting, size, and significant features. Indicate whether the property has historic integrity.)
Summary Paragraph
Pomeroy Green is an Eichler Homes , Mid-century Modern multi -family housing complex located on the northeast corner of Pomeroy Avenue and Benton Street, near the western limits of the city of Santa Clara. The complex is in a primarily residential zoned part of the city consisting of tract homes and schools, and a church. The district includes sixteen multifamily buildings of varied configurations ranging from two to eight two-story townhouses per building and a clubhouse and swimming pool set in extensively landscaped grounds. Buildings are oriented on a north- south or east-west axis, and arranged in a manner to enclose motor courts , parking lots, or . social spaces. Buildings are constructed of concrete masonry unit walls and post and beam construction, allowing the fronts and backs of each townhouse to feature large expanses of glass windows and sliding glass doors . Wood siding and panels of stucco are also used on the exterior walls . Townhouses are all the same size, and each successive townhouse in a building is a mirror image of its adjacent neighbor. Only small changes have been made to its design and materials , including replacement of some doors and windows , and addition of some fireplaces and additional parking. The district is in good condition and retains historic integrity.

Section 7 page 4
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service/ National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 0MB No. 1024-0018
Pomeroy Green
Name of Property
Narrative Description
Location and Setting
Santa Clara, California
County and State
Pomeroy Green has been an owner-occupied multi-family housing cooperative since inception .

Owners are shareho lders in the cooperative and have the exclusive use of their townhouse unit.

Shareho lders manage the comp lex through an elected Board of Directors-five shareho lders who meet monthly to determine maintenance and occupancy policies. Day-to -day management of the comp lex is performed by a professional property manager overseen by the Board. The origina l construction was inspected by the Federal Housing Administration as we ll as city building inspectors. The success of Pomeroy Green helped secure the subsequent development of Pomeroy West, another Eichler Homes project in the Mid-century Modern sty le located across the street to the west. The two comp lexes share most of the same architectural features.

Pomeroy Green is surrou nded by housing from the same period , the I 960s. Tract homes are to the south across Benton Street, and to the north. A church is to the east. The city expanded westward from its origin , ca lled the Old Quad , near the Santa Clara Mission and the railroad on the east side of the city. In contrast to the surrounding tract homes , Pomeroy Green is an oasis of trees, green lawns, and open space (Photo 7). In the summer, Pomeroy Green is noticeably coo ler due to the trees and ground cover.

The city's housing expansion replaced the fruit orchards that were once the predominant feature of the Santa Clara Valley. The valley is bordered by the Santa Cruz Mountains to the west and south and the Diablo Mountain range to the east. The Sai1ta Cruz Mountains buffer the Pacific Ocean-based.winter storms and contribute to the mild Mediterranean climate in the valley. The mild climate a llows a wide variety of exotic plants to thrive and numerous architectural styles to succeed, including the modern architecture of Pomeroy Green.

Pomeroy Green was once part of a much larger property , a vanished fruit orchard owned by the Pomeroy fami ly. Benton Street was realigned farther to the south, in a reverse curve design , to accommodate construction. A ranch sty le single-fami ly house at I 075 Pomeroy Avenue, outside the district boundary , is surrounded on three sides by Pomeroy Green Buildings 6, 14, and 16.

Further research is needed to confirm if the ranch house is the last home of the Pomeroys.

The surrounding neighborhood is suburban in character , mostly single-story residential buildings , and includes two elementary schools and a high schoo l within walking distance. The historic El Camino Real highway is a half-mile to the north and features commercial businesses and connections to public transportation.

Landscape One Contributing Site
Open space prevails between buildings. The site is relatively flat, and landscape and building arch itecture provide visual interest. Alternating areas of open and closed spaces are interconnected (Figure 3). The frontage along Benton Street and Pomeroy Avenue is composed of varying amounts of open space. Some areas are relatively sha llow and front buildings , while Section 7 page 5
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service/ National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 0MB No. 1024-0018
Pomeroy Green
Name of Property
Santa Clara, California
County and State
others feature deep open spaces that provide glimpses into the interior of the complex (Photo 12). This irregularit y creates visual interest in contrast to the regimented pattern of landscaping and pavements in front of the single-family tract homes nearby, a result of the repeated front and side setbacl<s and other requir ements of the zoning ordinances.

The buildings enclose a central common area with clubhouse and pool. Social and recreational spaces also include a playground and basketball court. A small park (Photo 18) and herb garden enhance the consistent architectural character of the complex and provide a space for community activity. Those spaces feature trees , benches , and pavements as found elsewhere in the complex and thus help unify the complex. The park includes a circular planting bed with flowering plants surrounded by a circular exposed aggregate walkway with benche s. The herb garden features the same concentric circle design and benches .

Spaces are interconnected by pathways between buildings (Photo 19). Rectangular shaped exposed aggregate pads placed in lawn areas echo the rectangular shape of the buildings and reinforce the look of the complex. Outdoor lighting and benches are provid ed along the pathway s. The exterior lighting fixtures are globes on steel poles and provide low-level lighting throughout the complex. The globe fixtures continue on the front fences of the townhouse units.

They light the parking areas and the trees in front of each unit, illuminating the tree branches and canopy to provide a dramatic visual effect from both the interior and exterior of the units.

The common grounds are extensively landscaped . Approximately three hundred trees are arranged to enclose the driveways , parking lots, and social spaces, as well as to help define pathways . The trees shade the asphalt parking lots and motor courts , as well as the units , and keep the housing complex cooler in summer. Sod and ivy ground cover also contribute to the cooling effect. This shading is particularly welcome because the townhouses do not include air conditioning .

Many original landsca pe features are extant. The small, landscaped park along the backside of Buildings 6 and 14 features sod ground cover, three large elm trees , and numerous benches. The park is separated from the city street by a six-foot high board -and-batten fence.

Evergreen pear trees (Pyrus kawakami) line the long driveways along Buildings I, 2 and 3 from Pomeroy Avenue and Buildings 7, 8, 9 and 11 from Benton Street, referred to by residents as the long Pomeroy and Benton courts. Further research is necessary to determine if those trees are original. The trees specified on the plans are privet trees (Ligustrum japonicum) and Victorian box (Pittosperum undulatum ), though they would be about the same height as the pear trees, matching the original design intent.

These tree s transform the driveway areas into outdoor spaces with well-defined edges. Since a single species of tree is planted on both sides of the driveways at regular intervals , a clean, straight line is created. The crowns reach across the width of the driveway , almost touching , thereby enclosing and defining space . The trees define the space and are also efficient in shading pedestrians and driveways from the intense California sun.

Section 7 page 6
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service/ National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 0MB No. 1024-0018
Pomeroy Green
Name of Property
Santa Clara, California
County and State
Several other spaces at Pomeroy Green are defined by the tree selections. Camphor trees (Cinnamomum camphora) are an efficient , functional solution to landscaping a parking lot.

Providing shade , they are low maintenance , requiring infrequent and little pruning and leaf litter removal. The trees are of a uniform height with the trees in front of the buildings , thereby extending the tree canopy across the entire lot, helping to define and enclose the space while shading the lot in summer and diverting wind up and over the complex in winter.

The long walkway that runs east-west through the complex, starting at Building 6 and ending at Building 11, is defined by elm trees (Ulmus parvifolia) that line the walk on one side . The regular spacing of those trees helps define the edge of the walkway space , enhancing the clean lines of the space. Those elms , along with the pepper trees (Schinus terebinthifolius) , birch trees (Bettula alba), and Chinese pistache trees (Pistacia chinensis), on the south , west , north , and east sides respectively , surround the clubhouse and pool area. Those trees help to define the space , provide shade over the walkways in summer and help direct the winter winds up and over the complex.

The use of sod for ground cover along the frontage , in the small park, along walkways between buildings, and around the small basketball court , is a practical solution for plantings that must tolerate moderate pedestrian traffic and recreational activity. The Santa Clara Valley Water District , the government agency that delivers water to customers in the valley , has encouraged homeowners to replace sod with drought tolerant plants . Alternatives to sod have been explored by Pomeroy Green residents. The balance of the ground cover is primarily ivy (Hedra canariensis) , used in locations where little foot traffic is expected, such as borders along walkways and in the medians of the parking courts .

Buildings
General Attributes
Exteriors
Seventeen Contributing Buildings
Buildings are oriented on an east-west or north-south axis to take advantage of sunlight. The orientation of many of the buildings at ninety degrees to one another and the generous building separations provide privacy as well as allowing unobstructed views in most cases. Each building group is arranged around a driveway or parking lot to facilitate access to automobiles. Grouping the buildings around parking lots and driveways blocks vehicular noise from the townhouse back yards. Each townhouse also has an integral carport for one passenger vehicle. The entry door for the townhouse is inside the carport , providing shelter . Superior to the secondary entry door found in the garage of a typical single-family detached home , the carport entry door is illuminated by daylight and there is not the added expense of a secondary entrance door.

The Mid-century Modern architectural style features repeated building elements , modular design and construction, and rectangular shapes. The townhouse units are all the same size and design.

Mirrored floor plans contribute to the modular look of the architecture. Townhouses are assembled into rectangular buildings of two, three , four, five , six, and eight townhouses. The architect refers to these buildings as blocks.

Section 7 page 7
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service/ National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 0MB No. 1024-0018
Pomeroy Green
Name of Property
Santa Clara, California
County and State
Other modular and rectangular elements in the design and construction include flat roofs that further enhance the rectangular look. Entry doors are flush and painted in bright colors to provide a rectangular focal point that emphasizes the modular design. Door height has been standardized at seven feet, matching the height of the underside of the carport roof, so that it visually enhances the sense of the carport space. The carport roofs extend into and away from the townhouse, further emphasizing the carport space. The roof underside features a flat, white-colored surface lit at night. This surface creates a visually distinctive rectangular horizontal plane that directs the eye towards the front door. This planar surface extends beyond the fac;ade of the building intermittently, for every two units, and provides relief to the otherwise long, rectangular building.

The townhouse roofs cantilever four feet beyond the rear wall of the building , forming an overhang that protects the sliding glass windows and doors. They also provide a decorative element since the boards are chamfered along their length , creating a shadow that directs the eye out, from the rooms through the windows , towards the sky. The townhouses and the clubhouse include rectangular walls constructed of concrete masonry units (CMU) laid in a stack bond that echoes the rectangular wall , contributing to the modular design. The CMU walls and wood posts support structural beams that allow the buildings to feature large expanses of glass windows and sliding glass doors.

Windowless walls , made of CMU, on the ends of the buildings provide visual and acoustic privacy between buildings (Photo 24) and provide a backdrop for shadows cast by the trees (Photo 25). To further enhance privacy, the concrete block walls that separate one townhouse from another extend past the front and rear walls of the homes, obstructing views into neighbors' yards. Light is reflected from those block walls into the interiors of the units (Photo 26).

While the rear walls of the townhouses extend from the ground to the roof, creating an imposing impression , the front fac;ade is irregular. In the front of each townhouse, the second floor extends over the front patio, slightly creating a soffit finished in textured stucco. The second floor spans and paitially covers the carport , creating a recessed volumetric space in the building 's fac;ade (Photo 27). The flat carport ceiling, when lit at night, creates a dramatic effect enhanced by the shadow pattern of the two-by-four wood framing near the entry.

Large , fixed pane windows and sliding glass doors on the first floor, front and rear fac;ades, visually connect the indoors with the outdoors, and allow a lot of natural light into the buildings .

To further maximize sunlight , buildings are oriented on either a north-south or east-west axis, ignoring the alignment with the surrounding city streets. Flat roofs also allow more sunlight on the landscape and adjacent buildings because flat roofs block less sunlight than sloped roofs.

On the second floor of each townhouse , the front fac;ade features four identical narrow double hung windows that extend from the floor to the beam near the ceiling. The windows are divided into three parts: a double-hung top and middle over a lower fixed portion. The repeated windows and the block walls emphasize the modular look of the architecture.

Section 7 page 8
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service/ National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 0MB No. 1024-0018
Pomeroy Green
Name of Property
Santa Clara, California
County and State
Front windows are located on each side of the front bedrooms, next to the interior concrete block walls. This window placement helps to brighten the adjacent interior walls and floors and leaves the center of the wall free for furniture . The symmetrical location of the windows on eac h unit gives a rhythm to the fa<;:ade of the entire buildin g and helps to differentiate each unit. Narrow windowsills make the seco nd-floor rooms appear bigger because there is no shadow cast by the sill onto the interior wall.

The second-floor bedrooms at the back of the townhouse are each lit by a slidin g glass window, as well as a fixed pane window next to the cement block wall. The fixed pane location allows daylight to fall on the wall surface, improving the overall lighting in the room. Five skylights further illuminate the second-floor rooms. Skylights are above the two full bathrooms , master bedroom, laundry area, and stairwell and second floor hallway.

Interiors
The ground floor features an open-floor plan . The half bathroom in the center effectively separates the various living spaces. Upon entering the unit from the carport, a short hallway leads directly to the stairwell, the living room, and the half bathroom. Opposite the half bathroom is a multipurpose area and kitchen accessed from the hallway or the dining space. The living room and dining area overlook the back yard, and the multipurpose room overlooks the front yard.

A staircase to the second-floor lands at a short hallway that provides access to four bedrooms and two bathrooms. Two bedrooms are located at the front , and two at the back . The master bedroom includes a bathroom and small walk-in closet. All bedrooms include built-in closet space. The second floor also features a laundry area near the bedrooms. A boiler room, including a gas-fired water heater , pumping equipment for the radiant floor heating system, and a potable hot water heater, is also on the second floor. These centralized utilities are an improvement over their garage location as is normally found in other types of housing from the period.

