. Cityof
Pfenning Division: (408) 615-2450
Email: g)[email protected]~,90:t:
~antaCl~ra
!Planning Aooeel Form
Instructions
Use this form to appeal a decision made at the Development Review Hearing or Planning Comm ission. All appeal• must be flied with the Planning Division within HV■n calendar days of the action being appealed.
Appeals from the Development Review Hearing are made to the Planning Comm ission (fOI' single-family residential projects) or to the City Council (for projects other than single fam ily residential projects) and will be set for hearing on the next available agenda.
Appeals from the Planning Commi ssion are made to the City Council and will be placed on a subsequent City Council Agenda . Please contact the Planning Division at the number listed above with any inquiries about the process.
Applicat ions will be filed through the City 's Permittm g Oo)me Porta). You will need to register for an account to file. Applications may also be filed in person at the Permit Center , City Hall, 1500 Warburton Avenue, Santa Clara.
Information submitted on this form is public record.
Appeal F-
Appeal fees are set by the Municipal Code of the City of Santa Clara and are subject to annual review . Submitted appeals will be invoiced by staff for payment . Fee payment must be received by the City of Santa Ciani before this form 1ubmlttal can be certified as complete.
Appellant Declanitlon
Name, Vignesh Vivekraja, {AT&T Tower Relocation Group member) Street Address : 3086 Humbolt Avenue
City , State, Zip Code, Santa Clara, CA, 95051
Phone number: 408 981 7632
E-mail address: [email protected]
In accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Code of the City of Santa Clara, I hereby appeal the following action at the:
D Development Review Hearing [i] Planning Commission
at it's meeting of _1_11_5_1_20_2_5 ____ _
(date)
Agenda Item No.: File no: 24-1256
File No.Cs): PLN23 -00148
Adtlre ss:/APN(s): 3111 Benton Street, Santa Clara
(Rev. 10/23) Page 1
Planning Appeal Form
Appellant Statement
(If more space is requ ired, attach a separat e sheet of paper.) Action being appeal ed:
Planning commlnee approval ol tll8 condilional pem,lt for new Unmanned AT&T Telecommunlaiflon Facility with Three 42 -6 monopoles located in the Parking Lot at 3111 Benton Street and aJso opposing other alternative location In same site Including 60-Foot-Tall Monotree Reason for Appeal :
Concerns abo<A following lbolA ATT cell-sle lo sunouncliog residential 1ooes. wlh many residents in 30 fOOl radius 1 . Bad Neighborhood Aesthetics
2. Negative Property Value Impact
3. Health ettects esp kids,elderty in surrounding residential houses (many within 30-300ft radius)
4. Preceden t for future towers in same site
5. Health effects to kids in neighbouring Santa Clara High School Certification of Authenticity
Beware, you are subject to prosecut ion if you unlawfully subm it this form . Under penalty of law, transmission of this form to the City of Santa Clara is your certification that you are aut horized to submi t it and that the informat ion presented is authentic . 1/18/2025
Signature of Appellant Date
(Rev. 10/23) Pagel
Addendum to Appeal filed by Vignesh Vivekaja in behalf of AT&T Tower Relocation Group (Supporting Residents - Pomeroy Greens, Humbolt, Benton, Moraga, Orthello) Appeal to City Council to Consider the Planning Commission Decision of January 15, 2025 Action being appealed: Decision by Planning Commission to allow cellphone towers to be installed at 3111 Benton Street, the First
Baptist
Church.
Reason for Appeal: Summary We believe the planning commission's decisions were unjust, seemingly influenced by a few members and
cherry-picking
information,
resulting
in
an
incorrect
acceptance
of
the
proposal.
According
to
FCC
regulations,
the
commission
had
the
authority
to
reject
this
proposal
before
the
shot
clock
expires;
there
was
no
legal
obligation
to
approve
it.
Aesthetics
alone,
along
with
numerous
other
compelling
reasons
outlined
below,
were
sufficient
grounds
for
rejection.
