POST MEETING MATERIAL — City Council and Authorities Concurrent, February 25, 2025

2/25/25
1 2
Appeal Request
City Council
February 25, 2025
Item #5 RTC 25-163
Appeal of a Conditional
Use Permit for a New
Unmanned AT&T
Telecommunication Facility
at 3111 Benton Street
Afshan Hamid,
Director of Community Development
• On January 15, 2025, the Planning Commission approved a Conditional Use Permit for a new unmanned AT&T telecommunication facility with the installation of three 42' -6" monopoles located in the parking lot of the property at 3111 Benton Street.
• On January 18, 2025, Vignesh Vivekraja, a member of the "AT&T Tower Relocation Group," a group of approximately 58 community members from the adjacent neighborhood, filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of the Conditional Use Permit.

Item #5

POST MEETING MATERIAL
1 2/25/25
3 4
Project Site
• Site Area: 3.15 acres
• General Plan:

Public/Quasi- Public
• Zoning: Public/Quasi
Public (PQP)
• Site Conditions: Church
with 2 paved parking lots .

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

Application Timeline Summary
• March 23, 2023: application filed for a CUP
• August 21, 2024: Planning Commission hearing
a. Diesel generator
b. Health risks
c. Too close to residents
-Applicant agreed 1st tolling agreement to address above issues • Sept 11: Applicant requested further continuance
Item #5
2 2/25/25
5 6
Application Timeline Summary
• Oct 23, 2024: diesel generator removed with a battery cabinet - Planning Commission requested 3 monopoles
- 2 nd Tolling agreement until January 15, 2025
• December 4, 2024: Planning Commission hearing
a. One 60' foot monotree--staff recommendation
b. Three 43'-6 " monopoles in parking lot--Planning Commission direction c. Location of Central Park
- Continue to January 15, 2025
Project Application
On March 23 , 2023, Complete Wireless Consulting,
filed an application requesting a Conditional Use
Permit for a new unmanned telecommunication
facility for AT&T on the subject site.
■ Initial project was to co-locate on the rooftop of the church, but the roof was not structurally able to
support the additional equipment.
■ An altern ative design was proposed utilizin g 3
monopoles disguised as parking lot light poles - this
design was rejected by staff as there was no way to
visually screen the poles.
■ Final design was a single monotree placed near a
stand of existing trees towards the rear of the site.
_;;., ....
,;.1
~ •,.
,, ~ ... ., ( -------- -
Item #5
3 2/25/25
7 8
Site Plan
• Pole Lease Area:
o 3 - 80 square foot lease
areas around each pole
• Equipment Lease Area:
o 15 feet from rear
property line
o 366 square feet
o Back-up battery
cabinet
o Enclosed by existing
wooden fence
Elevations
• Setback From Rear
Property Line:
o 49 to 51 feet
• Setback to Front
Property Line:
o 40 to 42 feet
• Pole Height:
o 42 feet - 6 inches
• Monopole Lights to be
painted black
Item #5
. ... :,_ : :,I.I l~..iU ,f•I r :n.,":..",.:=~-
~~::l ,.,.._,.-rA1: ;"""':JJ. ►• • "-• '.. - :--_ .. .,.::. ....-~ •"'!.!'.:!'~ ..... .,. ""' """" .., - - - _ , .... - IN- w 0-lt-lXI! .._, ,_, ._,..., <fO-l t-tllC "11 ~,....,, , :;.:-- .:-::·_-:;-.:· ~~i~i ~~~~~~~_§-.:f:~ --71 ...... ........; ! /
··~
"\ \ .,.....,\ ~
1 ~~ \
, r' ...
. !~\/
S 5~'1<"'•••w
S :,,-:.::---
1 I 1
~ 'l ~
·=---... -..
..,_¥,_v ~T
~l1J
..,::;
,.., .... .... _
4 2/25/25
9 10
Zoning Code Conformance
• The application was deemed complete on December 25, 2023, prior to the adoption of the Updated Zoning Code, which now includes regulations for Wireless Facilities. The previous Code or "Classic Code" contained no regulations for Wireless Facilities.
• This application was reviewed for conformance with the "Classic Code". • All planning permit applications (that are active and determined to be complete before the effective date of the Updated Zoning Code} shall be processed in compliance with the requirements in effect when the application was deemed complete.

Appeal Application
The appeal application identified 10 reasons for the appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of the new wireless facility:

Impacts the entire neighborhood 6. * 1. Health effects

2. Aesthetic problems 7. Violation of new Zoning Codes
')
J• Potential property value loss 8. Alternative locations not exhausted