Interior walls and doors are finished with mahogany plywood, stained to darken the color, or gypsum board. The gypsum board is used in areas of high fire risk, such as the boiler room, bedrooms, and in the stairwell. Other finishes include kitchen cabinets with sliding Masonite panels for doors , and cabinet drawers comprised of wood faces affixed to plastic trays that have rounded corners for ease of cleaning. Unusual installations include a stovetop cabinet height lower than industry standards (32 inches versus 36 inches) to allow greater observation and ease of cooking, stovetop controls located toward the front of the appliance for ease of access, a cabinet-mounted wall oven installed at waist height for ease of use , and laundry facilities convenient to bedrooms .

Yards
Each townhouse features two fenced yards, a small front yard and a larger back yard (Photo 28).

The yards are accessed through floor to ceiling sliding glass doors that , along with adjacent floor to ceiling fixed-pane glass windows, allow a visual connection between the indoors and outdoors (Photo 29). This indoor-outdoor connection visually expands the interior space and is a signature feature ofEichler 's Mid-century Modern architecture.

Section 7 page 9
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service I National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 0MB No. 1024-0018
Pomeroy Green
Name of Property
Santa Clara, California
County and State
Residents have planted extensively in their front and back yards. Many residents have planted fruit trees; citrus trees in particular thrive here. Flowering plants are found frequently in the front yards. Bougainvillea is a favorite plant in those locations as well as other climbing vines that cover some of the fencing and soften the rectangular architecture.

The front and back yards feature six-foot high fences that separate neighboring townhouses and adjacent properties. Fencing provides privacy for the yards and prevents views into ground floor interiors. The front yard fence includes tongue-and-groove boards placed vertically, facing the public side of the fence. These boards provide a more'·finished appearance than the board-and batten fence used in the back yard and help to define and accentuate the rectangular space.

Front yards may include a decorative feature on the inside face of the fence and gate in a section of fence that separates the yard from the carport. This feature consists of vertical wood strips, l/2" thick by 1-1/2' wide, and spaced 3/4" apart, applied to the fence framing as well as the swinging door that provides access to the carport. This decorative fence treatment disguises the swinging door and makes it look like part of the fence, thereby giving the whole door and fence assembly a planar look emphasizing the space rather than the fence.

Construction Materials
Portland cement concrete floor slabs and block walls, wood framing , plywood, and stucco are used in a manner that expresses their decorative , protective, and structural properti es. Aluminum frames of the windows and sliding glass doors have a brushed finish to provide a non-glare surface.

Construction consists of a slab on grade with a steel reinforced spread footing in the concrete block walls. The block walls further serve to separate one unit from another , provide a fire and acoustic barrier between unit s, and support structural beams that provide support for each townhouse second floor and the clubhouse roof. Exterior wood-framed walls and some interior walls are inserted into the wall/beam structural system and are non-load bearing .

The underside of the carports features a textured gypsum to create the flat, homogeneous surface characteristic of modern architecture. The roof over the townhouse consists of a waterproof membrane supported by 2" by 8" tongue and groove boards that allow for expansion and contraction. The boards are exposed inside the unit , and the joints between the boards creates an interesting pattern.

The exterior walls, both front and back, feature vertically grooved plywood that contrasts with the long horizontal profile of the buildings. Two stucco panels on the rear wall extend from the head of the glass doors and windows on the first floor to the sill of the sliding glass and fixed pane windows on the second floor. These panels ' rectangular shape complements the rectangular windows.

Section 7 page I 0
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service/ National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 0MB No. 1024-0018
Pomeroy Green
Name of Property
Santa Clara, California
County and State
The clubhouse features the same type of modern construction and style as the townhouses. Floor to ceiling fixed windows and sliding glass doors are inserted into the post and beam construction along one side of the room, overlooking the pool and deck. The beams and roof extend past the glass wall toward the pool and deck, protecting the interior from the summer sun as well as visually directing attention toward the outdoors . The windows blur the distinction between the interior and exterior spaces, visually extending the sense of space.

Individual Building Descriptions
Unless otherwise noted , windows and doors are original. An intensive survey of condition and alterations was conducted in December 2018 and updated in early 2021. Overall condition is good. Minor alterations to exterior doors and windows do not compromise integrity. Many residents have remodeled their kitchens to include new cabinets (replacing the sliding Masonite doors with swing type doors) , appliances , and fixtures , and most residents have painted the wood paneling a lighter color. Known changes are noted in the individual unit descriptions . Kitchen improvements and window replacements are in the same locations as original features and are reversible , with minimal impact on integrity .

Building I 1113-1123 Pomeroy Avenue six townhouses
The windows and sliding glass doors of 1117, 1119, and 1123 Pomeroy front and rear fac;ades, have been replaced with vinyl framed equivalents. The interior of 1123 Pomeroy is original ( only first floor viewed).

Building 2 1137-1151 Pomeroy Avenue eight townhouses
The windows and sliding glass doors of 1139 and 1141 Pomeroy , front and rear fac;ade, have been replaced with vinyl framed equivalents. At the rear of the second story of unit 1139, the sliding window and fixed pane windows have been replaced with a window with a fixed pane in the middle and two sliders on each side of the fixed pane; the original wood divider that separated the original sliding glass window and the fixed pane has been removed to accommodate the new window. Unit 1149 front and back, first and second stories, the original windows and sliding glass doors been replaced with windows and sliding glass doors that have slightly wider aluminum frames. Townhouse at 1151 Pomeroy has vinyl framed windows on the second floor and original windows and sliding glass doors on the ground floor. Entry doors on 1139 and 1151 Pomeroy have applied decoration . The interior of 1151 Pomeroy is original ( only first floor viewed).

Building 3 1125-1135 Pomeroy Avenue six townhouses
All the windows on 1125, 1129, 1131, and 1133 Pomeroy , except possibly rear fac;ade bottom windows that cannot be seen, have been replaced with vinyl framed equivalents. Entry door on 1127 has applied decoration and 1133 has a raised panel door. The first floor of the interior of 1125 Pomeroy is original; the wall between the two front bedrooms of the second floor in this unit has been removed. The interior of 1131 Pomeroy is original (first and second floors viewed).

Building 4 1105- 1111 Pomeroy Avenue four townhouses
Entry doors to 1105 and 1107 Pomeroy have raised panels.

Section 7 page 11
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service I National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 0MB No. 1024-0018
Pomeroy Green
Name of Property
Santa Clara, California
County and State
Building 5 I 097-1103 Pomeroy Avenue four townhouses
Townhouse at 1097 Pomeroy has security bars over the second-floor windows at front of unit.

Building 6 l 087- 1095 Pomeroy Avenue five townhouses
The windows and sliding glass doors at I 093 Pomeroy have been replaced with vinyl framed equivalents. Townhouses at l 091, l 093, and l 095 Pomeroy have raised panel entry doors and the doors of 1093 and 1095 Pomeroy include fanlights while 1091 has an oval light. The interior of I 095 Pomeroy is original ( only first floor viewed).

Building 7 3209-3215 Benton Street four townhouses
Second floor windows at the front and back of 3209 Benton have been replaced with vinyl framed equivalents; the ground floor windows and sliding glass doors are original. Almost all of the windows at 3211 Benton have been replaced with vinyl framed equivalents; only the original fixed pane windows next to the rear sliding glass doors are original. The windows and sliding glass doors on the rear of 3215 Benton have been replaced with vinyl framed equivalents.

Townhouse at 3209 Benton has a raised panel door that features a fan light. The interior of 3215 Pomeroy is original (only first floor viewed).

Building 8 3201-3207 Benton Street four townhouses
The windows and sliding glass door s at 3207 Benton have been replaced with vinyl framed equivalents; the second-floor fixed pane windows have been replaced with single-hung vinyl framed windows. Townhouse at 3203 Benton has original windows on the second floor of the front fas:ade and the rest of the windows and sliding glass doors have vinyl framed equivalents.

Townhouses at 3203 and 3207 Benton have raised panel doors; 3203 has a fan light and 3207 has a craftsman style light. The first-floor interior of 3223 Benton is original.

Building 9 3217-3219 Benton Street two townhouses
The windows on the second floor of 3217 Benton , front and rear, have been replaced with vinyl framed equivalents; ground floor windows and sliding glass doors are original. All windows and sliding glass doors at 3219 Benton have been replaced with vinyl framed equivalents.

Townhouse at 3219 Benton has a raised panel entry door.

Building l 0 3221-3227 Benton Street four townhouses
The windows and sliding glass doors at 3223 Benton and 3227 Benton have been replaced with vinyl framed equivalents. Entries at 3221, 3223, and 3225 Benton have raised panel doors; 3223 has a rectangular light and the others have fan lights. The flush door of 3227 Benton has a small amount of applied ornament. The interior of 3223 Benton is original ( only first floor viewed).

Building 11 3229-3235 Benton Street four townhous es
The windows and sliding glass doors at 3229 Benton have been replaced with vinyl framed equivalents; the second-floor fixed pane windows have been replaced with single-hung vinyl framed windows. Entries at 3229 and 3233 Benton have raised panel doors and fanlights. The interior of 3229 Benton is original ( only first floor viewed) .

Section 7 page 12
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service/ National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 0MB No. 1024-00 18
Pomeroy Green
Name of Property
Santa Clara, California
County and State
Building 12 3245-3249 Benton Street three townhouses
The windows and sliding glass doors on the front and rear fa9ade of 3245 Benton have been replaced with vinyl framed equivalents. The windows and sliding glass doors at the front and rear of 324 7 Benton have been replaced with vinyl framed equivalents; the head areas of the sliding glass doors have been infilled with framing and stucco to accommodate a shorter replacement sliding glass door. The second story windows and sliding glass doors at 3249 Benton have been replaced with vinyl framed equivalents except for the ground floor front and rear fa9ade where original windows and sliding glass doors are extant. Entry to 3245 has a replacement door with horizontal lights. Entry to 3247 has a raised panel door with rectangular craftsman lights. 3249 Benton has a raised panel door with a fan light.

Building 13 3251-3265 Benton Street eight townhouses
Townhouse at 3251 has vinyl framed equivalent windows on the second-floor rear of the unit that features windows with a large fixed pane in the middle with two single hung windows on each side of the fixed pane; the original wood divider , the divider between the original fixed pane and slider, and the fixed pane window have been removed in order to install the new window.

Townhouse at 3257 Benton has aluminum framed windows that appear similar to original windows; the finish reflects more light due to minimal brushing of the surface by the manufacturer. The windows and sliding glass doors at 3251 and 3259 Benton have been replaced with vinyl framed equivalents; the windows and sliding glass doors at 3251 have divided panes .

Entry doors at 3251 , 3259, and 3265 Benton have raised panels; 3259 has a fan light and 3265 has an oval light. The door at 3263 is varnished rather than painted and 3257 has applied decoration. The door at 3259 Benton includes a vinyl frame around the door. The interior of 3257 Benton is original ( only first floor viewed).

Building 14 3267-3281 Benton Street eight townhouses
The windows and sliding glass doors at 3267 Benton have been replaced with vinyl framed equivalents; the head of the sliding glass doors at the rear have been in filled with framing and stucco to accommodate a shorter sliding glass door. Windows and doors at 3271, 3273, 3279 and 3281 Benton have been replaced with vinyl framed equivalents; 3271, 3273, and 3281 have single-hung windows in the location of the original fixed windows on the second floor of the rear fo;ade. Only the rear windows and sliding glass doors have been replaced with vinyl framed equivalents at 3277 Benton. On the second-floor rear fa9ade of3275 Benton , black anodized window frames have been installed. On the ground floor rear fa9ade of that unit, a greenhouse has been installed over one of the sliding glass door openings and adjacent fixed pane window; the greenhouse window extends four feet into the yard. Townhouses at 3267, 3273, 3277, 3279, and 3281 Benton have raised panel doors ; 3267 includes a fan light. The interior of3271 Benton is original ( only first floor viewed).

Building 15 3237-3243 Benton Street four townhouses
The windows and sliding glass doors at 3237, 3239, and 3241 Benton have been replaced with vinyl framed equivalents. At 3237 both sliding glass windows and the adjacent fixed pane windows on the second-floor rear fa9ade have been replaced by a window with a fixed pane in Section 7 page 13
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service/ National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 0MB No. 1024-0018
Pomeroy Green
Name of Property
Santa Clara, California
County and State
the middle and two sliders on each side of the fixed pane; this window required the removal of the original wood post separating the original fixed pane and sliding glass window. The front and rear of 3243 Benton has wood infill between the 6'-8" high vinyl framed front sliding glass door and the original 7'-0" rough opening provided for the original sliding glass door. The rear windows and sliding glass doors of 3243 Benton are vinyl framed equivalents except one original second floor sliding window and both original fixed panes. The ground floor windows and sliding glass doors on the rear fac;ade of 3241 Benton cannot be seen. Entry door at 3243 Benton has raised panels and a fanlight; 3237 Benton has a clear coat finish; 3239 Benton has applied decoration.

Building 16 3283-3289 Benton Street four townhouses
The windows and sliding glass doors of 3287 and 3289 Benton have been replaced with vinyl framed equivalents. The interiors of 3283 and 3285 Benton are original. The interior of 3289 Benton is mostly original; kitchen cabinets and appliances have been replaced ( only first floor viewed).