We
respectfully
urge
the
esteemed
City
Council
members,
elected
by
the
people
and
whose
decisions
are
closely
scrutinized,
to
consider
the
impact
on
residents
and
vote
against
this
cell
tower.
It
is
crucial
to
weigh
moral
and
ethical
considerations
alongside
legal
subtleties,
especially
for
a
council
of
publicly
elected
positions.
This
decision
will
set
a
precedent
for
the
future.
Firstly, the planning commission and city council have the full authority to reject AT&T’s proposed towers.
Based
on
our
understanding,
the
only
requirement
from
the
FCC
is
to
make
a
decision
before
the
shot
clock
expires;
approval
is
not
mandatory.
We,
as
residents,
strongly
believe
there
are
ample
reasons
to
reject
this
tower
proposal
on
legal
grounds,
which
are
entirely
within
the
city's
control,
including:
1. Aesthetics 2. Potential property value loss 3. Violation of the latest city code 4. Impact on Historic Pomeroy Green 5. Impact on Santa Clara High School students Additionally, there are ethical and moral reasons, such as: 1. Health impacts 2. Violation of the latest city code and regulations in neighboring cities, where towers cannot be
placed
close
to
residential
houses There are several viable alternatives for AT&T to find a new site that aligns with city regulations, such as
parks.
Although
this
process
might
require
more
time,
many
alternative
sites
have
been
thoroughly
vetted
and
proposed
by
residents.
Unfortunately,
these
options
have
not
received
adequate
consideration, as the church site presents a more convenient choice for AT&T. Notably, there has been no
AT&T
tower
in
this
site
to
our
knowledge,
and
they
have
operated
successfully
without
it.
It
is
unjust
to
inconvenience
local
residents
merely
for
the
sake
of
convenience
for
AT&T
,
the
city
and
financial
interests
of
landlord.
"Where there is a will, there is a way." We are confident that AT&T can identify alternative locations if this
proposal
is
rejected.
This
should
be
handled
as
an
independent
case
to
our
appeal.
Please
do
not
inconvenience
residents
for
the
sake
of
another
party's
convenience,
especially
given
that
AT&T
has
continued
to
operate
effectively
without
a
tower
in
this
location,
with
many
opposing
residents
being
long
time
AT&T
customers.
If
additional
time
is
needed
to
find
the
right
location
with
the
City’s
approval,
so
be
it,
as
demonstrated
by
the
city
of
Cupertino
in
the
past
to
locate
in
park
with
public
vote(details
below).
We
humbly
request,
the
city
council
to
prioritize
long-term
community
interests
over
short-term
convenience.
Details 1. Impacts entire neighborhood . Homeowners on Humbolt Avenue, Moraga Street, Benton Steet, Orthello
St,
as
well
as
homes
in
Pomeroy
Green
and
all
neighboring
homes
within
view
of
the
towers
will
have
to
look
at
these
ugly
towers.
The
towers
will
dominate
the
skyline
since
there
are
few
trees
the
height
of
the
proposed
towers.
There are other locations those opposed to this project have suggested; please consider a better locations
that
are
less
conspicuous
to
residents
of
the
neighborhood
that
have
not
been
thoroughly
investigated
to
date
(see
below).
Other impacts such as fire hazard, collapsing hazards and health hazards are also concerns of the neighborhood
residents
and
evidently
Santa
Clara
High
School
since
the
Santa
Clara
School
District
has
declined,
according
to
Mr.
Proo,
the
AT&T
representative
for
this
project,
locating
the
tower
on
their
campus.
2. Aesthetic problems . Placing the towers on the church property so close to so many homes and so visible
to
neighborhood
residents
violates
aesthetic
considerations
that
are
within
the
jurisdiction
of
the
planning
commission
and
city
council.
In
other
words,
it
is
within
the
power
of
the
Planning
Commission
to
recommend
the
City
Council
deny
AT&T's
request
to
site
a
cell
phone
tower
on
the
3111
Benton
Street,
the
church
site,
on
aesthetic
grounds.
It
is
also
in
power
of
city
council
to
reject
ATT’s
proposal
purely
based
on
aesthetics.