4. Proper notification needed 9. Lack of essential information and ,5. Impacts to historic resource not violation of new codes reviewed 10. Environmental effects
• Pertaining to negative health effects (Radio frequency ( or RF) emissions), local governments, including the City of Santa Clara, are preempted from regulating wi1·eless telecommunication facilities based on concerns regarding the health effects of radio frequency emissions.
10 Item #5
5 2/25/25
11 12
Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996
■ Preempts all municipal regulation of Radio Frequency (RF) emissions to the extent that wireless facilities comply with federal emissions standards.
"No State or local government or instrumentality thereof may regulate the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the Commission 's regulations concerning such emissions." ■ The proposed facilities will not exceed federal emissions standards 11 Central Park Alternative Location
■ The applicant and Parks Department staff did a thorough examination of the entirety of Central Park to identify any other potential locations including the five locations that were suggested by the public. • 3 had to be eliminated due to a planned parking entry construction project; • 1 was ruled out based on park staff preference as it was near main walking paths; and • any area on the eastern side of the park, including the lights of the baseball field, did not meet the radio frequency needs of AT&T.
■ Central Park was determined to not be a possible site for the wireless facility.
• City Charter § 714.1 requires 2/ 3rd majority vote at a general election 12 Item #5
6 2/25/25
13 14
Central Park Alternative Location
0 0
0 0
13 Map Provided by Public Google Map of Central Park
Staff Recommendation
Overrule the Appeal and Adopt a Resolution upholding the approval of a Conditional Use Permit for a New Unmanned AT&T Telecommunication Facility with the Installation of Three 42' -6" Monopoles Located in the Parking Lot at 3111 Benton Street, subject to findings and conditions of approval.
14 Item #5
7 2/25/25
15 City Council
February 25, 2025
Item #5 RTC 25-163
Appeal of a Conditional
Use Permit for a New
Unmanned AT&T
Telecommunication Facility
at 3111 Benton Street
Afshan Hamid,
Director of Community Development
Item #5
8 2/25/25 Applicant Presentation Item #5
• City of Santa Clara City Council
• PLN23-0148
• February 25, 2025
• Steve Proo, Complete Wireless Consulting on behalf of AT&T • Enrique Cornejo, AT&T Radio Frequency Engineer via Zoom 2020 -AT&T identified gap in service in this section of Santa Clara between El Camino and Homestead Rd. 2020-2021 -AT&T investigated parcels to collocate/build. Submitted planning application 03/2021 . 04/2021 - Planning approved. Collocation rooftop with other carriers. 06/2021 - Structurals failed. Candidate eliminated.
07/2021 - New alternative candidate. Rooftop collocation. 830 Kiely Blvd. 02/2022 - Alternative candidate stopped negotiations. Candidate eliminated. 12/2022 -AT&T revisited original candidate. New design as parking lot structure. 03/2023 -AT&T submitted application as a 3 light pole design at the eastern parking lot. 04/2023 - City of Santa Clara Planning requested a re-design to a mono tree. 12/2023 - Provided redesign as a 60' broad leaf.
03/2024- Projected deemed complete by City of Santa Clara Planning. 08/23/2024 - First planning hearing.
09/2024- Continuation to provide additional information 10/2024-01 /15/2025 - Hearings 3, 4 and 5.

POST MEETING MATERIAL
I
Photo
Simulations
AdvanceSi
:, 1 1 l :> n ,11 1 I 3'lJ' J S
romact I r.25 j ~02 8501
• Light-pole replacement 2
existing light poles will be
replaced with 3 new light
poles with AT&T antennas
located on top.
• 42' -6" - New top height
Bottom of antenna 36'-6"
Bottom of radios - 29'
Light fixture height - 27'
• Existing abandoned 20'x20'
lease taken over for
equipment.
• Church parcel zoned
public/quasi-B.
a
I
.l
IIO
UIJ ).fH 'SNlE',/1,/.l,
n~ ,)f :
iN)JC'J:' : c;E
~1.?P'{[SS::R
•,1 -t.i.c10 vm s
T"r-' CF 6
:N) u::HT ;.:-cu i 3 •1 (lj '. Ni naE:?
R : \t( CJ.Bl£ ;.: '. ..! ) ,_k ) )C =il)II[ ~
r,. •,j( C~Ul£5 IN9C.E
Shot Point Map
:J
Proposed ATt.T
lnsiallation
Propo sed AT&T
Installation
Photo Simulation# 1
Proposl:'d AT&T
l11 stallati o n
Photo Simulation# 2
I
Proposed AT&T
Installation
Proposed AT&T
Installation
Proposed AT&T
Installation
Photo Simulation# 3
-----~ ---------
Proposed AT&T
Installation
Proposed AT&T
Installation
Photo Simulation# 4
Proposed AT&T
Installation
Coverage Gap
Existing 700 LTE
Coverage
Legend
I Reliable Service Indoors/Outdoors
Reliable Coverage in Transit
Indoor Coverage Less Reliable
I
Reliable Coverage Outdoors
Only
Indoor Coverage Less Reliable
e Existing site
e Proposed site
Coverage Gap
Existing 700 LTE
Coverage
Legend
I Reliable Service Indoors/Outdoors
Reliable Coverage in Transit
Indoor Coverage Less Reliable
I
Reliable Coverage Outdo0f5
Only
Indoor Coverage Less Reliable
e Existing site
e Proposed site
Alternative Locations
1 . Santa Clara HS
3000 Benton

2. LOS Church
875 Quince

3. Rooftop Colo
2898 Homestead

4. Shopping Ctr
830 Kiely

5. PG&E Substation
830 Kiely. (Behi nd)

6. Central Park
900 Kiely

7. Earl R.

Carmichael Park
3445 Benton

Complies with FCC Guidelines
• Licensed Professional
Engineer (M. McGuire@
EBI Consulting) confirms
that the Cumulative radio
frequency exposure will
be well below FCC public
limits at ground level and
all nearby rooftops.