Clubhouse
The clubhouse features a large gathering place , and restrooms next to the clubhouse, separated by a short corridor. Block walls support exposed beams that extend past the glass wall on the south side of the building. The beams and the cantilevered roof they support attract attention and direct it towards the floor to ceiling glass wall and view outside. The original glass wall is made up of three sliding glass doors and fixed pane windows that overlook and provide access to the deck and swimming pool.

Swimming Pool One Contributing Structure
The original elliptical shaped pool, surrounded by exposed aggregate concrete paving and a bench, is located beyond the clubhouse and deck. The tall trees surrounding the pool area and the pool 's shape contrast with the rectangular shape of the surrounding buildings. The pool and its surroundings form a unified design that satisfies aesthetic and social needs. Primary design elements include the pool, the concrete paving surrounding the pool, the wood deck located between the concrete surround and the clubhouse, and the perimeter chain link fence with climbing vine that defines the limit of the space. Secondary design elements include the perimeter wood bench , pole lighting, and the entry to the pool area that provides a transition from the public space outside the pool area to the more private area of the pool area reserved for residents.

The pool is 31 '-7" by 56'-3," measured coping to coping, a thirty-five degree ellipse with the long axis oriented in the east-west direction. The short axis is centered on the deck. The projecting roof of the clubhouse , a continuous element that spans the clubhouse and the passageway , shares the same centerline as the pool, unifying these elements and providing symmetry to the composition . The pool and surrounding area-in fair to good condition-are largely original and in their original locations ; the few changes are reversible , with minimal impact on integrity.

Section 7 page 14
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service/ National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 0MB No. 1024-0018
Pomeroy Green
Name of Property
Alterations and Integrity
Santa Clara, California
County and State
Pomeroy Green has the same location since construction was completed in 1963; no buildings have been added, removed, or moved. The setting of the surroundin g neighborhood is still residential in character. Pomeroy Green retains all of its original design elements of site planning , landscape architecture, and building architecture. Most common areas and circulation networks are maintained as intended by the original design. Minor changes in the outdoor recreation areas include the conversion of two sand boxes to planters and a third to a small basketball court. Some of the exposed aggregate concrete pathways have been replaced with brick in the same footprint as the walkways they replaced (Photo 30). Some of the globe lighting fixtures have been replaced with globes approximately the same size as the original. A few additional fixtures of a differe nt style have been installed , which could be replaced with globe fixtures to match the original design. Additional lighting along the pool area pathway is compatible.

Additional landscaping is compatible with the overall design and not noticeable as an addition.

Though some plantings have changed from varieties originally specified by the landscape architects, the complex is still lushly landscaped as intended. Evergreen pear trees (Pyrus kawakamii) have replaced some mock orange trees (Pittosporum undulatum). Maidenhair trees (Ginkgo biloba) have replaced some Japanese privet (Ligustrum japonicum). Some shrubs have been allowed to grow into small trees.

The townhouses and clubhouse , with few exceptions , retain their original architectural design and building elements. Exceptions are reversible. Fireplaces have been installed at the rear of some of the units , serving the living room and bedroom s above. They are sheathed in the same exterior plywood as the rest of the adjacent wall in order to encase the flue (Photo 31). Further research is needed to determine if fireplace installation s were part of the original plans since the chases are standardized throughout the complex and integra l to the architecture.

Most replacement windows were installed in the original openings. The vinyl replacements are usually white in color, creating a focal point that optically advances in space. This is especially true of the frames that are much wider than the original brushed aluminum frames ( 32). The original doors and windows visually blend into the fa<;ade, occupying the same plane as the surrounding walls. Narrow-framed vinyl windows can be painted to match the aluminum color of the original windows and the wider framed windows can be replaced with new windows to match the original windows more closely. Smaller window and door replacements that required stucco or vinyl infill can be replaced in the future with taller windows and doors mor e sympathetic to the original design ; the original structure around t~e windows and doors has not been disturbed .

The operation of some of the new windows is different from the original. Some residents have replaced the rear sec ond floor sliding glass windows with double-hung windows, in some instances to install exterior mounted air conditioning units . Other residents have installed continuous windows that required the removal of the wood post that functions in the original Section 7 page 15
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service/ National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 0MB No. 1024-0018
Pomeroy Green
Name of Property
Santa Clara, California
County and State
design as a divider between the sliding glass doors and windows and the adjacent fixed pane windows. Some vinyl framed windows and sliding glass doors have tinted glass rather than clear.

Many of the original front entry flush type doors have been replaced by doors with decorative features and incompatible materials. Shorter, paneled, vinyl , and ornamented doors with fanlights are installations that reflect a desire on the part of some residents to display some traditional ornamentation, a characteristic not normally found in modern architecture. Some door replacements have included adjacent side light/window replacement (Photo 33). Originally made of frosted glass, some windows have been changed to hammered glass or safety glass .

Minor changes to exterior lighting fixtures include similar looking globes with LED technology on front fences . Fixtures in back yards and carports are more likely to appear visually different.

The finish on the plywood siding on the buildings has been changed from a dark brown stain to light gray paint. The color is similar to colors found in other Eichler projects. There has been an effort to reintroduce the limited palette of colors Eichler chose to paint entry doors; those colors are brighter than colors used on the building envelope and help to accent and emphasize the location of the entry door, similar to entry doors in other Eichler projects .

The principal building material s have not changed. The townhouse units are separated from one another by original concrete block walls . Wood beams span between the concret e block wall s creating a framework infilled with wood framed walls. The wood framed exterior walls at the front and back of the units feature vertical grooved plywood siding. Original plywood siding has been replaced with T-111 plywood siding that has fewer grooves per foot.

The wood bench around the pool has been replaced. The corners of the replacement bench were constructed with a miter ; the original bench had rounded corners , giving the bench a curvilinear appearance. The decking around the pool has been changed from the original redwood boards to composite material , constructed in the same footprint. Several utility enclosures have been replaced with taller enclosures sheathed in a different material than the originals.

Most of the electrical and gas meter enclosures , made to the same height as the front and rear fences , are made of the same materials and design as the adjoining fences , contributing to the rectangular design of the building (Photo 34).

One of the few opportunities to display workmanship in this type of concrete block and beam construction is the front elevation, especially the entryway in the carport. The storage doors and the door to the front patio in the carport are finished with the original Eichler siding and the original tongue-and-groove fencing , respectively, in order that these doors match the appearance of the surrounding walls and fence. This detail required careful planning of the construction in order to match the grooved pattern of the adjacent surfaces .

The architecture of Pomeroy Green conveys the fe eling of the early 1960s, a time when people were exuberant about all things modern , including electronics, television , outer space , Section 7 page 16
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service I National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 0MB No. 1024-0018
Pomeroy Green
Name of Property
Santa Clara, California
County and State
automobi le culture, and leisure and recreational activities. The modern design of the complex , with buildings featuring crisp rectangular shaped forms that contrast with the organic shapes of the trees , is visual ly striking. The complex stil l exudes a sense of modernism due to its regularity of repeated forms and repeated building components, its lack of architectural ornamentation, and the straightforward use of materials.

Pomeroy Green retains its association with the Eichler name , modern architecture , and cluster housing development. The complex was featured in CA Modern , the Eichler Network magazine on mid-century modern architecture distributed to California Eichler owners . Many Pomeroy Green shareholders were interviewed for the article .1
1 David Weinstein, "Pioneering 'Easy Living' at the Pomeroys, Eichler's Pomeroy West and Green Developments, " Eichler Network, Spring 2005, I, 6-8.

Section 7 page I 7
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service/ National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 0MB No. 1024-0018
Pomeroy Green
Name of Property

8. Statement of Significance
Applicable National Register Criteria
Santa Clara, California
County and State
(Mark "x" in one or more boxes for the criteria qualifying the property for National Register listing.)
□
0 □
A. Property is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history .

B. Property is associated with the lives of persons significant in our past.

C. Property embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values , or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components lack individual distinction.

D. Property has yielded, or is likely to yie ld, information important in prehistory or history.

Criteria Considerations
(Mark "x" in all the boxes that apply.)
D A. Owned by a religious institution or used for religious purposes D B. Removed from its original location
D C. A birthplace or grave
D D. A cemetery
D E. A reconstructed building, object , or structure
□ F. A commemorative property
□ G. Less than 50 years old or achieving significance within the past 50 years Section 8 page 18
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service/ National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 0MB No. 1024-0018
Pomeroy Green
Name of Property
Areas of Significance
(Enter categories from instructions.)

COMMUNITY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT

ARCHITECTURE

LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
Period of Significance
1963
Significant Dates
NIA
Significant Person
(Complete only if Criterion Bis marked above.)
NIA
Cultural Affiliation
NIA
Architect/Builder
Eichler, Joseph Leopold
Oakland, Claude
Sasaki, Walker & Associates
Section 8 page 19
Santa Clara, California
County and State
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service I National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 0MB No. 1024-0018
Pomeroy Green
Name of Property
Santa Clara, California
County and State
Statement of Significance Summary Paragraph (Provide a summary paragraph that includes leve l of significance, applicable criteria, justification for the period of significance, and any applicable criteria considerations.)
Pomeroy Green is eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places at the local level of significance under Criterion A in the area of Community Planning and Development for its pioneering use of cluster development. The district is also eligible for listing at the local level of significance under Criterion C in the areas of Architecture and Landscape Architecture. Pom eroy Green embodies the distinctive characteristics of Modern building design , materials , and methods , and is an exceptional residential example by regionally prominent post World War IT merchant-builder Joseph Eichler, architect Claude Oakland , and landscape architects Sasaki, Walker and Associates. The period of significance is 1963, the year construction was completed.

Narrative Statement of Significance (Provide at least one paragraph for each area of significance.)
Criterion A: Community Planning and Development
Pomeroy Green is significant in Community Planning and Development as an early example of cluster development , a type of suburban housing land use and site planning begun in the l 960s.

Cluster development challenged the prevailing pattern of single-family tract homes on individual lots that dominated the United States middle -class suburban housing market. Cluster development features common grounds, landscaping, and cooperative management by the residents. The goal is to provide housing while meeting the growing concern in the U.S. to conserve open space and farmland. Cluster housing was influenced by the Regional Planning Association of America (RPAA) design principles of the American Garden City Movement and, the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) design guidelines. 2 According to Matthew Gordon Lasner in his book High Life Condo Living in the Suburban Century, the Santa Clara County Planning Commission published a briefing directed towards developers encouraging them to cluster homes around common open space. The briefing included Pomeroy Green as an example. 3 Pomeroy Green is also featured in Cluster Development by journalist William Wythe. 4 Published in 1964, the book examines completed cluster developments across the country . The July 14, 1964 issue of Look magazine , a popular photo journal distributed nationwide, featured "So lution for Suburbia" about Pomero y Green with photo captions citing the advantages of cluster housing (Figure 7)5. 2 From the turn of the twentieth century, the movement proposed self-contained cities surrounded by greenbelts, in an attempt to balance residential, industrial , and agricultural land use. See Ebenezer Howard's Garden Cities of Tomorrow (Cambrid ge, MA: MIT Press, 1965).
3 Matthew Gordon Lasner, High life Condo living in the Suburban Century (New Haven and London, UK: Yale University Press, 2012), 20 I.
4William Whyte , Cluster Development (New York: American Conservation Association, 1964 ), 57, 88, I 00, IO l. 5 John Peter and Fred Lyon, "So lution for Suburbia," look 28, no.14 (July 14, 1964).

Section 8 page 20
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service I National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 0MB No. 1024-0018
Pomeroy Green
Name of Property
Santa Clara, California
County and State
David Gebhard , architectural historian and author of The Guide to Architecture in San Francisco and Northern California, stated:

These two tracts [Pomeroy West and Pomeroy Green] were among the pioneering townhouse developments that triggered the "wave" of planned unit, high density , attached housing that had by the 1970s all but captured the mass housing market in California .

Starting in the 1950s, architects advocated such so lution s in place of the sprawl of sing le family detached housing. 6
Those housing and land conservation concerns are echoed and form the basis for the RPAA design principles and land-use gu idelines, as wel l as the design and neighborhood planning goa ls of the FHA's approved garden apartment communities. At the local leve l, Pomeroy Green reflected those national trends in suburban development.

Suburban development in the Santa Clara Valley is easily traced . From the 1800s to the 1940s, the Santa Clara Valley was primarily agricultural , from wheat fields to fruit orchards. Beginning in the late 1940s, rapid suburban development began to surround the downtowns of the small cites that dotted the valley , encroaching into the orchards .

Suburban development in the City of Santa Clara, originating on the outskirts of the original downtown located on the eastern border with San Jose, made its way westward on former farmland towards the city limits with the City of Sunnyvale. As Santa Clara developed , the housing tracts became larger, housing lots in those tracts became larger, homes on those lots became larger, and city streets in those tracts became wider. The housing developments hastened the demise of the orchards.

In response to concerns over disappearing farmland in Santa Clara County, cluster housing development was proposed by county officials as an alternative to conventional subdivisions of single-fam ily tract homes on individual lots. The county published a brochure describing the advantages of cluster subdivision development compared to conventional subd ivision development. The pamphlet was distributed nationwide and used by planners and builders across the country, as well as in the Santa Clara Valley.7
Eichler, recognizing those concerns , decided a change was needed from his normal practice of constructing tracts of single-fami ly homes. 8 Eichler needed flat land to build his sing le-family homes that he had been most successful in building for homebuyers elsewhere in California . The San Francisco Bay Area is ringed by mountain ranges, and the little flat land available for development was becoming scarce by the I 960s. In reference to the increasing price of his 6 David Gebhard, Eric Sanweiss, and Robert Winter, Architecture in San Francisco and Northern California (Salt Lake City: Peregrine Smith Books, 2nd ed., 1985), 186.
7 Whyte, Cluster Development , 16-17. Whyte mentions The Common Green brochure was "fomented" by the county planners in 1961 and credits the brochure's creation to Karl Belser and his associates on the Santa Clara County Planning Commission.
8 Lasner , 20 1-202.