If the project goes through as proposed, the homeowners on Humbolt Avenue will have three towers situated
just
beyond
their
backyard
fences,
within
50 feet
of
their
homes,
making
them
visible
whenever
they
relax
outside
in
their
backyards.
Residents
of
the
Humbolt
houses
opposite
to
these
houses,
will
see
those
towers
from
their
front-yards,
while
residents
of
the
homes
on
Moraga
Street
wil
see
the
towers
from
their
front
yards.
Similarly the alternate tower location negatively affect aesthetics of the Pomeroy Green community and
Humbolt
Avenues.
Both
the
tower
proposals
will
also
be
an
eye
sore
for
residents
and
the
public
alike
while
walking
around
the
neighbrohood.
3. Potential Property Value Loss
● AT&T's report, claiming no significant impact on neighboring property values, relies on a non-peer-reviewed source. ● In contrast, recent articles from the National Association of Realtors, a more trusted source (link - See reference section), multiple studies, indicate a substantial decrease (up to 20%) in property values for homes near cell towers. Notable quotes from linked articles/studies include: ● “We find that homes close to towers sell for a discount of up to 7.6%.” ● “The negative price impact of 9.78% is much more severe for properties within visible range of a tower.” ● “If purchasing or renting a property near a CPBS [cellular phone base stations], over a third (38%) of the control group respondents said a CPBS would reduce the price of their property by more than 20%.” ● The existence of a cell tower near a home must be included in the disclosure packet upon the sale of a property, based on query on chatgpt (See Appendix5 inlined in doc).
In Appendix1(inlined with doc), with pictures referenced later, the proposed three towers from AT&T are shown, along with an approximate 300-foot radius (indicated by an orange border) based on Google Maps measurements. Within this radius are the following structures: over 25 single-family and duplex houses on Humbolt Ave, Moraga, and Benton.
Assuming a conservative property value of $1.7 million for each of these units, based on approximate estimates from Zillow (link), the total property values are roughly $40 million. This could result in up to an $8 million (20% loss) decrease in property value for homeowners. This estimate is conservative, as lots in this area are much larger, close to 10,000 square feet, so the financial impact might be greater. Will the city, AT&T, or the landlord compensate for these losses to homeowners? There is a similar economic loss, probably larger, for the other alterate location which was previously considered closer to Pomeroy Green. This reduction in property values also impacts the city through reduced property taxes, taxes that benefit the city.
It seems unfair for residents near the Santa Clara First Baptist Church to bear this potential economic impact while AT&T and landlords benefit. Residents should be given the benefit of the doubt and not bear the brunt of the economic impact, and conclusions should not be based on non-peer-reviewed sources.
4. Proper notification needed . Pomeroy Green Cooperative Corporation, located directly west of the church, was not notified of the project. Only some of the shareholders in the complex received notices of the public hearing for the cell phone project. Pomeroy Green Cooperative includes a playground on site and other areas that are contiguous to the church property (against, on the west side of the church property). 5. Impacts to historic resource not reviewed . Pomeroy Green Cooperative Corporation, located directly west of the church, is registered in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) at the State and federal levels. The impact of the cell phone tower project on the historic Pomeroy Green housing complex should be reviewed by the City's Historical and Landmarks Commission (HLC) because Pomeroy Green is adjacent to the church site. The HLC, in its advisory capacity to City Council, routinely evaluates impacts to historic resources by projects located on adjacent properties. Because Pomeroy Green Cooperative housing complex is registered in the NRHP, the tower project may be required to be reviewed by higher government agencies in addition to the City's HLC for environmental impacts, particularly aesthetic impacts. The tower project may require a permit from the FCC, making the project subject to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. Both the 3 pole design and the alternate 60-foot monopole design may have significant impact on historic Pomeroy Green and, therefore, the cell phone project needs to be properly reviewed by the appropriate agencies.