36.24%
• Denial based on RF
exposure preempted by
federal law.
~ AT&T EB1 1-·········
Radio Frequency - Electromagnetic Energy (RF-EME)
Compl iance Report
Prepared For AT&T Mobility, LLC
Sice name :

FA#:

USID:

Sire ID:

EBI Project Number
CCL06126
15376635
298767
CCL06l26
298757
Addre ss :

County:

Latitude:

Longi1ude:

S1ructure Type :

Ordered by:

Pace Job:

I
Report Writer:

Report Date:
3111 BenLon Slreet,
S3nla Clara Calrfomia
Santa Clara
37 3469
-12 19848
Roof
Comp lete Wire less Inc
MRSFR0731183
Rebecca S1111sgalli
19 November 2024
Statemen t of Compliance
AJ.U ,C_...,.,.,,.~ a......-ffl.-#dCq,11uN•~ A'l•J ~4'-'~ .....:rir O:. Jt~.lfld'll~fA>.ll .... ,__..fltw-.....~.1-r. tf ~,..,~c,;,mpfianno ,.._......,,,.~r.d
Reviewed and Approved by:
5ealed Hlnov.202<1
Micha el McGuire
Eleclncal Engineer
m1ke@h2dc com
Impacts on Real Estate Joint Venture

SILICON VALLEY
• Two studies by Joint Venture Silicon Valley (2012 & 2021) • Used a hedonic analysis(spatial difference-in-differences method) to analyze MLS data for proximal properties.
• Findings: Wireless facilities have no negative impact on the real estate valuation of a home .
• The relationship between the listed and sale price remained the same no matter how close the property was to the wireless facility.
• David Witkowski, Founder & CEO Oku Solutions LLC.

Complies with City Permit Requirements
• Complies with all standards zoned Public/Quasi-B.
• Designed at minimum functioning height to fill significant coverage gap. • Complied with all Santa Clara Planning Commissions and Public requests. • No substantial evidence
• Blank
60' Broadleaf
• Generator Removal
• Solar Shade Study
• Real Estate Study
• Nearby AT&T Locations
• Parks & Recreation
• 60' Mono-Broadleaf
• CL of 44' & 52'
• 25.5' diameter
lease area for
tower . Existing
abandoned 20'x20 '
lease taken over for
equipment
. ,
t
Concerns - Requests - Studies
Parking Lot 3 Light Poles
• 515' -Away
• Eliminates Fall Concerns
• FirstNet Site
• Eliminated ALL concerns
• Aesthetic Perspective
Project Designs
• ,,n .. 'C" .. • . -,: ~~ 1 ,..,. I
• Replace 2 existing light pole
structures and replace with 3
new light poles 42'-6"
• CL of 41 '-3" and 39'-6"
• Less intrusive with existing
lease area of 20'x20'
lCN
F 2 •
110
IN) AT&T <NIDm<.

TrP CF l
- (N) DC9 SURGE
St,<>F'lESSCR
(N) ~ACID UNITS,
r,,> OF 5
(N) LI GHT PQE f.l 'N/ (1) (N) FlSER
THCNK CABLE & (3) (N) DC PO•ER
TRL~K CABLES IN9DE
Legend
Reliable Service Indoors/Ou
Reliable Coverage in Transit
Indoor Coverage Less Reliat
I
Reliable Coverage Outdoors
Only
Indoor Coverage Less Reliab
I Existing site
e Proposed site
Existing Sites + CCL06126 LTE 700 Coverage
v? ... , . ~ -:'Ii '
~ ' ..... :-- .
2336 El Camino 57' Mono Pole
2499 Homestead Rd.
52'-5" Monopole
le&end
■ ---· ---,-
---■ ::-- -,- -
---·--·--"JIIC;;;. ____ .a...,w • ·--
3560 Flora Vista Ave. 50' Rooftop
2445 Cabrillo Ave
60' Mono Pine
l ~l\d
·=~ -~-=-~ ___ ._._. •...:r---- -
Mono Tree Photo Simulation# 1
CCL06126
3111 Benton Street, S;inta dara, CA
Photosims Produced on 11-1-2023
Mono Tree Photo Simulation# 2
Pro p osed
Mono Tree Photo Simulation# 3
Pro p osed
CCL06126
3111 Benton Street, Santa Clara, CA
Photosims Produced on 11-1-2023
view from Moraga Street looking west at site
An.T Wireless CCL06126
"'="
ronlactf9]))70l!Vi0i
3111 Benton Street, Santa dara, CA
Photosims Produced on 11-1-2023
Mono Tree Photo Simulation# 4
_ ATI.T Wireless CCL06126
3111 Benton Street, Santa Clara, CA
Photos ims Produ ced on 11 -1 2023
2/25/25 Appellant Presentation Item #5
Public Appeal : Relocate
Proposed ATT Tower in 3111
Benton St, First Baptist Church
AT&T Tower Relocation Group
(Residents: Humbolt, Moraga, Benton, Pomeroy Green, Orthello) • 58 Resjdents signed petitions submitted to city
• Another 54 signs in Change.org online portal
• Total : Greater than 100 signs supporting this
Background
• Planning Commission conditionally approved AT&T tower on 1/15/2025 • Neighborhood residents are for relocating this and unfairly represented! • Location : Santa Clara Baptist church parking lot site • ~25 homes : ~300 ft radius ---=-i- "'~··-
c Many in ~50 ft radius
c: Sharing fence with Church
• >50 homes: ~500ft radius
• Also affects:
c Daycare: Shining Star
•~ Santa Clara High School
c Historic Pomeroy Green
■ NRHP~ registered
~Natio nal Registr y of
Historic Places
POST MEETtNG MATERIAL
'
Background : Cell Tower in Middle of Residential Area
Cities needing 500 feet
of setback
cell-tower-> homes:
• 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
Links to ordinances for several cities in California with a 500ft setback requirement
• Click on blue links
• Calabasas, CA - no Tier 2" wireless telecommunications facilities within 1,000 feet of homes and schools. • Davis, CA - no freestanding wireless facilities within 500 feet of 1·esidential zone and schools. • Westlake Village, CA - no facilities within 500 feet of homes. • Randolph, MA - no wireless antennas within 500 feet of homes and businesses. • Petaluma, CA - no "small cell" antennas within 500 feet of homes. • Suisin City, CA - no ·'small cell ' antennas within 500 feet of homes. • Source : link
Petaluma,CA