Section 8 page 21
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service/ National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 0MB No. 1024-0018
Pomeroy Green
Name of Property
Santa Clara, California
County and State
single-family detached homes , Eichler remarked , "The situation obviously calls for a more intensive use of land, and we are more and more turning our attention in that direction. "9 One solution to the scarc ity of land was the Pomeroy Green project. Pomeroy Green is a higher density development located in a less dense ring of single-family tract homes. Measured by gross density, 10 twelve townhouse units per acre at Pomeroy Green compare to six or fewer single family detached homes per acre usually found in City of Santa Clara typical housing tracts. The preponderance of multi-family housin g projects , built after Pomeroy Green as the City expanded westward towards Sunnyvale, confirms that builders in the area were indeed having to adjust to the scarcity of flat land and to rising land prices.

Pomeroy Green met FHA requirements for neighborhood amenities and building design as well as governance. The complex is in a neighborhood that includes two elementary schools, a high school, a city park, two churches, and another Eichler multi-family complex . Pomeroy Green realized many of the recommended FHA design guidelines, such as the inclusion of a private entrance for each unit, recreation areas for socializing, and common grounds. The social spaces at Pomeroy Green include a clubhouse, swimming pool, and benche s around the complex for informal gatherings of resident s. Pomeroy Green shareholders are provided a Sales Binder that includes organization and policy documents to help them manage the complex. Such attributes contribute to neighborhood stability and minimi ze the risk of investing by lenders, all goals of the FHA.

The integration of the buildings and the landscape result from Pomeroy Green being treated as a single parcel following RPAA and FHA design guidelines. Building architecture and landscape architecture are integrated in order to create a coherent spatial organization that provides community, privacy , fresh air circulation, and control and use of daylight. Hundreds of trees were planted in strategic locations to make the best use of their shade. The protection is particularly welcome because the townhouses were designed without mechanical air-conditioning. During the winter months , when the deciduous trees have lost most of their leaves , the bare trees in combination with a low roof height and flat roofs allows more daylight. 11 Criterion C: Architecture
Pomeroy Green embodies the distinctive characteristics of Modern building design , materials , and methods. The district retains its massing, spatial relationships , pattern of windows and doors , texture of materials , and ornamentation of the type associated with Modern architecture. 9 Dave Weinstein, "Joe Reveals 'The Eichler Success Formula,"' https://www.eichlernetwork.com/blog/dave weinstein/joe-revea ls-%E2%80%98-eic hler-success-fo rmula%E2%80%99 , accessed December 11 , 2018. 10 Gross density is number of housing units per acre of land; land acreage includes transport infrastructure such as private driveways and public streets as well as private or public parking spaces. 11 Walter Gropius, The New Architecture and the Bauhaus (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1965), I 04-105. Includes a detailed explanation and diagrams illustrating the relationship between building separation and the number of building floors in regard to sunlight penetration into the buildings and site.

Section 8 page 22
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service/ National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 0MB No. 1024-0018
Pomeroy Green
Name of Property
Santa Clara, California
County and State
The district reflects the history of Modern architecture in California and the tenets of design established by one of the notable pioneers of modern architecture in California, Rudolph Schindler. Most of the features Schindler prescribed for modern architecture are found in his reply to the 1952 request made by the director of the Department of Architecture and Design at the New York Museum of Modern Art to include Schindler's work in an exhibit at the museum :

In my own house ( 192 l) I introduced features which seemed to be necessary for life in California: an open plan, flat on the ground; living patios ; glass walls; translucent walls; wide sliding doors ; clerestory windows; shed roofs with wide shading overhangs. These features have now been accepted generally and form the basis of the contemporary California house. 12
Most of those characteristics appear in the design by Eichler's chief architect Claude Oakland for Pomeroy Green and Schindler's design for El Pueblo Ribera Court ( 1923), a complex of twelve duplexes in La Jolla, California similar to Pomeroy Green. Both complexes feature units with open floor plans , floor slabs on grade, and expanses of windows (glass walls) that look onto private patios. Both feature translucent windows/walls and wide shading overhangs. Both complexes also feature windowless walls that provide privacy between units and form a backdrop for the landscaping. The careful placement of the windowless walls and the large windows at both complexes provide an indoor-outdoor connection while maintaining privacy between the units .13
Pomeroy Green's architectural design can also be considered an offshoot of the International Style, defined by architectural historian Henry-Ru sse ll Hitchcock and architect Philip Johnson.

In the preface to The International Style, Alfred Barr, Jr. summarizes the three characteristics elaborated in the book:

The distinguishing aesthetic principles of the International Style as laid down by the authors are three : emphasis on volume-space enclosed by thin planes or surfaces as opposed to the suggestion of mass or solidity; regularity as opposed to symmetry or other obvious balance; and, lastly, dependence upon the intrinsic elegance of materials , technical perfection and fine proportions , as opposed to applied ornament. 14 These aesthetic characteristics are found in the design of Pomeroy Green. Volume is emphasized by the thin planes of the concrete block party walls in filled with plywood-sheathed wall.

Regularity is established by the spacing of the windows and by the projecting roofs of the carports providing rhythm rather than symmetry along the fa;ade. Elegance, without applied ornamentation , is found in the fine detailing of the exterior surfaces, such as the fine grooves in 12 Susan Morgan, "Not Another International Style Ballyhoo, A Short History of the Schindler House," http://schindl erlab.org/history/# edn2, accessed December 11 , 2018 . 13 The Architecture Week, Great Buildings Collection, "El Pueblo Ribera Court," http ://www .greatbuildin gs.co m/buildings/EI Pueblo Ribera Ct.html , accessed December , 31, 20 18. 14 Henry-Russell Hitchcock and Philip Johnson , The International Style (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1932), 29.

Section 8 page 23
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service/ National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 0MB No. 1024-0018
Pomeroy Green
Name of Property
Santa Clara, California
County and State
the exterior plywood, the fine framed windows of brushed aluminum , and the fine textured stucco panels.

Ornament is treated differently in modern architecture. J. M. Richards provides an explanation in An Introdu ction to Modern Architecture:

The Modern equivalent of applied ornament , however , largely lies in the natural qualities of material s themselves ; in the grain and surface of beautiful woods, in the sheen of new metal alloys, and in the contrasting texture of fabrics ; all used with the exactness of finish that machines have introduced into architecture. 15
Materials used in the construction of Pomeroy Green are indeed ornamented in that fashion. The fine grooving of the exterior plywood , the fine brushed aluminum windows, and the mahogany plywood that graces the interior contribute to the sense of ornamentation , without resorting to applied ornamentation.

The post and beam construction found in Pomeroy Green is a common method of framing for a modern house. The post and beam construction allows the use of large expanses of glass since the walls are not load bearing , only functioning as isolating walls. This construction allows the carport roof to project past the building's fa9ade ; that roof introduces a planar element to the overall design and is strikingly modern in appearance.

The bearing walls that form the end walls and the party walls, the walls that separate each unit and support the beams , are made of concrete blocks and contribute more than fire resistance and acoustic separation . Blocks are laid in a stack bond in a straightforward manner, in one continuous wall, without any applied finish, creating a grid pattern across the surface of the wall both in and outside the unit. This pattern emphasizes the rectilinear wall plane as well as the overall rectangular shape of the building. Those concrete masonry block walls extend beyond the building envelope towards the back yard. This extension both enhances back yard privacy and visually divide s the long buildings into repeated modular units.

The modularity is emphasized in the repeated use of block walls , and in the variety of materials employed. The buildings are visually interesting since the arrangement of different parts occur periodically along the walls of the building. The plank-type built-up roof, stucco panels with a medium float finish , grooved plywood siding, windows, and sliding glass doors are arranged in a harmonious assembly and are repeated throughout the complex for every unit.

The placement of the sliding glass doors and windows periodically along the fa9ade and rear wall of each building and exposed portion of the block wall define the limits of each unit and create a visual rhythm across the length of the building. Windows and sliding glass door placement , along with the open floor plan, enhances natural cross ventilation. Fixed pane windows, adjacent to the sliders, increase daylight inside the townhouses . Repetition allows the 15 J. M. Richards , An Introduction to Modern Architectu re ( 1940; reprint with revisions , London : Penguin Books, 1970), 42.

Section 8 page 24
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service I National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 0MB No. 1024-0018
Pomeroy Green
Name of Property
Santa Clara, California
County and State
viewer to extend attention to the landscaping , allowing the architecture to serve as a background for the landscaping.

The building components and materials contribute to the overall geometrical design of the buildings. The design is very similar to the row houses designed by Le Corbusier, Cite Fruges (1924-1926) in Pessac, France. Though many of the buildings were modified, efforts are underway to restore the original architecture. 16
The modern rectangular look of Pomeroy Green is further emphasized by the materials used to enclose the front yards. The tongue and groove fencing used around the front yard and patio provide a more finished surface than the typical board fencing used for suburban tract homes; that smoothness helps to emphasize the rectangular shape of the front yard, and complements the rectangular facade of the building. Boards are oriented ve11ically and provide a welcome contrast to the overall horizontal look of the front fa9ade . The front yard, extending from the building face and under the seco nd floor, interrupts the horizontal boxy look of the building and creating an interesting mix of positive and negative volumes extending from and into the fa9ade .

The tongue -and-groove fencing enclosing the front yard also runs along one side of the carport providing a smooth transition to the more refined vertically grooved siding near the entrance to the unit. The siding in this location and at the back of the carport is finely grooved in keeping with the small scale of the space and helps define the rectangular volume and rectangular surfaces. The front yard fencing also extends to cover the utility cabinet on the building ends.

This helps to incorporate the cabinets visually into the rectangular architectural design. Rather than distracting the viewer from the overall form of the building , the cabinets add another rectangular element.

The flat roof also contributes to the rectangular architecture of the buildings . The roof cantilever harmonizes with the vertically grooved siding and the exposed portion of the concrete block party walls. All three elements have rectilinear properties : the vertical grooving in the siding, the grid pattern of the block wall, and the exposed horizontal boards that make up the roof. The cantilevered roof projects horizontally from the rear of the building farther than the concrete block walls and runs the length of the building. The cantilever further accents the rectangular shape of the building .

The tongue and groove boards that make up the roof are exposed inside the unit and visible outside where the roof cantilevers horizontally over the back wall. The four-foot cantilever visually extends the room toward the outdoors , which makes the room appear larger. At night , that cantilever produces a dramatic effect. It reflects light from the interior and, along with the joints in the tongue and groove boards , directs the eye towards the outdoors. From the vantage point of the ground outside the unit, the observer's eye is drawn up to the lighted underside of the cantilevered roof and to the source of the light, the interior lighting of the unit. 16 Philip Boudon , Lived in Architecture, Le Corbusier's Pessac Revisited (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1972); Helena Ariza, "La Cite' Fruges: A Modern Neighborhood for the Working Class," http://architecturalvisits.com /en/20 15/0 I /27 /cite-fruges-le-corbusier-pessac/, accessed December 11 , 20 18.

Section 8 page 25
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service/ National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 0MB No. 1024-0018
Pomeroy Green
Name of Property
Santa Clara, California
County and State
Of particular importance to the Regional Planning Association of America is the privacy afforded by the design of a complex. In Pomeroy Green, the front and rear yard fences, as well as the windowless end walls of the buildings , provide privacy. Privacy is further enhanced by the placement of the living room at the back of the unit overlooking the back yard and away from the carport and parking lots. The building blocks noise from entering the back yards.

Building orientation also helps to protect privacy . Some buildings are oriented ninety degrees to one another and overlap. In this orientation, the buildings are separated a minimum of thirty-six feet; the average separation is forty feet. Buildings facing other buildings along the motor courts are separated by approximately forty -four feet to provide privacy.

Criterion C: Landscape Architecture
Pomeroy Green's landscape is the work of Hideo Sasaki and Peter Walker of Sasaki, Walker and Associates, landscape architects and site planning consultants. The contribution of Sasaki and Walker to the profession of landscape architecture is acknowledged by Diana Vogelsong in the introduction to her book Landscape Architecture Sourcebook, A Guide to Resources and Practice of Landscape Architecture in the United States:

A new effort to define landscape in the mid-tw entieth century was represented by the work of three prominent pioneers: Garrett Eckbo, Dan Urban Kiley, and James Rose .

Inventive landscape architects such as Peter Walker, M. Paul Friedenberg, Hideo Sasaki, Martha Schwartz, and others expanded upon those traditions in subsequent decades . 17 Pomeroy Green's landscape is an excellent example of mid-century modern landscape design . In "The Rise of Modernism" section on modern landscape architecture in Lands cape at Berkeley, the First 100 Years, Randy Hester , Jr. describes the origins and characteristics of modern landscape architecture:

When the international , or modern , style was introduced into the United States in 1932, landscape architecture was being practiced under strict and formal classical rules.