6. Health Effects
There is a growing body of scientific evidence that suggests that exposure to radio frequency radiation (RFR) from cell towers and other wireless devices can have negative health effects, including cancer, brain tumors, and reproductive problems. The World Health Organization has classified RFR as a "possible human carcinogen," and the National Toxicology Program has found that exposure to RFR can cause cancer in rats. We are concerned about the potential health risks of living near this cell node, especially for children who are more vulnerable to the effects of RFR. We urge the city to reconsider its decision to allow the installation of this node until more research is done on the health effects of RFR.
Here are instances where cell phone towers had to be decommissioned due to the formation of cancer clusters among students and teachers attending nearby schools and residents, despite initial claims that the towers emitted low levels of radiation. link1: https://www.modbee.com/news/article228538324.html link2: https://ehtrust.org/fourth-student-has-cancer-parents-demand-removal-of-cell-tower-from-ripon-school/ link3 : https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-6886561/Cell-phone-tower-shut-elementary-school-eight-kids-diagnosed-cancer.html Some Quotes :
● “Four students and three teachers at Weston have been diagnosed with different forms of cancer since 2016. In addition, two preschool-age children living near the school have been treated for a malignant tumor and leukemia, and a Modesto family says a 22-year-old former student of Weston underwent surgery last year for a brain tumor” ● “Sprint, which owns the tower, has shut it down despite insisting the radio frequency levels are 100 times below the federal limit” Is the city council willing to take the risk of exposing residents with kids, elderly and Santa Clara High School students (as shown in Appendix1 inlined in doc, the school is within the immediate range of the proposed towers) to potential hazards? Santa Clara High School seems to be disinterested in the cell phone tower as well since the Santa Clara School District has declined, according to Mr. Proo, the AT&T representative for this project, locating the tower on their campus.
This is a moral decision the city council must make that will be closely followed by community. While there are sufficient legal reasons, such as aesthetics, to reject this proposal on FCC grounds, each councilmember and planning commission member must seriously consider the health concerns when casting their vote. 7. Violation of new Zoning Codes The proposed site clearly violates the lines highlighted in yellow in the attached word doc source from City's code link (https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/SantaClara/html/pdfs/SantaClara18.pdf. The applicable section, on cell phone towers, starts on page 340). The most significant one being following lines in 18.66.060 – Location Requirements : "B. Facility Placement in Residential and Mixed-Use Zones. Wireless communications facilities located within a Mixed-Use zone shall be separated by a minimum distance of 300 feet of any residential structure or any other existing wireless communications facility except as follows. " Please note that many single-family homes fall within 50-60 feet of the proposal and approximately ~25 houses and high school are within a 300 feet radius (see Appendix1 inlined at bottom of doc) The public and our Group was informed during the the planning commission hearing that this zoning code does’nt apply because church is zoned quasi-public and not residential. Regardless of zoning codes, there is a reason for the new requirement of a 300-foot clearance, likely due to health effects and property values. Legalities aside, it is common sense that it shouldn't matter whether the cell phone tower is on quasi-public land, like a church, or in a residential area; the tower is still within 300 feet of other single-family homes. The city council should take this into account and reject the ATT cell tower proposal. Additionally, it shouldn't matter that AT&T filed their petition a few months before the new code was implemented (our understanding is that AT&T's petition was submitted in the first half of 2023, and the new code came into effect in the first quarter of 2024). Since it is now the first quarter of 2025, and the tower has not yet been constructed and is still under review, it is time for the city to consider the latest code when making their decision, update the zonning code to prevent these loopholes, and avoid using legal or code technicalities to approve this project. 8. Alternative locations not exhausted . Locations to site the proposed cell phone towers were not exhausted. Some alternative tower locations that should be explored by the planning commission include: A. City public right-of-way . Placing the tower(s) on a city street light as suggested by one of the planning commissioners, Mr. Crutchlow, at their meeting of January 15, 2025 or other location in the public right-of way should be explored. The batteries and associated electronic equipment could also be placed in the city right-of-way, in an above ground cabinet or in an underground vault along with the associated electronic equipment.