14.44.095 Small cell facilities - Basic requirements.

Small cell facilities as defined in Section 14.44.020 may be Installed, erected, maintained and/or operated in any commercial or industrial zoning district where such antennas are permitted under this title, up.on the issuance of a minor conditional use permit, so long as all the following conditions are met:

A. The small cell antenna must connect to an already existing utility pole that can support its weight.

B. All new wires needed to service the small cell must be installed within the width of the existing utility pole so as to not exceed the diameter and height of the existing utility pole.

C. All ground-mounted equipment not installed inside the pole must be undergrounded, flush to the ground, within three feet of the utility pole.

D. Each small cell must be at least one thousand five hundred feet away from the nearest small c.ell facility .

E. Aside from the transmitter/antenna itself, no additional equipment may be visible.

F. EaGh small cell must be at least live hundred feet away ffom any .existing or apµ,ro11ed residence.

G. An encroachment permit must be obtained for any work in the public right-of-way. (Ord. 2662 NCS § 2 (part), 2018.J
Existing Cell Towers in Church Site: >21 Verizon+ TMobilel • Existing cell coverage from other providers is already very good • The cumulative health effects of all these towers need to be weighed. 9 Cell StaUons,fram Verizon : Source : httpswwww .cellmapper.nev 12 C<lll Siallons /Tom n., oblle : Sourl)l! https;/lwww.ceJlmappcr.ne!/ I U ffl
lo ....... t,tU-
------..

Background
• FCC Requirements:
o City to make a decision before shot clock expires , in this case Feb 2025 o The city council has the right to reject this based on many reasons , including aesthetics and code violation : it cannot be health
• We oppose for the following broad reasons : We want a 7-0 vote to relocate tower! Bad Aesthetics
Property Value Decline
Potential Code Violations
Fire Risks
Health Effects
Impact Santa Clara High Students
Future Precedent for cell-towers
Bad Aesthetics*
58 Residents signed petitions to City
Another 54 signs in Change.org portal
Total > 100 signs
1 Strong reasons to reject
------1➔~L complying with FCC grounds~
----1►~ Crucial Ethical/Moral Reasons
I Council should strongly weigh
\__ _ _ _ ----- --~)
• 3 - 42 ft towers, an eyesore to all neighbors around . • View from Benton St.
*From
ATT
Simulations
Fence below
ree's:

Shared with
Backyard of
Humbolt SFHs
Bad Aesthetics*: View from Hum bolt
*From
ATT
Simulations
Pro p osed
-- -
CCL06126
3111 Benton Street, Santa Clara, CA
Photosims Produced on 4- 13-2023
Bad Aesthetics*: Side view: Similar to the Front/Side
yard view of houses at Moraga and Benton
Pro posed
*From
ATT
Simulations L------____;,:---......::;;.---l
Bad Aesthetics*
• Doesn't comply with residential areas and makes it feel industrial. • Apart from the view from residences, backyards, etc., it's an eyesore for public residents walking around.
• Strong enough reason to reject this proposal without even reviewing the rest!
*From
ATT
Simulat ions
Property Values Decline! Financial Impact!
• A realtor neighborhood resident emphasized at the Planning Commission meeting that homes near cell sites deter buyers and lead to declining property values. • Reputed National Association of Realtors reports (link) indicate a substantial decrease (up to 20%) in property values for homes near cell towers. Notable quotes from linked articles/studies include:
o "We find that homes close to towers sell for a discount of up to 7.6%." o "The negative price impact of 9. 78% is much more severe for properties within visible range of a tower."
o "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 (see next slide)
Property Values Decline Seller Disclosure Packet
c. Past. presen1. pending or threatened 1awsul1s. set1lemen1s. mediations. arbiuauons. tax uens. mechanics· liens. nouce ol defaull. bankruptcy or olher cour1 filings. or government hearings allecUng or relallng 10 lhe Propef1y, Homeowner Assocldllon or nelghl>Olhood .... • .. • .. .....