According to landscape mythology , the modern style was born in in the 1940s, when a student at Harvard refused to solve a site-planning problem with classical symmetry. The rebellion gave rise to modernism , which has now dominated the form of landscape architecture for over forty years. The work of nearly all the best known professionals today-Hideo Sasaki, John Simonds, William Johnson , Garrett Eckbo, Lawrence Halprin , [and others]-fits into this category.

Their work is characterized by simple, highly functional, and efficientform; well-defined edges; clearly articulated spaces; clean lines [ emphasis added]. Their modernism 17 Diana Vogelsong, Landscape Architecture Sourcebook, A Guide to Resources of the Histo,y and Practice of Landscape Architecture in the United States, Design Reference Series, vol. l (Detroit, MI: Omnigraphics, Inc., 1997), 11- 12.

Section 8 page 26
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service/ National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 0MB No. 1024-0018
Pomeroy Green
Name of Property
Santa Clara, California
County and State
expressed the nation's need for functional and efficient growth , with modern landscap e design giving clear form to those national purposes through design of corporate estates , suburb expansion , and urban renewal projects. 18
These characteristics are found in the design for Pomeroy Green. The landscape design is simple, having few species of plants ; is efficient, having low-maintenance plants; and defines space , repeating a variety of plants along and around pathways , buildings, and other architectural features . The buildings themselves echo this space defining characteristic of the landscape design by forming a variety of we ll-defined spaces that are further enhanced by the plantings , such as the long driveways, courts, and green open spaces. 19
The selection of magnolia trees (Magnolia grandiflora) along Pomeroy Avenue and Benton Street provides a s imple and efficient form in addition to being highly functional. The magnolia trees provide dense shade along the city sidewalk and are low maintenance. The five-foot setback of the trees behind the back of the city sidewa lk creates a clean line that follows the street; in the case of Benton Street , the trees follow the slight curvature of the street. The choice of one spec ies along the frontage , planted on thirty-foot centers so that the crowns overlap , is a simp le, straightforward solution to the problems of providing shade , defining the perimeter of the comp lex, and enclosing the space between the city street and the Pomeroy Green buildings.

While landscape architecture as an area of significance is typically associated with Criterion C, at Pomeroy Green the landscape architecture also exemp lifies the community planning and development addressed under Criterion A: a residential development of low to moderate-cost housing, located on previously undeveloped land, designed by collaborating professionals planners, architects, and landscape architects-to provide comprehensive amenities with the goal of fostering community among its residents. 20 This collaboration results in residential development that includes positive outdoor space, undivided by property lines, easily accessible by residents. 21
Pomeroy Green shares this comprehensive design objective with many earlier historic housing projects. 22 Pomeroy Green is related to the Garden City movement founded in Great Britain in the 1800s and the subsequent community planning efforts in the United States based on that movement. Particularly noteworthy in the United States are the developments in multi-family 18 Randy Hester, Jr., Professor Emeritus and Department Chair, Landscape Architecture 1987-1992, College of Environmental Design, University of California, Berkeley, "Process Can be Style, Participation and Conservation in Landscape Architecture," in Landscape at Berkeley, The First I 00 Years, ed. Waverly B. Lowell, Carrie L. McDade and Elizabeth D. Byrne (Berkeley : The Regents of the University of California , 2013), 49. 19 For a discussion on the need for space defining elements in the landscape , see Norman T. Newton , Design on the Land, the Development of Landscape Architecture (Cambridge , MA: Harvard University Press , 1971 ). 20 Norman T. Newton, Design on the Land, the Development of Landscape Archit ecture, (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1971 ), 424-425 .
21 Ibid., 643.
22 Peter Walker, interviewed by the author, July 21, 2019, telephone conversation.

Section 8 page 27
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service/ National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 0MB No. 1024-0018
Pomeroy Green
Name of Property
Santa Clara, California
County and State
housing projects of the early twentieth century by architect and planner Clarence Stein, in collaboration with planner Henry Wright and landscape architect Marjorie Sewel l Cautley. 23 The designs of those housing developments by Stein and his collaborators did not include all the features of a Garden City as proposed by Ebenezer Howard , author and originator of the Garden City movement. 24 Stein's and Wright's planned communities were large, moderate-cost, housing projects rather than comp lete cities, with industry and green belts, which Howard had envisioned for his Garden City. Howard's Garden City would have been difficult to realize in the U.S. at that time due to the limited means of corporations to finance and acquire land in the amount and quality needed for such a large development as well as the short business cycle of the national economy. 25
Instead, Stein and his design collaborator s focused on the housing needs of a society increasingly reliant on automobile transportation, the same problem faced by the designers of Pomeroy Green twenty to forty years later. Pomeroy Green shares many features of those earlier projects of Stein and his collaborators, projects listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Projects include Sunnyside Gardens in New York ( 1924- 1928, listed 1983), Radburn in New Jersey ( 1929-1933 , listed 1975), and Baldwin Hills in Los Angeles ( 1941, later renamed Village Green , listed 1993), designed by architect Reginald Johnson, associate architects Wilson, Merill and Alexander , and landscape architect Fred Barlow, Jr in consu ltation with Mr. Stein. 26 Although sma ller in scope than those earlier projects by Stein, Pomeroy Green exhibits many of the same design principles. Foremost among those is planned development, an approach to design that includes comprehensive site planning which takes into account the interaction of all the elements of the built environment. These attributes are summariz ed by Stein in the conclusion to his book Toward New Towns for America:

The Unit of Design in New Towns is no longer each separate lot, street or building, it is a whole community; a co-ordinated [sic] entity. This means that the framework of the community and every detail down to the last house and the view from the windows must be conceived, planned and built as a related part of a great setting for convenient, wholesome, and beautiful contemporary living and working. In this way every house gains from its relation to the buildings around it. Beauty as well as convenience is produced by the rational relationship of the individual parts.

The planning of every house and every room in that house is part of the process which gives the superblock its ultimate shape and character. Thus , the size and specific 23 Clarence Stein, Toward New Towns for America (Cambridge, MA : MIT Press, 1966), 22. 24 The difference in these projects is the size and scope, Howard's being larger and regional in scope and inclusive of industry while Stein's were largely confined to large housing complexes on super-blocks with cul-de-sacs for vehicular access.
25 Stein, 18-19.
26 Newton, Design on the Land, 643.

Section 8 page 28
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service I National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 0MB No. 1024-0018
Pomeroy Green
Name of Property
Santa Clara, California
County and State
requirements of inner green and private yard, of cul-de-sac or auto court, help mold the superblock in relation to good living in home, community and town.

As he designs, the New Town planner envisages the future home life of the individual and the family, and their life as part of the community. He sees it not only in terms of house and garden but in the grouping of houses in relation to each other so as to take the utmost advantage of sun and wind for every residence , and to open up pleasant , spacious and varied views from every house and, as far as possible, in every direction. He will in part be guided by the form and the nature of the land, and how its trees and streams and rocks can best be used or preserved for the common use and enjoyment of the people who are going to form the community, and who le life, from birth to old age, will be molded by the place . 27
Pomeroy Green exh ibits commun ity characteristics found in Stein's developments. At Pomeroy Green, the buildings and the landscap e were planned together and sited on vacant land held in common . To take advantage of the sun, the buildings are oriented in north-south or east-west.

The buildings are spaced generously to allow air and pedestrian circulation as we ll as various outdoor activities to take place.

Pomeroy Green further emu lates Stein's site planning by locating buildings around green spaces situated towards the interior of the development; spaces are reserved for recreation, pedestrian circulation and the enjoyment of the residents . 28 These park like amenities are possible due to the savings in construct ion costs . Vehicular parking is grouped, and driveways and utilities are shared at Pomeroy Green. A typical subdivision of single-family detached homes provides these amenities on a separate, more expensive basis . The savings were so great that at Pomeroy Green the power lines and telephone lines are all buried underground whereas overhead lines are unsightly in the back yards of the tract homes in the adjacent neighborhood, across Benton Street to the south.

The closest historical precedent to Pomeroy Green among the community planning works of Stein is Village Green, a large housing complex located in Los Angeles. Both Pomeroy Green and Village Green consist of two-story multi-family homes , built from standardized plans of similar architectural design and organized into blocks of different lengths , which are placed to enclose space and provide vistas into and out of the complex.

Both developments include living rooms located on the backside of the housing unit that look onto green spaces rather than automobile circu lation and parking areas . At Pomeroy Green this is accomplished in most instances by lookin g towards green space in the center of the complex, as was done at Village Green, or by providing large, landscaped setbacks from the surrounding city streets, or by facing the back yards of adjoining housing projects that include generous setbacks. 27 Stein, 225-226.
28 Elizabeth Barlow Rogers, Landscape Design, A Cultural and Architectural History (New York: Harry N. Abrams, Inc., 200 I), 421.

Section 8 page 29
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service/ National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 0MB No. 1024-0018
Pomeroy Green
Name of Property
Santa Clara, California
County and State
Pomeroy Green and Village Green have the same overall design objective in regard to taming the automobile: to provide living spaces that are protected from motor vehic les and the noise they generate. Of particular concern is separating child's play from motor vehicl es. To facilitate this separation, driveways and parking areas are located on the service side of the buildings , away from living rooms and back yards. At Village Green garage courts are provided and at Pomeroy Green parking courts and carports are provided.

The service rooms , kitchens in the case of Village Green and multipurpose rooms and kitchens in the case of Pomeroy Green, face the service side of the building , close to vehicu lar storage, for convenience and to block vehicular noise from entering living rooms and back yards.

This feature affects the arrangement of the buildings in the overall site planning such that the living rooms and back yards of adjacent buildings mostly face each other across a car-free commons. This car-free and landscaped area with plantings is where the residents can relax or recreate. At Pomeroy Green , severa l residents enjoy wa lking on the sidewa lk around the perimeter of the central commons, near and around the pool area, car free and lushly landscaped with trees, shrubs, and groundcover; others enjoy sitting at the numerous benches in these areas.

Other features in common include the selection of trees to form a background to the buildings, such as the trees located at the front and sides of the buildings to soften the hard edges of the architecture. Trees are also located to define three-dimensional space, such as the camphor trees in the parking lots and the trees around the clubhou se/pool area and the magnolia trees that form a perimeter around the complex.

The idea for enlarging the private yards that face the common green space located in the interior of these developments , a feature found at Pomeroy Green and not in the earlier developments by Stein, was anticipated by Mr. Stein in his post-occupancy eva luation of the Baldwin Hills project. 29 Though the common green space has been reduced considerably at Pomeroy Green due to the increase in the size of the private yards, it is still possible for most residents to walk throughout the complex without crossing the car storage areas, by following the circulation paths that lead from their individual yards into the interior of the complex . A pedestrian circu lation system is a defining feature of community planning.

The ultimate goals of the two projects are the same. The success of both projects goes far beyond the selection and siting of plant materials to provide comp lete environments for their residents based on sound community planning. As Stein mentions :

From the days of Sunnyside to those of Baldwin Hills Village we have been in search of new or revised solution of the setting for communities as well as for family and individual living. We have sought ways of bringing peaceful life in spac ious green surroundings to ordinary people in this mechanical age. We have tried to simplify the 29 Stein, 198.

Section 8 page 30
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service I National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 0MB No. 1024-0018
Pomeroy Green
Name of Property
Santa Clara, California
County and State
complexity of needs and desire as contrasted with means, and thus to make changes, from obsolete methods of the dead past, economically feasible. 30 Eichler Homes , in their sales brochure for Pomeroy Green, echoes many of the same themes :

These two story townhouses are skillfully arranged at relatively high land-use density.

Each unit has its own carport and two fenced patios. Good site planning , well designed auxiliary open areas , and effective planting provide a high degree of livability and visual appeal. 31
Peter Walker's practice changed during his career , and Pomeroy Green represents a distinct past phase in Walker 's approach to design. Up until the early 1970s, his work was focused on two objectives : to provide a setting for the building, and to connect that setting with the existing landscape .32 His work gradually changed after that period , and by the late 1970s, focused on the integration of minimalism (art and theory), classicism , historic garden designs , and landscape architecture . Twenty years later, Walker described this period in his career :

My work for the last twenty years [since 1977] has been an attempt to weave together the strands of classicism and European and Asian garden formalism and those of modernism , including the late modernists and midcentury minimalists , as I understand them. The result is what I consider minimalism in the landscape. 33 Eichler Homes went out of business in 1967 due to the company 's work on larger projects that overextended the company. 34 Joseph Eichler continued building homes until his death in 1974.

Claude Oakland died in 1989 and Hideo Sasaki in 2000 after long practices in their respective professions.
30 Ibid., 226.
31 Pomeroy Green Corporation , Pomeroy Green sales brochure , circa 1963. 32 Peter Walker, "Classicism , Modernism , and Minimalism in the Landscape " in Peter Walker, Minimalist Gardens Leah Levy , ed. (Washington DC: Spacemaker Press , 1997), 18. 33 Ibid., 19.
34 Lynn O'Dell, "Eichler Influenced by Wright: After Living in a House Designed by the Architect , Eichler Set Out to Build His Own and Never Quit," Los Angeles Times , 23 October 1993 https://www. latimes.co m/archives/la-xp m- 1993- I 0-23- hm-48758-story. html, accessed August 7, 2020 .

Section 8 page 3 I
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service I National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 0MB No. 1024-0018
Pomeroy Green
Name of Property

9. Major Bibliographical References
Santa Clara, California
County and State
Bibliography (Cite the books , articles, and other sources used in preparing this form.) Benevolo, Leonard. History of Modern Architecture. Cambridge, MA : MIT Press , 1989.

Boudon , Philip . Lived in Architecture, Le Corbusier's Pessac Revisited. Cambridge, MA :

MIT Press, 1972.