One location in particular that was not examined in detail is the idea of locating the tower and associated equipment in the city right-of way along Kiely Boulevard in front of the Central Park, north of Kaiser Drive. According to the City's Engineering Department, that city right-of-way includes a 10' wide landscape area that runs along that side of the street. That landscaped area should be investigated for the proposed cell phone tower and its associated equipment. If the towers can be placed there, they will be approximately 130' to 160' from the residences in the multi-family complexes located on the other side of Kiely. Putting cell phone towers in the city right-of-way is possible. The City of Cupertino has three (3) cell phone towers in the public right-of way according to the City of Cupertino Parks and Recreation report, “Cell Phone Towers in Parks,” to the City of Cupertino's Information, and Communication Commission (see Appendix 3 and 4 inline doc below; unsigned report). B. Central Park (frontage along Kiely ) The City needs to have the applicant fully research the idea of placing the tower in Central Park along the frontage with Kiely Boulevard and consider holding the required referendum on locating that facility in the park. Placing the tower in Central Park will require a referendum on locating the facility in the park. The City of Cupertino has done this in order to place a cell phone tower in their Memorial Park; that referendum was approved by voters in 2020 according to my search on Ecosia, an online artificial intelligence website (see Appendix 3 and 4 inline doc below, “Cell phone tower in Cupertino's Memorial Park--ballot measure” and the attached City of Cupertino's Parks and Recreation report, “Cell Phone Towers in Parks,” to the City of Cupertino Information, and Communication Commission [unsigned]). Require the Parks Department to release the proposed improvement plans for the Central Park entrance area on Kiely Boulevard in order to investigate new locations for the tower. City to hold citywide election to allow installation of the cellphone tower and associated equipment in the park. The City of Cupertino has a cell phone tower in their Memorial Park. C. Central Park (east of Saratoga Creek). Placing the tower in Central Park east of the creek and removing the existing tower near Homestead Road and San Tomas Expressway. A new tower in Central Park could be taller in order to cover a greater area, area, perhaps inlcuding the areas that were served by the removed tower. Placing the tower in Central Park will require a referendum on locating the facility in the park. The City of Cupertino has a cell phone tower in their Memorial Park; a referendum was approved by voters in 2020 to install ace that tower according to my search on Ecosia, an online artificial intelligence website (see Appendix 3 and 4 inline doc below, “Cell phone tower in Cupertino's Memorial Park--ballot measure” and the attached City of Cupertino's Parks and Recreation report, “Cell Phone Towers in Parks,” to the City of Cupertino Information, and Communication Commission [unsigned]). D. Saratoga Creek right-of way . The possibility of locating the cell phone tower in the Saratoga Creek right-of-way, managed by the Santa Clara Valley Water District (Valley Water), should be explored.
E. Earl Carmichael Park . Earl Carmichael Park, located on Benton Street between Pomeroy Avenue and Lawrence Expressway, should be investigated as another potential location for the tower. Mr. Proo, the AT&T representative, mentioned this location as being too close to homes across the creek (Calabazas Creek); however, if the tower is placed in the grove of tall trees near the center of the park, the tower will be approximately 200' feet from those homes. Placing the tower in Earl Carmichael Park (or any city park for that matter) will require a referendum on locating the facility in the park. The City of Cupertino has done this in order to place a cell phone tower in their Memorial Park; that referendum was approved by voters in 2020 according to my search on Ecosia, an online artificial intelligence website (see Appendix 3 and Appedix4 inline below; attached “Cell phone tower in Cupertino's Memorial Park--ballot measure” and the attached City of Cupertino's Parks and Recreation report, “Cell Phone Towers in Parks,” to the City of Cupertino Information, and Communication Commission [unsigned]). G. Commercial property at southwest corner of Kiely and Benton Street . The neighborhood residents brought up this less conspicuous location that has not been explored. That property is within the red circle of optimum signal distribution provided by Mr. Proo, the AT&T consultant on this project. The tower(s) could be placed in the parking lot of that commercial property; if located there the tower(s) would approximately 160' from the closest homes across Benton Street and approximately 300' from the homes across Kiely Boulevard as well as 200' from the east property line shared with Santa Clara High School (where the high school track is located). The back side of that commercial site also has not been explored. The backside of the property is adjacent to the Santa Clara High School's track to the west and the USPS post office to the south. This would place the proposed project further from the homes on Benton, approximately 350', and approximately 400' from the homes across on Kiely Boulevard and approximately 300’ from the large apartment complex at 1000 Kiely Boulevard. 