D. Any private 1ransler lees. lllggered by a sate ol the Property. In Javor ol prlvale pames. cnar11ao1e organizations. Interest based groups or any olher person or em ty . ........... -.. ...... .. ... _ ... ... .

E. Any PACE.lien (sucti as HERO 01 SCEIP) or oilier tlen on your Properly secunng a loan 10 pay for an alleration. modllicarlon, replacement. lmprovemem. remodel or malerlal repair of the Property •-······· ... .. ,.- ......... .. .. • .............. •·•··· ... ············ ·················•·· .. ··... · ......... ······· F. The cost ol any a1te1at10,,. modllicalion, replacement, improvement, remodel or ma1erial repalr ol !he Property being paid by an assessmenl on the Property tax bill .................................. - ..... ...... .

Yes XI No
7 Yes XI No
...: Yes 1!I No
· Yes Xi No Exptanalion: _______ ____ ____ ______ _____ _____ _

16. NEIGHBORS/NEIGHBORHOOD: ARE YOU (SELLER) AWARE OF ...

A. Nelghbo1hood noise. nuisance or 01her problems lrom sources Stich as, bur not limiled to. 1he rouowing: Neighbors, tralfic. parldng congesuon. atrplanes. 1ralns. 119111 rail. subway. Trucks, freeways. buses, schools, parks, refuse slorage or tandml processlng. agricullural operalions. business. odor, cecreaUonal facllllles, res1aurants. en1enarnmen1 complexes or lacllllle.s. parades, sparling events. faus. neighborhood parties. titter. construction. rur conditioning equipment, air compressors. generat0<s. pool equlpmen1 or appliances. underground gas pipelines. cell phone towers. high \/Ollage transmission lines. or wlldllre. .. ..... -.. ,........... . ......... .. ............. .. ··--- ....... x Yes :J No B. Any pasl or .Present dlspules or issues w11h a neighbor wnich could impact The use and enfoymenl ol lhe Property.... ................. . ........ ,................. .. ............... _.................... . ~ Yes oo No Exptanallon; IG. A: /IU/ SA- NC=E=S _________ _____ ____ _____ ___ _ Close to Moffett Field, so occ.::iisi!!!!!.ll.l!!,tjilt~jfl=!s~lly~i=nq~a~v•="'=•~•d.~ ll=n•~•=•r~bo='~"•='~"='•=· _ _ ___________ _ SPQ REVISED 12/21 (PAGE 3 OF 4) Buyer's Initials _ _ _ /_ ~- Seller's ln1t1als ch,m w•n I Comp.-•-' I G1tneratad by Glfd•EI
SELLER PROPERTY QUESTIONNAIRE (SPQ PAGE 3 OF 4)
·~-
Property Values Decline! Financial Impact!
• ~25 homes in 300 ft radius, mostly SFH
• Zill ow avg in Santa Clara : 1. 7M
• Home values : ~$40 million
• Loss to residents at 20%, as in the
previous page: ~$8M
• Significant financial loss to residents at
benefit of Church and AT&T
• Loss of property tax revenue to city
• This is conservative, as it doesn't
consider homes beyond this radius!
• Who will compensate residents and the
city?
Property Values Decline! Financial Impact!
• "Joint Venture Silicon Valley" study
submitted by ATT is a report from a
private organization and is not
peer-reviewed by any major body.
• The financial relationship between this
org and cell companies is unknown,
especially considering Verizon was
acknowledged in the report for data.
• The NAR organization's report from
residents is more reputable.
• Residents must be given the benefit
of the doubt and not ATT!
Latest City Code: Towers Violating Common Sense
• Jul'24 City Code (link; 18.66.060) "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 from any residential structure or any other existing wireless communications facility except as follows :
o Houses are within ~60 ft in present proposal, which is clear violation o Many cities in California require >500 ft setback (first slide) • City Staffs Refutation:
o The church site is in a quasi-zone, and the above applies only to the residential zone. o ATT applied for permit in 01 '23 and city codes came into effect in Jul'24 • Residents Appeal to City Council:
o It's common sense that the city code has an evident oversight that must be corrected, as the church directly borders single-family homes.
o The tower is not yet approved-residents urge the council to prioritize moral responsibility over legal technicalities to cancel tower approval , protect the community .

Health Concerns: Moral Responsibility
/ .... Already >21 cell base stations* from Verizon and T-Mobile in the church site! ~ o No proper notification to residents when these came live; else, we would have protested! • AT&T proposed additions> 3 more
1 • No study on the combined effect of ATT, Verizon, and TMobile towers! • Base stations transmit significantly more power than cell phones! I • Houses within a 60-ft vicinity and sharing fences! School in Vicinity! ) • Growing body of scientific evidence showing negative health effects , including cancer, brain tumors, and reproductive problems • WHO: Radio Frequency Radiation: "possible human carcinogen." • National Toxicology Program : "Causes cancer in rats" • Peer-reviewed comprehensive list from top scientists: link *Details in Slide4 Asbestos, DDT, and cigarettes were once believed to have no health impact! Health Concerns: Moral Responsibility
• Reports link cell base stations to cancer clusters and health issues , especially in children. See: Link1 link2 link3 ; Example News Snippet:

Cell phone tower shut down at
, elementary school after eight kids are
diagnosed with cancer in 'mysterious'
cluster
• The affected students at Weston Elementary School in Ripon are all under the age of 10
• They each have different types of cancer: brain, kidney, liver and lymphoma • Does the city council want to take the risk of exposing residents and Santa Clara High School students to cancer and health risks ? • The city council, as voted members, should consider the moral responsibility; approved towers are hard to remove legally.