Damann , Raymond F. The Destruction of California . London: Collier Books, 1970.

Ditto, Jerry and Lanning Stern. Design for Living, Eichler Homes. San Francisco: Chronicle Books, 1995.

Editors of Fortune. The Exploding Metropolis . New York: Doubleday Anchor Books, 1958.

Eichler Homes, Inc. "Annual Report 1961." Oakland and Imada 2002-3 Collection, box 2, folder III 6, Joseph Eichler, 1960-1974, Environmental Design Archives, University of California, Berkeley.
"E l Pueblo Ribera Court." Architecture Week, Great Buildings Collection. http://www.greatbuildings.com /buildings /EI Pueblo Ribera Ct.htm l. Accessed December 31 , 2018.

Firm of Claude Oakland. Project report 1964. Oakland and Imada 2002-3 Collection, box 1, folder I 3, Claude Oakland personal correspondence 1959-1964 , Environmental Design Archives, University of California, Berkeley.

Gebhard , David , Eric Sanweiss, and Robert Winter. Architecture in San Francisco and Northern California. 2nd ed. Salt Lake City: Peregrine Smith Books, 1985.

Gropius, Walter. The New Architecture and the Bauhaus. Cambridge, Massachusetts : MIT Press , 1965.

Hester , Jr., Randy. "Process Can be Style, Participation and Conservation in Landscape Architecture ." In Landscape of Berkel ey: The First I 00 Years, edited by Waverly B.

Lowell, Carrie L. McDade and Elizabeth D. Byrne. Berkeley: The Regents of the University of California, 2013.

Hitchcock , Henry-Russell and Philip Johnson. The International Style. New York : W. W.

Norton & Company, 1932.

Howard, Ebenezer. Garden Cities of Tomorrow . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1965.

Sections 9-end page 32
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service/ National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMS No. 1024-0018
Pomeroy Green
Name of Property
Santa Clara, California
County and State
Lasner, Matthew Gordon. High Life Condo Living in the Suburban Century. New Haven and London: Yale University Press , 2012.

Levy, Leah, ed. Peter Walker: Minimalist Gardens. Washington DC: Spacemaker Press , 1997.

Morgan, Susan. "No t Another International Style Ballyhoo , A Short History of the Schindler House. " https://schindlerlab.org /history /# edn2 . Accessed December 11 , 2018.

Mumford , Lewis. Roots of Contemporary Architecture. New York: Dover Publications , Inc., 1972.

Newton, Norman T. Design on the Land: the Development of Landscape Architecture .

Cambridge , MA : Harvard University Press, 1971.

O'Dell , Lynn. "Eic hler Influenced by Wright: After Living in a House Desi gned by the Architect , Eichler Set Out to Build His Own and Never Quit. " Los Angeles Times , (October 23, 1993) . https:/ /www.latimes.com /archives/la-xpm-l 993-I 0-23-hm-48758- story.html. Accessed August 7, 2020.

Peter , John , and Fred Lyon . "Solution for Suburbia ." Look 28, no.14 (July 14, 1964).

Pomeroy Green Corporation. Pomeroy Green Sales Brochure. Circa 1963.

Richards , J. M. An Introduction to Modern Architecture. 1940. Reprint with revisions , London : Penguin Books, 1970.

Rogers, Elizabeth Barlow. Landscape Design: A Cultural and Architectural History . New York: Harry N. Abrams, Inc., 200 I.

Stein, Clarence. Toward New Towns for America. Cambridge , MA: MIT Press , 1966.

U.S. Department of Commerce. National Bureau of Standards. Fundamentals of Building Heat Transfer. July 5, 1977, Institute for Applied Technology, Volume 82, No. 2, by Tamami Kusuda. Washington, D.C.: September-October 1977. https://nvlpubs.nist.gov /nistpubs /jres/82/jresv82n2p97 a I b.pdf. Accessed June 5, 2019.

U.S. Department of Energy. "Landscape Windbreaks and Efficiency ." https ://www.energy.gov /energysaver/design /landscaping-energy-efficient homes /landscape-windbreaks-and-efficiency . Accessed June 6, 2019.

U.S. Department of the Interior. National Park Service. Historic Residential Suburbs:

Guidelines for Evaluation and Documentation for the National Register of Historic Sections 9-end page 33
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service/ National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 0MB No. 1024-0018
Pomeroy Green
Name of Property
Santa Clara, California
County and State
Places, by David L. Ames and Linda Flint. 2002.
https:/ /www. nps.gov /nr/publications /bulletins /suburbs/i ndex. htm . Accessed December 11 , 2018 .

U.S. Department of the Interior. National Park Service. Interage ncy Resources Division .

National Reg ister Bulletin 18, How to Evaluate and Nominate Designed Historic Landscap es, by J. Timothy Keller, ASLA, and Genevieve P. Keller Land and Community Associates , Charlottesville, Virginia.
https: //www.nps.gov /subjects /nationalregister/upload/NRB 18-Cornp lete.pdf. Accessed August 13, 2019.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. "Using Trees and Vegetation to Reduce Heat Island s." https: //www .epa .gov/heat-is land s/using-trees-and-vegetatio n-red uce- heat islands . Accessed June 6, 2019.

Vogelsang, Diana, Landscape Architecture Sourcebook: A Guide to Resources of the History and Practice of Landscape Architecture in the United States . Design Reference Series, Vol. 1. Detroit: Omnigraphics , Inc., 1997.

Walker , Peter. Peter Walker and Partners : Defining the Craft. San Rafael , CA: ORO Editions, 2005.
____ . Telephone interview by author. July 21, 2019.

Walker, Peter and Leah Levy, ed. Peter Walker, Minimalist Gardens. Washington DC:

Spacemaker Press , 1997 .

Weinstein, David. "Joe Revea ls 'The Eichler Succe ss Formula."' Eichler Network, CA Modern, 2018. https: //www.eich lernetwork .com/b log/dave-we inste in/joe-r evea ls-; eich ler-success-formu la'. Accessed Dec ember 11 , 2018. ____ . " Pioneering ' Easy Living' at the Pomeroys , Eichler's Pomeroy West and Green Development s." Eichler Network, Spring 2005, I, 6-8.

Whyte, William . Cluster Development. New York: American Conservation Association, 1964.
____ . The Last Landscape. Garden City, New York : Anchor Book, Doubleday & Company, 1968.

Windfinder for San Jose Airport, California,
https ://www.windfinder.com /windstatistics/san 1ose airport california . Accessed June 6, 2019.

Sections 9-end page 34
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service/ National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 0MB No. 1024-0018
Pomeroy Green
Name of Property
Previous documentation on file (NPS):

Santa Clara, California
County and State
__ preliminary determination of individual listing (36 CFR 67) has been requested _ _ previously listed in the National Register
_ _ previously determined eligible by the National Register _ _ designated a National Historic Landmark
__ recorded by Historic American Buildings Survey# _ ____ _ _ _ recorded by Historic American Engineering Record # ____ _ __ recorded by Historic American Landscape Survey # ____ _ Primary location of additional data:

State Historic Preservation Office
__ Other State agency
__ Federal agency
__ Local government
__L University
Oth er
Name of repository: Environmental Design Archives, College of Environmental Design, University of California, Berkeley
Historic Resources Survey Number (if assigned): _______ _

10. Geographical Data
Acreage of Property _ 6-=-·=5 _____ _
Latitude/Longitude Coordinates
Datum if other than WGS84 : ---- -
(enter coordinates to 6 decimal places)
I. Latitud e: 37. 346325 Longitude : -121. 985919
Verbal Boundary Description (Describe the boundaries of the property.) Trapezoid enclosed by Benton Street to the south , Pomeroy A venue to the west , tract homes to the north , and a church to the east, with a cutout at I 075 Pomeroy A venue. See Sketch Map/Photo Key, Base Map (Figure 1), and Building Designation Map (Figure 2).

Boundary Justification (Explain why the boundaries were selected.) Boundaries follow the property lines historically associated with Pomeroy Green . The house at l 075 Pomeroy A venue has always been outside of the Pomeroy Green development.

Sections 9-end page 35
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service/ National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 0MB No. 1024--0018
Pomeroy Green
Name of Property

11. Form Prepared By
name/title: Kenneth Kratz
Santa Clara, California
County and State
organization: _____________________ _ _____ _
street & number: 3283 Benton Street
city or town: Santa Clara state : California zip code:-"-9""'5""'05~1 ____ _ e-mail
telephone:
date: May 2018; Revised Jun 2018, Dec 2018; Feb 2019, Mar 2020, Jul 2020 Additional Documentation
Submit the following items with the completed form:
• Maps: A USGS map or equivalent (7.5 or 15 minute series) indicating the property's location.
• Sketch map for historic districts and properties having large acreage or numerous resources . Key all photographs to this map.
• Additional items : (Check with the SHPO , TPO , or FPO for any additional items.) Photographs
Submit clear and descriptive photographs. The size of each image must be I 600x 1200 pixels (minimum), 3000x2000 preferred, at 300 ppi (pixels per inch) or larger. Key all photographs to the sketch map. Each photograph must be numbered and that number must correspond to the photograph number on the photo log. For simplicity , the name of the photographer, photo date, etc. may be listed once on the photograph log and doesn't need to be labeled on every photograph.

Photo Log
Name of Property:

City or Vicinity:

County:

State:

Photographer:

Date Photographed:

Pomeroy Green
Santa Clara
Santa Clara
California
Kenneth Kratz
March 4 through May 2, 2018
Description of Photograph(s) and number, include description of view indicating direction of camera :

I of34 Building I south fa9ade (left foreground) , Building 2 south fa9ade (left background) , Building 3 north fa9ade (right), Building 7 north elevation (far background), camera facing east
Sections 9-end page 36
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service/ National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 0MB No. 1024-0018
Pomeroy Green Santa Clara, California
Name of Property County and State
2 of 34 Building 4 south fayade (left) , Building 5 west fayade (right background) , camera facing north east
3 of34 Building 6 west elevation (right) , Building 4 south fayade (left) , mature landscape, camera facing northeast
4 of 34 Playground between Buildings 7 and 8, camera facing east 5 of 34 Building l O north (left) and west (right) elevations with typical fireplace chimney, camera facing southeast
6 of 34 Walkway betwee n Buildings IO and 13, Building IO west and south elevations (left) , Building 11 west elevation with replacement utility box (middle) , Building 13 north elevation (right) , camera facing east
7 of 34 Building 12 east elevation , camera facing west 8 of 34 Building 14 east fayade, camera facing northwest 9 of 34 Building 15 north fayade , camera facing south
IO of 34 Building 16 south elevation, camera facing northeast 11 of 34 Clubhouse (right) , Building 5 east elevation (left) , camera facing northwest 12 of34 Path from public sidewalk, Building 15 east elevation (left) , Building 14 east fayade (middle) , Building 12 south elevation (right), camera facing northwest 13 of34 Building 6 north fayade, mature landscaping , camera facing southwest 14 of 34 Building 4 south fayade , camera facing northwest 15 of 34 Building 16 south fayade, camera facing north
16 of 34 Clubhouse interior with view of pool, Building 10 west elevation (left background) , Building 13 north elevation (right background) , camera facing southeast
17 of34 Basketball court, Building 3 west elevation (left), Building 5 south elevation (middle) , Building 4 east elevation (right) , camera facing south Sections 9-end page 37
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service/ National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 0MB No. 1024-0018
Pomeroy Green Santa Clara, California
Name of Property County and State
18 of 34 Park, surrounded by Building 6 south elevation (left), Building 13 west elevation (middle far back ground) , Building 14 west elevation (right) , camera facing east [NOTE: l 075 Pomeroy Ave futther right , outside frame] 19 of 34 Building l O west elevation (right) with walkway between Building l O and pool, Building 3 south elevation (background), camera facing northeast 20 of 34 Walkway with benches between Buildings 6 and 13, Building 13 north and east elevations (left) , Building 15 north fa9ade (middle far background) , Building 14 north elevation (right) , camera facing southeast
21 of34 Walkway between pool and Building 13, Building 11 west elevation (far background), camera facing east
22 of 34 Building 15 north fa9ade (left), Building 14 west fa9ade (right , obscured by trees) , mature landscaping, camera facing southwest
23 of 34 Building 14 east fa9ade (left) , Building 15 south elevation (right) , mature landscape , camera facing west
24 of24 Building 10 west (left) and south (right) elevations , camera facing no1theast 25 of 34 Building 16 south fa9ade (left) and east elevation (right) , camera facing northwest 26 of 34 Representative townhouse living room, camera facing southeast 27 of 34 Building 13 south fa9ade with vinyl-framed sliding-glass door and windows, camera facing north
28 of 34 Repre sentative townhouse back yard, Building 5 in background , camera facing southwest
29 of 34 Representative townhouse living room and back yard, camera facing south 30 of 34 Building 5 north elevation (left) , Building 4 east elevation with replacement utility box (right) , camera facing west
31 of34 Building 14 west elevation with original aluminum framed windows (left) and replacement vinyl framed (right) windows, camera facing northeast 32 of 34 Building 14 east fa9ade with original aluminum framed windows (left) and replacement vinyl framed windows (right), camera facing west Sections 9-end page 38
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service/ National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 0MB No. 1024-0018
Pomeroy Green Santa Clara, California
Name of Property County and State
33 of 34 Building 13 south fa(j:ade with replacement raised panel front door with fanlight , vinyl framed side light and sliding glass door , camera facing north 34 of34 Building 16 east elevation with original gas meter box, camera facing southwest Paperwork Reduction Act Statement: This information is being collected for applications to the National Register of Historic Places to nominate properties for listing or determine eligibility for listing, to list properties, and to amend existing listings.