9. Lack of essential information and Violation of new Codes : Some information provided by staff was misleading and needs to be clarified for reconsideration of the proposed cell phone tower project by the planning commission: A. Misleading Info: Unfortunately the Planning Department representative, Lesley Xavier, during the planning commission meeting held on January 15, 2025, incorrectly stated the diameter dimension of the mono-tree after being questioned by commission member Huang at 28:58 minutes into the video taped meeting (https://santaclara.granicus.com/player/clip/2259?view_id=1&redirect=true). Ms. Xavier stated at that meeting that the proposed mono-tree tower was twenty-five feet (25') in diameter when in fact the tower is approximately five feet (5') in diameter according to the plans submitted by the applicant and shown at the meeting. The twenty-five feet (25') the planner was referencing I think is the diameter of the 25.5' lease area surrounding the mono-tree. Again, you can find that statement at 28:58 minute mark in the video of the Planning Commission meeting held on January 15, 2025. Had correct information about the diameter of the tower been provided (approximately 5' diameter), other locations for the proposed tower in the neighborhood may have been considered by the planning commissioners. B. Violation of New Codes : Unfortunately the City Planning Department Manager, Lesley Xavier, did not inform the Group about the correct zoning standards (or lack thereof) that pertain to the proposed project when she answered some questions about the project posed by a member of our Group prior to the Planning Commission meeting (see Appendix2 in-line text below). That failure delayed the Group's investigations into other aspects of this controversial project. Specifically, the planning department manager failed to tell the Group that the zoning codes found on the City's website are new and do not apply to this project (the applicant’s submittal predates the new code) when the Manager answered a question about the 300' clearance required between proposed cell phone towers and residences found in the new zoning code. This oversight prevented our Group from investigating and forming additional objections to the project, particularly the Group's search for alternative sites for the cell phone tower (i.e., more sites need to be investigated since there are no separation requirements in the old code).
10. Envirnomental Effects
The construction and operation of cell towers can also have significant environmental consequences. These include habitat disruption, threatens local wildlife, aesthetic degradation of our natural landscape and fire hazard. The proposed site for the cell tower is home to various species and vegetation that could be adversely affected by the construction activities and the continuous operation of the tower. Additionally, the visual impact of a cell tower can alter the character of our community, potentially affecting property values and the overall quality of life and well being of its residents. The risk of fire is a significant concern, especially in areas prone to dry conditions or where the local fire department's response capabilities might be stretched thin. The addition of such a structure could potentially increase the fire risk to nearby homes and natural areas. (Appendix1) Properties within 300ft radius of the 3-pole tower proposal (Approved in Jan15’25) :
This picture shows the proposed 3 towers from ATT and an approximately 300 feet radius (Orange border) based on Google Maps measurements. Please note shape is spherical due to 3 towers and these are approximate. The following structures fall in this radius : 1. >25 Single Family and Duplex Houses in Humbolt Ave, Moraga and Benton 2. Significant portions and structures/buildings of Santa Clara High school in bottom of the end picture. Alternate 60foot Monotree considered in past (Rejected in Jan15’25 meeting) :
This picture shows the proposed monotree towers from ATT and an approximately 300 feet radius (Orange
border)
based
on
approximate
Maps
measurements.
Multiple
Single
family
homes
and
townhouse
community
in
Pomeroy
Green
are
in
approximately
300
ft
radius.