Other Considerations!
• Unguarded Towers: The church parking lot is a busy and active area with high school students , and unrestricted access to these unshielded towers and battery packs with no barriers could pose a danger .
• Fire risk for the neighborhood!
c International Association of Fire Fighters against cell towers nearby (https ://ehtrust.org/firefighter-unions-opposinq -cell-towers/ ) c Fire risk study from Environmental Health Trust : link • Potential Impact to Pomeroy Green (National Registry of Historic Places site) c Would need Historic and Landmark Commission review for towers/const ruction within 100 feet • Stop towers, as it sets future precedent!
Alternate Sites
• Significant effort was spent by residents to identify alternative sites-this should have been done by the city and AT&T!
• Details in the submitted addendum to the planning commission and new sites added to the addendum in this appeal.
• Some proposals need a city referendum to place them in parks. o Cupertino has already successfully done this and placed cell towers in Memorial Park; the referendum approved in 2020.
• "Where there's a will, there's a way"-AT& Twill find another site once this is rejected. The church site is just convenient for AT&T to avoid delays. Don't burden residents for AT& T's or the church's needs.
c As a Planning Commissioner said, "ATT is late to the game." Please don't punish residents 1 • AT&T had done well without a tower on this site for the last 30 years! Alternate Sites
Detailed explanation: link , also submitted
to City
• Commercial property at the
southwest comer of Kiely and Benton
Street.
• Santa Clara High School ---:--'7"~ ~~~;: J~
• City public right-of-way : suggested ~19"1ft
by planning commissioners, Mr.

Crutchlow to place in street lights.
• Central Park (frontage along Kiely )
• Central Park ( east Saratoga Creek)
• Saratoga Creek right-of-way.
• Central Park : Areas not exhausted
• Earl Carmichael Park.

Alternate Sites Discussed in Previous Meeting
.. f •• ,,...
,c "v ,, ~r,:.a .,_.-. C.tMr:.. .:.uk
'
Alternate Sites : High School
Santa Clara High School: Communication Between Residents and the School Board of Trustees • Trustee Andrew Ratermann responded to residents' emails, stating that they would watch the February 25 council meeting remotely.
• He emphasized the need for a board meeting with an official agenda to discuss:
o The financial arrangements for the project.
o The exact proposed location of the tower.
o Any potential risks or hazards .
o AT&T's willingness to relocate the project from the church's property to district-owned land. o Any concerns the church may have about the change in location. • AT&T and the city should follow the proper channels to seek school board approval, an option that had not been previously explored.
• Several possible locations at the boundaries of the school and the football fields that could disguise the towers and be away from homes and classrooms!
Alternate Sites : Central Park
• Residents met with Director of parks
Damon Sparacino
o Identified several location in park which could fit
AT&T requirements
• Would need a referendum to pass
o The ballot/election costs could be recovered by the
city by the rental payments from AT&T, or the
ballot could be supported by AT&T as suggested by
one of the Planning Commissioners .

Humble Request to Respected Council Members
• We request a 7-0 vote to relocate the tower! Please protect residents! • Recommend AT&T to find an alternative location and reject the church site! ::i Viable alternatives haven't been exhausted; the church site is just AT& T's convenience. • We are counting on you to vote for the people; weigh in on moral/ethical aspects .. • Fix loopholes in city code to prevent future cell towers within 500 ft of homes.

Bad Aesthetics 58 Residents signed petitions to City
Property Value Decline Another 54 signs in Change.org portal Total > 1 00 Signs
Potential Code Violations
Fire Risks
Health Effects
Impact Santa Clara High Students
Future Precedent for cell-towers
I'
Strong reasons to reject
complying with FCC grounds!
___ .,.,~ Crucial Ethical/Moral Reasons
Council should strongly weigh
Cities' Wins in Relocating Cell Towers to Favor Residents A Win for Walla Walla: Residents Beat Back AT&T
Plan to Build Cell Tower Near Homes, School
Residents of Walla Walla, Washington, succeeded in squashing AT& T's plan to install a cell tower less than 600 feet from over 100 homes and within 200 feet of a church that runs a day school.
*Souce : https ://tdefender .sl1bstack .com /p/walla-walla-washi nqton-res1dents-beat-a tt-otan-cel l-tower-near-homes -schoot VICTORY: CELL TOWERS REMOVED, HALTED AND REJECTED

NEAR SCHOOLS AND HOMES IN COMMUNITIES ACROSS

AMERICA AND BEYOND
Jan 19, 2024
·source . https://ehtrus t.org/cell-towers -near -schools -and-homes-that-have-been-removed-halted -and-rejected/ Further Details, Explanations and References
• Please find details, references and further expansion for above presentations as a document in the following addendum : link
• Important links:
c Wala Wala Residents Win
~ EHR-Study-Cell-Risks
., EH R-Fire-Risk-Srudy
c EHR-Health-Study-PeerRev iewedPapers
2 RiponSchoo l-shutdown
2 SantaCla ra-300ft-Cell-City-Code
Misc: TMobile Cell Tower in Cupertino Parks!
T-Mobile ell phone tower in the
Memoria l park ·n Cupertino dtv
ATT Coverage Map
Source : ATT Presentation
Top : Present
Bottom : With newly proposed towers

Alternative Locations for the Cell Phone Tower Proposed for 3111 Benton Street with
Distances to Housing and Classrooms
(Feb 25, 2025)

1. Back of the Kiely Plaza Shopping Center: (southwest comer of Kiely and Benton Street; behind mall behind 7-Eleven convenience store).