Response to this request is required to obtain a benefit in accordance with the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended (16 U.S.C.460 et seq.).

Estimated Burden Statement: Public reporting burden for this form is estimated to average 100 hours per response including time for reviewing instructions, gathering and maintaining data, and completing and reviewing the form. Direct comments regarding this burden estimate or any aspect of this form to the Office of Planning and Performance Management. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, 1849 C. Street, NW, Washington , DC.

Sections 9-end page 39
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service/ National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 0MB No. 1024-0018
Pomeroy Green
Name of Property
Location Map
Latitude: 37.346325 Longitude: -121.985919
Sections 9-end page 40
Santa Clara, California
County and State
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service/ National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 0MB No. 1024-0018
Pomeroy Green
Name of Property
Sketch Map/Photo Key
I .
~ TRAC-T 1-\0IV\e.S -
Santa Clara, California
County and State
So
© 8Ull.DII-Jl:o No.
tt ➔ PHOT"O f\.lo, I\
t>IREC...TION
OF C,t..ME!lA
on-ie:R PHOiOS:
100
IG - CL.VBHOIJ~E.
?lo - FlR&T fL00!t
TOWt..i\-10VSE.

2.S - 0.0-C.K'<ARO
.211 - BAC.K'<ARO
p O l-i\0c.O '{ 6 *~
PHOTO I<-\:."(
Drawing adapted from the Santa Clara County Assessor's Office parcel map, book 290, page 69 Sections 9-end page 41
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service/ National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 0MB No. 1024-0018
Pomeroy Green
Name of Property
Figure 1 Base Map
..
0 "' "' a
1015 f f'OMl!:R.U'(
l'>.'JE.l'IUE
(NO'ilN
OlS1RICl
<- TRACT HOM!:-S -
~al' .
~t,I'
---~ .
-- .

Santa Clara, California
County and State
~ CHURCH_/'
O $0 100
-.~o=
'- \.°KN~.5C.M'.IN<'=t
'<. .e,~\(.__'< ~o -
5/W C.\i'( : SIO~\/VALIC.
~ ' PAAl'.IN&l.(jf
~SL.0..NO
.ititt.- ,11..0t>RESS
0ME.RO'( C:,R.EE~I
HISTO RIC.. DISTR.IC.1 ~SE MAP
Drawing adapted from the Santa Clara County Assessor's Office parcel map, book 290, page 69 Sections 9-end page 42
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service/ National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 0MB No. 1024-0018
Pomeroy Green
Name of Property
Figure 2 Building Designation Map
)
I "' >
r ..

I
Santa Clara, California
County and State
p Ot-AU.0'{ 6~~

BUILDING DESIGNATION
MAP
Drawing adapted from the Santa Clara County Assessor's Office parcel map, book 290, page 69 Sections 9-end page 43
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service/ National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 0MB No. 1024-0018
Pomeroy Green
Name of Property
Figure 3 Eichler Homes Map, 1962-1963
Santa Clara, California
County and State
CH\11\C•t
PROP£r..T'(
/
ltXIIII . ...... .. t
~ ,.. Jl •lfl
.:>lE .
.SVltll.0VN1NG. Pl',OPli.PJ'(
0E~U\lPfJON !! ,'\l"0 D &'(
REPAl>.E~
POMEROY GREEN by EICHLER HOMES
$Alrf!A Cl.AAil, ,.lf(lflJli:M, <UUK OA(u,;o Ul(HllC, , ...

Source: Oakland and Imada Co llection, 2002-3, box 14, folder IV 204, Pomeroy Green & Pomeroy West 1962-1963 , Environmenta l Design Archives, University of California , Berkeley Sections 9-end page 44
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service/ National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 0MB No. 1024-0018
Pomeroy Green
Name of Property
Santa Clara, California
County and State
Figure 4 Page from "Planned Unit Development with a Homes [sic] Association" Source: Oakland and Imada Collection, 2002-3, box box 4, folder III 67, Pomeroy Green and Pomeroy West 1963-1964, Environmental Design Archives, University of California, Berkeley Sections 9-end page 45
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service/ National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 0MB No. 1024-0018
Pomeroy Green
Name of Property
Figure 5 Pole type exterior lighting
. ;:
• U~. I,"' f A ·
I
0 <v
tlA,,O ~o Eit. E
SE <,..ir;t JV, jT
R_OU ,!l·l.11.f

ORWG NO
,r
Santa Clara, California
County and State

1\.1.t. '--'
C,L
Source : Oakland and Imada Collection , 2002-3 , box I 1, folder V 81, Pomeroy Green 1960- 1962, Environmental Design Archives , University of California, Berkeley Sections 9-end page 46
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service I National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 0MB No. 1024-0018
Pomeroy Green
Name of Property
Figure 6 Fence and wall mounted exterior lighting
0 2 2 G
~
1 01/1 PcfX IGL A S
3 ·· $PI-IERE.

OL 2 2 5
• MAX MU AT 5 · 100
•FINISH. A~ OE R.ED
Santa Clara, California
County and State
J ~ X&C( 'I DUIT
c,- fQ~
,.

PACIFIC ASSOCIATED LIGHTING INC. t-•£V_""'--.===--··---+=-- s31 FOLSOM STREET SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. o.m
FINISH..

MOOEl. NO
Source : Oakland and Imada Collection, 2002-3, box 11 , folder V 81, Pomeroy Green 1960-1962 Environmenta l Design Archives , University of California , Berkeley Sections 9-end page 47
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service/ National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 0MB No. 1024-0018
Pomeroy Green
Name of Property
Santa Clara, California
County and State
Figure 7 John Peter and Fred Lyon, "So lution for Suburbia" Look, 28, no.14 (July 14, 1964) w1 m·ng po I,
reenery a d nvac
provide t ·s
JtlU'
Sections 9-end page 48
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service/ National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 0MB No. 1024-0018
Pomeroy Green
Name of Property
Kit hen · ar
lo fr nt pati
<' r Jul( plannPtl i11 relation
and ·hildr n · · ba k pla rt!.

Sections 9-end page 49
Santa Clara, California
County and State
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service/ National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 0MB No. 1024-0018
Pomeroy Green
Name of Property

SUBURBIA
Close-quarter living
Is spacious
and luxurious lo
Calffornia's Pomeroy Green
Santa Clara, California
County and State
Caption: Each 4-bedroom , 2 ½-bathroom home has a light-filled living room (above) , with sliding glass doors that open onto a private patio . Mrs. Frank La Horgue enjoys hers (right) for quiet hours or (left) for neighborly barbecues. With all maintenance-lawn mowing to appliance repair-included in the $20-25 ,000 [sic] purchase price (under a $200-per-month FHA mortgage), residents are free to enjoy leisure-time community activities or outside diversions , such as weekend cruises on a motorboat (below). This new concept of development living is such a success that a Pomeroy West has been built, and suburban townhouses are going up across the country.

Sections 9-end page 50
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service/ National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 0MB No. 1024-0018
Pomeroy Green
Name of Property
Santa Clara, California
County and State
Caption: This drawing shows the community's 78 two-story private homes. Grouped around 2 ½ acres of landscaped lawns and shared facilities , they are in Santa Clara County , southeast of San Francisco. Wide wa lkways (above) , protected from traffic , insure safe passage , with frequent play platforms (above , right) for children on the way to the community center and pool.

Sections 9-end page 5 I
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service/ National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 0MB No. 1024-0018
Pomeroy Green
Name of Property
Santa Clara, California
County and State
Photo 1 Building I south fa;ade (left foreground) , Building 2 south fa9ade (left background) , Building 3 north fa9ade (right) , Building 7 north elevation (far background), camera facing east
Photo 2 Building 4 south fa9ade (left), Building 5 west fa9ade (right background) , camera facing north east
Sections 9-end page 52
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service/ National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 0MB No. 1024-0018
Pomeroy Green
Name of Property
Santa Clara, California
County and State
Photo 3 Building 6 west elevation (right) , Building 4 south fa<;ade (left) , mature landscape , camera facing northeast
Photo 4 Playground between Buildings 7 and 8, camera facing east Sections 9-end page 53
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service/ National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 0MB No. 1024-0018
Pomeroy Green
Name of Property
Santa Clara, California
County and State
Photo 5 Building IO north (left) and west (right) elevations with typical fireplace chim ney, camera facing southeast
Photo 6 Walkway between Buildings IO and 13, Building 10 west and south elevations (left) , Building 11 west elevation with replacement utility box (middle) , Building 13 north elevation (right) , camera facing east
Sections 9-end page 54
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service I National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 0MB No. 1024-0018
Pomeroy Green
Name of Property
Photo 7 Building 12 east elevation, camera facing west
Photo 8 Building 14 east fa<;ade, camera facing northwest Sections 9-end page 55
Santa Clara, California
County and State
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service/ National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 0MB No. 1024-0018
Pomeroy Green
Name of Property
Photo 9 Building 15 north fayade, camera facing south
Photo 10 Building 16 south elevation , camera facing northeast Sections 9-end page 56
Santa Clara, California
County and State
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service/ National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 0MB No. 1024-0018
Pomeroy Green
Name of Property
Santa Clara, California
County and State
Photo 11 Clubhouse (right), Building Five east elevation (left), camera facing northwest Photo 12 Path from public sidewa lk, Building 15 east elevation (left), Building 14 east fa<;ade (middle) , Building 12 south elevat ion (right) , camera facing northwest Sections 9-end page 57
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service I National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 0MB No. 1024-0018
Pomeroy Green
Name of Property
Santa Clara, California
County and State
Photo 13 Building 6 north fa9ade, mature landscaping, camera facing southwest Photo 14 Building 4 south fa9ade, camera facing northwest Sections 9-end page 58
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service/ National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 0MB No. 1024-0018
Pomeroy Green
Name of Property
Photo 15 Building 16 south fa9ade, camera facing north
Santa Clara, California
County and State
Photo 16 Clubhou se interior with view of pool , Building IO west elevation (left background) , Building 13 north elevation (right background) , camera facing southeast Sections 9-end page 59
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service/ National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 0MB No. 1024-0018
Pomeroy Green
Name of Property
Santa Clara, California
County and State
Photo 17 Basketball court, Building 3 west elevation (left) , Building 5 south elevation (middle) , Building 4 east elevation (right), camera facing south Photo 18 Park , surrounded by Building 6 south elevation (left) , Building 13 west elevation (middle far background), Building 14 west elevation (right), camera facing east [NOTE: I 075 Pomeroy Ave further right , outside frame] Sections 9-end page 60
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service/ National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 0MB No. 1024-0018
Pomeroy Green
Name of Property
Santa Clara, California
County and State
Photo 19 Building l O west elevation (right) with walkway between Building l O and pool , Building 3 south elevation (background) , camera facing northeast Photo 20 Walkway with benches between Buildings 6 and 13, Building 13 north and east elevations (left) , Building 15 north fa9ade (middle far background) , Building 14 north elevation (right) , camera facing southeast
Sections 9-end page 61
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service I National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 0MB No. 1024-0018
Pomeroy Green
Name of Property
Santa Clara, California
County and State
Photo 21 Walkway between pool and Building 13, Building 11 west elevation (far background), camera facing east
Photo 22 Building 15 north fa;ade (left) , Building 14 west fa9ade (right , obscured by trees) , mature landscaping , camera facing southwest
Sections 9-end page 62
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service/ National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 0MB No. 1024-0018
Pomeroy Green
Name of Property
Santa Clara, California
County and State
Photo 23 Building 14 east fa;ade (left) , Building 15 south elevation (right), mature landscape, camera facing west
Photo 24 Building IO west (left) and south (right) elevations, camera facing northeast Sections 9-end page 63
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service/ National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 0MB No. 1024-0018
Pomeroy Green
Name of Property
Santa Clara, California
County and State
Photo 25 Building 16 south fac;:ade (left) and east elevation (right) , camera facing northwest Photo 26 Representative townhouse living room , camera facing southeast Sections 9-end page 64
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service/ National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 0MB No. 1024-0018
Pomeroy Green
Name of Property
Santa Clara, California
County and State
Photo 27 Building 13 south fa9ade with vinyl-framed sliding-g lass door and windows , camera facing north
Photo 28 Representative townhouse back yard, Building 5 in background, camera facing southwest
Sections 9-end page 65
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service/ National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 0MB No. 1024-0018
Pomeroy Green
Name of Property
Santa Clara, California
County and State
Photo 29 Representative townhouse living room and back yard, camera facing south Photo 30 Building 5 north elevation (left), Building 4 east elevation with replacement utility box (right), camera facing west
Sections 9-end page 66
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service/ National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 0MB No. 1024-0018
Pomeroy Green
Name of Property
Santa Clara, California
County and State
Photo 31 Building 14 west elevation with original aluminum framed windows (left) and replacement vinyl framed (right) windows , camera facing northeast Photo 32 Building 14 east fa9ade with original aluminum framed windows (left) and replacement vinyl framed windows (right), camera facing west Sections 9-end page 67
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service/ National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 0MB No. 1024-0018
Pomeroy Green
Name of Property
Santa Clara, California
County and State
Photo 33 Building 13 south fai;:ade with replacement raised panel front door with fanlight , vinyl framed side light and sliding glass door , camera facing north Photo 34 Building 16 east elevation with original gas meter box, camera facing southwest Sections 9-end page 68
-
-
Account Number :

City of Santa Clara Municipal Utilities

REGULAR BILL
Bill Date: 08/23/2024 Pg 2 of 5
Account Name: POMEROY GREEN CORP Amount Due: $1,385.75
Service Address: 3291 BENTON ST HM 3 Customer Service (408) 615-2300 Current Charges
,11 Water I Sewer I Solar
• Water
Sewer
$49.31 X 5 Units = $246 .55
Current Charges Total
Usage Table and History Graphs
Service Read Dates
Type Days
Prior Current
w 07119 08/20 32
Billing Comments
$1,139.20
$246 .55
$1,385 .75 THIS BILL IS DUE UPON RECEIPT
$1,385.75
To avoid late charges and additional fees,
pay 1,385.75 IN FULL before 09/13/2024.