(Appendix2)
Email exchange between Yongli Wen, a neighborhood resident and Lesley Xavier. City of Santa Clara Planning
Manager
(manager's
reply
highlighted
in
yellow
):
Yongli Wen From:[email protected] To: Lesley Xavier,Planning Public Comment,PlanningCommission,Sandy Le Cc:Eric Crutchlow,Nancy Biagini,Priya Cherukuru,Qian Huang,Lance Saleme Tue, Jan 14 at 9:19 PM Hi Lesley, Thanks a lot for your feedback! I still have some questions: 1. The residential zone or mixed used zone has the 300 feet rule, what's the reason for having such
a
300
feet
rule?
We
think
there
should
be
some
concerns
like
negative
health
impact,
property
value
decrease,
etc.,
right?
I
f
such
kind
of
concerns
exist,
we
should
also
have
concerns
for
all
other
kind
of
zones,
right?
2. Now for a public or quasi-public zone, what's the rule for it? Doesn't the city planning department
also
have
to
take
account
of
some
concerns
like
negative
health
impact,
property
value,
etc.
for
nearby
residential
houses?
3. Now for our case, let's first assume the church is in quasi-public zone, but our houses are in the
residential
zone,
not
in
the
public
area
,
the
only
thing
is
that
we
are
the
immediate
neighbors
of
the
church,
we
share
the
same
fence
with
the
church,
even
though,
does
anyone
still
think
it
really
makes
sense
to
install
a
cell
tower
with
only
15 feet
distance
to
our
backyards?
Does
anyone
think
it
really
won't
have
any
negative
impact
to
our
health
and
property
value
with
such
short
distance?
4. Also for the church, it is not a normal public area like a shopping mall, a plaza, a city park, etc.
which
have
enough
buffer
area
between
residential
zones,
the
church
is
just
part
of
our
community,
already
integrated
into
our
neighborhoods,
does
anyone
think
the
church
is
really
a
a
normal
public
or
quasi-public
area?
We still strongly oppose the plan to install cell tower in the church area, because we think the plan
doesn't
make
any
sense,
please
seriously
consider
our
opinion
and
suggestions.
Sincerely,
Yongli
On Tuesday, January 14, 2025 at 08:21:53 AM PST, Lesley Xavier <[email protected]> wrote:
Hello – Yongli
Thank
you
for
your
email.
Unfortunately
your
reading
of
the
code
section
is
incorrect.
The section of the code that you are referencing below applies to properties where the cell facility will be located on
a
residentially
zoned
or
mixed
use
zoned
site.
In
this
case
the
site
where
the
cell
facility
will
be
located
on
is
zoned
public
quasi-public
and
this
section
does
not
apply.
Lesley
Lesley Xavier | Planning Manager Community Development Department | Planning Division 1500
Warburton
Avenue |
Santa
Clara,
CA
95050
D: 408.615.2484 | email: [email protected]
www.SantaClaraCA.gov
From: Yongli Wen <[email protected]>
Sent:
Tuesday,
January
14,
2025
12:35
AM
To:
Planning
Public
Comment
PlanningCommission
Lesley
Xavier
Sandy
Le
Cc:
Eric
Crutchlow
Nancy
Biagini
Priya
Cherukuru
Qian
Huang
Lance
Saleme
Mario
Bouza
Yashraj
Bhatnagar
Steve
Proo
Subject:
Re:
AT&T
telecommunications
tower
proposal
for
3111
Benton
Street:
2nd
request
by
AT&T
Tower
Relocation
Group
to
locate
tower
in
Central
Park
(more
alternative
locations
for
the
Planning
Commission's
consideration
at
their
meeting
scheduled
for
Januar...
Dear
Sir/Madam,
FYI, I'm attaching the copy of CSC zoning Code, Chapter 18.66 - Wireless Telecommunications Facilities with our highlights
to
indicate
our
doubts
regarding
the
current
plan.
Thanks,
Yongli
Wen
On Monday, January 13, 2025 at 08:55:04 PM PST, Yongli Wen <[email protected] >
wrote:
To: City of Santa Clara Planning Commission (for January 15, 2025 meeting) From: Yongli Wen Re: AT&T telecommunication tower proposal for 3111 Benton Street (PLN23-00148) Date: January 13, 2025 Dear Planning Commission: This is Yongli lives in 3190 Humbolt Ave, Santa Clara, the immediate neighbor of the church at 3111
Benton
Street.