At least 225' to the nearest residence and at least 600' to the nearest classroom. Here are the details:
• 400' to the duplex housing across Benton Street (to the north). • 225' to the Kiely Apartments at 1000 Kiely Boulevard (to the south, beyond the post office).
• 450' to the Gymnasium at SC High School; 600' to the SC High School Theater and nearby classrooms (across football field to the west).
• 500' to the housing across Kiely Boulevard (to the east).

2. Santa Clara High School: (east side of campus, east of the football field, near bleachers) At least 250' to the nearest residence and at least 550' to the nearest classroom. Here are the details:
• 400' to to the Gymnasium at SC High School; 550' to the SC High School Theater and nearby classrooms (to the west across the football field). • 250' to the Kiely Apartments at 1000 Kiely Boulevard (to the south, beyond the post office).
• 350' to the duplex housing across Benton Street (to the north). • 550' to the housing across Kiely Boulevard (to the east)

3. Erik's Deli Cafe, 830 Kiely Boulevard: (northwest comer of property near Saratoga Creek) At least 21 0' to the nearest residence and at least 250' to the nearest classroom. Here are the details:
• 250' to Children's World Montessori Bilingual School (to the south) • 21 O' to housing, Hearth Apartments (to the north, across Saratoga Creek and Bill Wilson Jr. Park).
• 300' to the Parkview Apartments (to the east)
• 300' to the homes on Creekside Place (to the west)
• 220' to the apartments at 2851 Homestead Road (to the south)

4. Central Park: (frontage along Kiely Boulevard in the City right-of -way as mentioned by Planning Commissioner Crutchlow, or in the City park [City referendum needed]).

At least 200' to the nearest residence and at least 250' to the nearest classroom. Here are the details:
• 200' to Woodsborough Homes Association across Kiely Boulevard (to the west) if tower placed in front of CRC.
• 400' to the Magical Bridge Playground (located to the south of the CRC). • 400' to field at the Central Park Elementary School (located to the north of the CRC) • 1,250' to the homes on White Drive (bordering the east side of the park)

5. Central Park: (behind backstop of Baseball Field east of Saratoga Creek) At least 700' to the nearest residence and at least 300' to the nearest school play field.'Here are the details:
• 700' to homes on white Drive (bordering the east side of the park) • 300' to field at the Central Park Elementary School (located to the northwest) • 850' to the homes on Sonoma Place (to the north)
• 800' to the Woodsborough Homes Association across Kiely Boulevard (to the west) • 900' to the St. Justin classroom (to the south)
• 500' to the Magical Bridge Playground (located to the south of the CRC).

6. Saratoga Creek right-of-way. (lots of utility poles to consider for antennas)

7. Central Park: (Areas not exhausted)
At least 300' to the nearest residence and at least 250' to the nearest classroom . Here are the details:

South parking lot off Kiely Boulevard: (near Saratoga Creek) • 300' to Parkview Apartments (to the south)
• 350' to the Hearth Apartments South (to the west, across Kiely Blvd.) • 250' to St. Justin School classrooms to the east
• 400' to the Children's Bilingual School (to the southwest, across Kiely Boulevard).

8. Earl Carmichael Park: ( center of park toward the rear) At least 300' to the nearest residertce: there are no schools nearby. Here are the details:
• 300' to the homes on Angelina Drive (to the northwest, across Calabazas Creek) • 400' to Pomeroy West Condominiums (to the east)
• 350' to the homes across Benton Street (to the south) • 500' to the homes on flora Vista Avenue (to the west)

9. Other City public right-of-way (suggested by planning commissioner, Mr. Crutchlow, to place on street lights). Would not require private property approval nor a public referendum if provided in public right-of -way).
1Nei,ghborhood Residents: (Poineroy Gr,een, Humbolt, Benton Moraga, Orthello 'a.nta Clara)
AT&T Tower ReJocatlon Group ,
Feb 13th 2025
To: The Honorable Members of the Santa C ara -City Council Subjec-t :.Signed Petitions Opposing the AT&T CeH Tower Proposal at 3111 Benton Street {PLN23..00148) and Supporting the Appea l (PLN25-00029) Dear Honorable C,ouncH Members and Mayor,
We hereby submit signed petitions from neighborhood residents within a 1,000-foot radius of the proposed AT&T tower, expressing their support for r19:jecting this proposal a d reJ:ocating the tower ·elsewher ,e. The 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 review in the Feb 25th council meeting. We are working on a parallel change.erg on line petition ; we win submit this next week.