For more information , see back of bill.

Billing Information
Previous Balance
Payments (08/14/2024) - Thank You
Current Charges
Amount Due
Meter Readings Meter This Month
Current
5549
>,
ai ro cno
~ di :::) a.
.. 1/l
~ C
ns ..Q
~ iii (9
Prior
5421
3200
2800
2400
2000
1600
1200
800
400
0 -.

I
I
Mult
1 ~
Usage Number Rate
128 HCF S331889 W15
-
-
I I • I - - - - -I I I I
Jun Aug Oct Dec Feb Apr Jun Aug
23 24
This Year
(Dally Avg.)
2,992 Gal
$1,152 .00
-$1, 152.00
$1,385 .75
$1,385.75
This Month
Last Year
(Dally Avg.)
2,338 Gal
I
Have you fallen behind on your bill? Don't wait! Call us so we can help you with payment arrangements and payment assistance programs I Please return this portion with yoor payment In envelope provided , Make check payable to City of Santa Clara.

Account No:

Bill Date: 08/23/2024
Past Due Date: 09/13/2024
SCL0826A
2000000307 27/2

POMEROY GREEN CORP

C/O PROPERTY PRO LTD
14127 CAPRI DR# 8
LOS GATOS CA 95032-1534
Route No. 338 Amount Due: $1 ,385 .75
!Amount Enclosed: I DIRECT PAYMENT I
Direct Payment Inquiries: 408-615-2300

CITY OF SANTA CLARA
40 00048246000100001385757
-
-
Account Number:

City of Santa Clara Municipal Utilities

REGULAR BILL
Bill Date: 08/23/2024 Pg 4 of 5
Account Name: POMEROY GREEN CORP Amount Due: $1,842.53
Service Address: 3291 BENTON ST HM 6
Current Charges
A6I Water I Sewer I Solar
• Water
Sewer
$49.31 X 13 Units= $641.03
Current Charges Total
Usage Table and History Graphs
Service Read Dates
Type Days
Prior Current
w 07/19 08/20 32
$1 ,201 .50
$641 .03
Meter Readings
. Current Prior
2069 1934
6000
>, 6000
Q) Ill
o,O 4000 ns ... Ill (I) 3000 :::, Q.
... (Jj
2000 ~c
RI .Q 1000 -3: ro (.') 0 Jun
23 $1,842.53
$1,842.53
Mult
1 Aug Oct
Customer Service (408) 615-2300
Billing Comments

THIS BILL IS DUE UPON RECEIPT
To avoid late charges and additional fees,
pay 1,842.53 IN FULL before 09/13/2024.

For more information , see back of bill.

Billing Information
Previous Balance
Payments (08/14/2024) • Thank You
Current Charges
Amount Due
Meter This Month
Usage Number Rate This Year
(Dally Avg.)
135 HCF H018223 W02 3,156 Gal
Dec Feb Apr Jun Aug
24 $2,618.37
-$2,618.37
$1 ,842.53
$1,842.53
This Month
Last Year
(Daily Avg.)
2,782 Gal
I
Have you fallen behind on your bill? Don't wait! Call us so we can help you with payment arrangements and payment assistance programs I Please return this portion with your payment in envelope provided. Make check payable to City of Santa Clara.

Account No:

Bill Date: 08/23/2024
Past Due Date: 09/13/2024
SCL0826A
2000000309 27/4

POMEROY GREEN CORP

C/O PROPERTY PRO LTD
14127 CAPRI DR# 8
LOS GATOS CA 95032-1534
Route No. 338 Amount Due: $1,842.53
!Amount Enclosed: I DIRECT PAYMENT I
Direct Payment Inquiries: 408-615-2300

CITY OF SANTA CLARA
40 00048248000100001842530
--
-
Account Number:

City of Santa Clara Municipal Utilities

REGULAR BILL
Bill Date: 08/23/2024 Pg 3 of 5
Acco unt Name: POMEROY GREEN CORP Amount Due: $1,026.38 Service Address: 3291 BENTON ST HM 4
Current Charges
,ii Water I Sewer I Solar
• Water
Sewer
$49.31 X a Units ::;: $394.48
Current Charges Total
.Usage Table and History Graphs
Service Read Dates
Type Days
Prior Current
w 07/19 08/20 32
$631.90
$394.48
Meter Readings
Current Prior
9996 9925
2000
>, 1600 -Cl) co
ClCl
co '- 1200 (/) Q)
:::> a.. 600 -... <Jl
~ C:
co ..Q 400 ,_
3: <ii (!) 0
Jun
23 $1,026.38
$1,026.38
Customer Service (408) 615-2300
BIiiing Comments

THIS BILL IS DUE UPON RECEIPT
To avoid late charges and additional fees,
pay 1,026.38 IN FULL before 09/13/2024.

For more information, see back of bill.

Billing Information
Previous Balance
Payments (08/14/2024) - Thank You
Current Charges
Amount Due
This Month
$912.05
-$912.05
$1,026.38
$1,026.38
This Month Meter Mult Usage Number Rate This Year Last Year (Daily Avg.) (Daily Avg .)
1 71 HCF H028159 W02 1,660 Gal 1,904 Gal
- - - - - - c-- - - - -
- - - ~
Aug Oct Doc Feb Apr Jun Aug
24 I
Have you fallen behind on your bill? Don't wait! Call us so we can help you with payment arrangements and payment assistance programs I Please return this poriicin with. your payment in envelope provided. Make check payable to City of Santa Clara.

Account No:

Bill Date: 08/23/2024
Past Due Date: 09/13/2024
SCL0826A
2000000308 27 /3

POMEROY GREEN CORP
C/0 PROPERTY PRO LTD
14127 CAPRI DR# 8
LOS GATOS CA 95032-1534
Route No. 338 Amount Due: $1,026.38
!Amount Enclosed:! DIRECT PAYMENT I
Direct Payment Inquiries: 408-615-2300

CITY OF SANTA CLARA
40 00048247000100001026383
---
Account Number:

City of Santa Clara Municipal Utilities

REGULAR BILL
Bill Date: 08/23/2024 Pg 1 of 5
Account Name: POMEROY GREEN CORP Amount Due: $1,713.84
Service Address: 3291 BENTON ST HM 1
Current Charges
,i1 Water I Sewer I Solar
• Water
Sewer
$49.31 X 14 Units = $690.34
Current Charges Total
Usage Table and History Graphs
Service Read Dates
Type Days
Prior Current
w 07119 08120 32
$1 ,023.50
$690.34
Meter Readings
Current Prior
3231 3116
5000 -
>- 4000 a, m c,O cu .... 3000 Ill Ql
:J a.. 2000 -.. Cl)
~ C
cu .Q 1000
3: ro (9 0
Jun
23 $1,713.84
$1,713.84
Mult
1 Aug Oct
Customer Service (408) 615-2300
Billing Comments

THIS BILL IS DUE UPON RECEIPT
To avoid late charges and additional fees,
pay 1,713.84 IN FULL before 09/13/2024.

For more information , see back of bill.

Billing Information
Previous Balance
Payments (08/14/2024) - Thank You
Current Charges
Amount Due
Meter This Month
Usage Number Rate This Year
(Daily Avg.)
115 HCF Y517279 W02 2,688 Gal
Dec Feb Apr Jun Aug
24 $2,343.00
-$2,343.00
$1 ,713.84
$1,713.84
This Month
Last Year
(Daily Avg.)
3,060 Gal
I
Have you fallen behind on your bill? Don't wait! Call us so we can help you with payment arrangements and payment assistance programs Please return this portion with your payment In envelope provided . Make check payable to City of Santa Clara.

Account No:

Bill Date: 08/23/2024
Past Due Date: 09/13/2024
SCL0826A
200000 0 306 27 / 1

POMEROY GREEN CORP

CIO PROPERTY PRO LTD
14127 CAPRI DR# 8
LOS GATOS CA 95032-1534
Route No. 338 Amount Due: $1,713.84
!Amount Enclosed:! DIRECT PAYMENT I
Direct Payment Inquiries: 408-615-2300

CITY OF SANTA CLARA
40 00048245000100001713844
--
City of Santa Clara Municipal Utilities

REGULAR BILL
Acco unt Number: Bill Date: 08/23/2024 Pg 5 of 5
Account Name: POMERO Y GREEN CORP Amount Due: $571.04
Service Address: 3291 BE NTON ST HM 7
Current Charges
iii Water / Sewer / Solar
• Water
Sewer
$49 .31 X 4 Units= $197.24
Current Charges Tota l
Usage Table and History Graphs
Service Read Dates
Type Days
Prior Current
w 07/19 08/20 32
$373.80
$197.24
Meter Readings
Current Prior
1318 1276
1600
>- 1400
Ql ro 1200 c, Cl 1000 ....... ro .._
(/1 Ql 800 ::, ll.
.. 1/) 600
.2! i:: 400 - · n, .Q
~ "iii 200
C) 0 Jun
23 $571.04
$571.04
Customer Service (408) 615-2300
Billing Comments

THIS BILL IS DUE UPON RECEIPT
To avoid late charges and additional fees,
pay 571.04 IN FULL before 09/13/2024.

For more information , see back of bill.

Billing Information
Previous Balance
Payments (08/14/2024) - Thank You
Current Charges
Amount Due
This Month
$566.62
-$566 .62
$571 .04
$571.04
This Month Meter Mult Usage Number Rate This Year Last Year (Daily Avg.) (Daily Avg.)
1 42 HCF G048768 W15 982 Gal 1,029 Gal
-- ~
- -· - .......
- ....... - · - .......

Aug Oct Dec Feb Apr Jun Aug
24 I
Have you fallen behind on your bill? Don't wait! Call us so we can help you with payment arrangements and payment assistance programs I Please return this porticin with your paynient in envelope provided. Make check payable to City :of Santa Clara.

Account No:

Bill Date: 08/23/2024
Past Due Date: 09/13/2024
SCL0826A
2000000310 27/5

POMEROY GREEN CORP
C/O PROPERTY PRO LTD .
14127 CAPRI DR# 8
LOS GATOS CA 95032-1534
Route No. 338 Amount Due: $571.04
!Amount Enc losed:! DIRECT PAYMENT I
Direct Payment Inquiries: 408-615-2300

CITY OF SANTA CLARA
40 000482490001 □ □□□□ 571 □ 47

ENERGY STATEMENT
Account No:

Statement Date:
www pge :on MyEne gy
Service For:

POMEROY GREEN CO
3291 BENTON ST
SANTA CLARA, CA 95051
Questions about your bill?
Business Specialist available :

Mon-Fri : 7am to 6pm
1-800-468-4 7 43
www .pge.com/MyEnergy
Ways To Pay
www .pge.com/waystopay
Your Account Summary
Amount Due on Previous Statement
Payment(s) Received Since Last Statement
Previous Unpaid Balance
Current Gas Charges
Due Date:

Automatic Payment Service (APS)
to be applied 09/11/2024
0,
08/28/2024
09/16/2024
$7.84
-7.84
$0.00
$8.65
$8.65
Gas Monthly Billing History Dally Usage Comparison
$160
$120
$80
$40
$0 -+-....,.,.........,.,._,.___._,,..._...,.._-'r-_..,....---'-r'.___.,~-..,..__....,......_.,...---1 2023 8(29 9128 10129 11/30 12129 1/30 2R.9 3129 4130 5/30 6128 7128 8fl8 2024 Visit www .pge.com1MyEnergy for a defa//ec/ bl/I compa1ison -- - ------------
1 Yoar Last Current
Ago Period Period

NIA NI A NI A
Ga s Thorrns / Day
I_ ...... . . . .... . . . . . . . . . ... . . .. . . .. .... .. . ... . .. . .. . . .. .. . .. . . .. .... ... .. .. . . . . .. .. ....... .. ..... . . .... : ........ .. ....... . .. . .......... . 0 :,,:
.....
0 0
N
0 0
0 .....
"' a>
0 0
a>
0 0
..... ..,. ..,.
0)
r-
No payment is due. Please retain for your records. Thank you. 999 □ 18877510729 □□□□□□□ 865 □□□□□□□□□□
Due Date:
09/16/2024
794410082569 1 AV 0.545 417 8610 8
• 1111'1 I, 1111 • 11 1 • • 1I•I1·11111111•1111111 111 11 11 111 1111111 11 I• I I I

POMEROY GREEN CO
14127 CAPRI DR STE 8
LOS GATOS CA 95032-1534
APS Amount
$8.65
APS to be applied:
09/11/2024
PG&E
BOX 997300
SACRAMENTO , CA 95899-7300

Page 1 of 3 ends

City Council and Authorities ConcurrentFebruary 25, 2025

City Council and Authorities Concurrent
February 25, 2025