From city zone coding document at https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/SantaClara/html/pdfs/SantaClara18.pdf, we just found the proposed AT&T cell tower locations in the church violate the city code, please check the screenshot
of
the
document
in
section
18.66.060
as
below,
we
can
see
that
the
distance
of
cell
tower
location
to
any
residential
structure
is
minimum 300 feet. The current proposed locations
obviously
can't
meet
the
requirement.
Please
explain
this
to
all
nearby
neighbors.
Thanks, Yongli Wen
(Appendix3) Ecosia Search
(Appendix4) Cell phone tower in Cupertino's Memorial Park--ballot measure
Pm
-CUPERTINO
Agenda Item No. __
Subject
PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT
QUINLAN COMMUNITY CENTER
10185 NORTH STELLING ROAD• CUPERTINO, CA
95014-5700
(408) 777-3120 • FAX (408) 777-3137
STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: December 2, 2010
Consider the Technology, Information, and Communication Commission (TICC) request for the Parks and Recreation Commission to evaluate which parks might be suitable for cell towers.
Recommendation
The Park and Recreation Commission to offer guidance and guidelines for the TICC Commission to consider for possible cell towers in parks.
Description
This item is in front of the Commission due to a joint Commissions' meeting on August 17, 2010.
At that meeting, the TICC Commission requested information from the Parks and Recreation Commission about possible sites for cell towers in City parks. Presently, south and west Cupertino lack cell coverage and the TICC Commission would like to improve these areas . The parks that are located in this region of Cupertino are Jollyman Park, Hoover Park, McClellan Ranch Park, Linda Vista Park, and Monta Vista Park.
When a communication company wants to install a cell tower within the City of Cupertino, they must apply for a discretionary permit approved by the Planning Commission or the Director of Community Development , depending on the visibility of the facility . Presently, if the decision is appealed, the applicant pays all hearing noticing costs for a 1,000-foot noticing radius . Attachment A is the City's Wireless Facilities Master Plan that explains the sitting and design of these personal wireless service facilities.
Currently, there are 18 cell towers within Cupertino, three are in public rights-of-way , and one is being built in Memorial Park. There are no cell tower applications for city parks currently in process.
Sustainability Impact
Staff researched professional associations and other state and city governments for best practices for locating cell towers in parks . To ensure sustainability within parks, the following guidelines should be considered in conjunction with the policies from the Wireless Facilities Master Plan before granting personal wireless service facilities permits.
The telecommunications company should :
1. Build and maintain their ground space in City parks.
2. Renovate any City property including , but not limited to turf, irrigation systems , utilities, and pavements which were disturbed or adversely affected during construction .
3. If appropriate , provide public art as part of the structure (example - sculpture attached to the monopole facility at Memorial Park).
4. Purchase an appropriate amount of trees to use as screening at the park .
5. Upon abandoning of wireless facility, remove tower/pole (or relevant structure) and restore the park area to its fom,er condition .
6. Reference Policy 8-2 of the Wireless Facilities Master Plan and forfeit the ownership of the tower at the conclusion of the permit if park amenities have been built into, on top of, or within the proximity of the tower, if the removal of the tower should adversely affect the fore mentioned park amenity .
Fiscal Impact
The City collects planning , building and public works application fees from the applicant , but this is true of any private development. The Wireless Facilities Master Plan states a lease to locate personal wireless service facilities on an existing City-owned facility or structure is typically negotiated with Public Works Department staff and approved or disapproved by the City Council at a public hearing . Coordination with affected departments , such as the Parks and Recreation Department for City Parklands , will be necessary to ensure their financial concerns are met.
Prepared by:
Justin Cecil, Recreation lntem
Approved for Submission by:
Julia Lamy, Senior Recreation Supervisor
Attachment
A. Wireless Facilities Master Plan
Appendix5 : Chatgpt query on seller disclosure