Sincere'ly ,
AT&T Tower Relocatio n Group
58, Residents-Signed Letters Attached
Neighborhood iReside .nts (AT&T Tower Relocation G,mup) F,eb 20.25
To: The Honorable Members o,f the Santa Clara City CouncH Subject: City Council Appeal : Reject AT&T Cell Tower Proposal ! at 3111 B1enton Stre;et (,PLN23·00148) and Suppo 1rt Addendum to Appeal (PLN25-00029) Honorabfe City Coum;H Members,
We, the undersigned Santa Clara residents , urge you to reject the proposed AT&T ce!I tower at 3111 8 enton Street , and direct AT&T to explore more ap proprJa.te locations . We are deeply concerned about the negative impacts and ask you to review the addendum to• appeal (PlN25-OOO29) for ful\ detai\s. Key Reasons for requesting re}ection and relocation of towers :

1. Pr,o,ximity & Code Violatfo.n: The proposed cell tower viof ates the spirit of the olty's new 30O-foot setback rule and is an i · .esponsibte 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 · fr.om the neighborhood . The Historic Porn eroy Green a~ mighty need addiitionaj review from authorities _

3. P·roperty Value Loss~ Cell towers !owe·r values . Our addendum estimates multi-miHion dollar losses ($SM i.n one scenario) for 1homeowners , impacting city tax revenues. Thfs comes at expense of benefits to AT&T/church.

4. Health Concerns: We're concerned about h.ealth risks , especiaHy for children , from radio frequency radition. Ripon schools decommissioned towers due to cancer dusters . Santa Clara 'High is within 300ft tnis location would a.rso hav,e 8+ base stations induding Verizon towers .

5. Risk of Fire: Cell t,owers can catch fire and spread raprdly.

6. !Inadequate Alternatives. AT&T has over!ooked viable a temative !ocatiions proposed b}' residents, seemjngly choosing the church site for convenience at expense of residentsT Alternative Locations:We urge you to direct AT&T toful!y exp,ore : City· public nght~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 community. Prioritize resident well being over financial gains for AT&Tlchmch. We urge rejection oft.he 3i11 Benton St cell tower and relocate it elsewhere more compatible . See addendum for fuH detai Is.

Sincerely,
V · v.,.,·~{\ e.1,1..,.
( v I CAf\JG St, 'thV et< C<J1 J" -A J
/vv--~
(A M rvt"'h o. D¼OJAo-. ~~( )
1' .(Signature)l(Name) 2.(Signa.ture)/ (Name) 3.(Signature)/(Name) 4~(Signature)l(Name) Address:

S, 0 t:6
> ~N\ 11 c_ l. f\6\i\
t\ u M w c'7 f\ 'J ~
C It 7JO~ \
Ne•ig,hborhood Residents (AT&T Tower Relocatiion Group) Feb 2025
To: The Honorable Members of the Santa CEara C ty CouncH Subject: C't:y Council Appeal l • Reject AT&T CeH Tower Proposal at 3,111 Benton Street (PLN23-00148) and Suppo,rt Addendum to Appeat (PLN125..00029·) Honorable City CouncH ,Members1
We, the undersigned Santa Clara residents ; urge you to reject the proposed AT&T ce'II tower at 3111 Benton Street , and direct AT&T t-o exp.lore more .appropriate locatrons . We are deeply concemed about the negative impacts and ask you to review the addendum to .appeal (PLN26-0(l029) for ful\ detal\s._ Key Reasons for requesting rejection and rre\ocation of towers:

1. Proximity & Code Violation: The proposed cell tower violates the spirit of the city's new 30O-foot setback rule and is an irr-espons,ibie placement by common sense in erpretation . Many cities , like Los Altos ., Fremont , and Beverly HiUs, .require 500~1000 feet from homes, 2 Aesthetic Concerns: The towers wW be an eyesore , detractin ,g from the neighborhood . The Historic Pomeroy Green area mig·htJ need additional review from 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, imps cti ng city tax revenues. This comes at expense of benefits to AT&T/church.

4. Health Conce,ms : We're concerned about heeUh risks, especiaUy for children. , from radio frequency radition. Ripon schools decommissioned towers due to cancer clusters . SaTita Clara High fs with· n 300ft; thf s rocation would also have 8+ base sta ions includingi Veri1zon towers .

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

6. rnadequate A1:1ematives: AT&T has overlooked viable alternative locations proposed by residents , seemingjy choosing the church site for convenience at expense of residents .

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

These are in our addendum .

This project burdens our community. Pr·imitize resident well being over financia, gains for AT&T/church. We ur-ge rejection of the 3111 Benton St cell tower and relocate it elsewhere more compatible . See addendum for full details.

Sinoerety

1.(Signature)/(Name) 2.(Signawre)./ (Name) 3.(Srgnatur •e)/(Name) 4 .. (Signature)l(Niame) Addre ,ss :. 2._ Co\ . \ ~ ~'"'\"" ~ S;; \
~~ -~ . CJA <;?,.._$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 rejection 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, impacti ng 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. 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 Residents (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 Proposal 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 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:
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. Inadequate 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 adde ndum .

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)

City Council and Authorities ConcurrentFebruary 25, 2025

City Council and Authorities Concurrent
February 25, 2025