I am writing on behalf of Verizon Wireless , to speak on the proposed building project at 100 N.
Broadway.
The Council may not be aware, but this project would block signal from all 3 telecommunications carriers serving the Santa Maria area on the adjacent building, Union Plaza.
Due to this unforeseen effect, we would ask the Council to continue the decision on the project, to allow additional time for the developer, city, and wireless providers to explore viable solutions.
While we recognize and support the vision this project represents for Santa Maria’s community, we want to address a critical issue that will arise from its current design..a severe and irreversible line-of- sight obstruction that will block existing antennas for multiple carriers located on the rooftop of the adjacent apartment complex at 120 N. Broadway. This is one of the most highly-trafficked sites, not just in Santa Maria, but in all of California. It serves as a digital lifeline for the community. A coverage gap here would significantly harm residents and businesses, disrupting everything from daily communication to commerce. Most importantly, it poses a direct risk to public safety by compromising the network our first responders rely on for critical communication in the area and for the new project proposed. We believe there is a collaborative path forward that supports this development without sacrificing the city's connectivity.
Respectfully, please continue this matter so that we might engage in developing those solutions that would best serve the entire Santa Maria community and infrastructure Best Regards,
Yvonne M. Pinto
Real Estate Specialist- Municipal Engagement
Engr III Spec-Ntwk Reg/RE
295 Parkshore Drive
Folsom, CA 95630
Dear Mayor Patino,
This email is intended to provide you with some information regarding the Perlman Apartment project, which is on tonight’s City Council agenda.
Background
The Perlman apartment project implements the previous planning efforts and approvals that have happened over many years- Vernon Group has been involved since 2019.
Starting with the vision of the Downtown Specific Plan to revitalize and enhance the downtown, the decision to sell the property and corresponding Surplus Lands Act, the approval of the Development Agreement, the staff processing of the downtown permit, the Study Sessions with the Planning Commission and their unanimous recommendation for approval last month; there has been many stages of public input and decision making to get to this point.
Union Plaza Priority Access
During the Planning Commission hearing, an additional condition was added to the project to provide certain residences of the adjacent Union Plaza apartment project with the opportunity to have first right of refusal to the units at the Perlman. Below is the version of the condition of approval that we have sent to staff and is agreed upon:
Union Plaza Tenant Priority Access - The applicant shall coordinate with management of the adjacent Union Plaza Apartments to provide early notification and application assistance outreach to up to fourteen (14) tenants residing in south-facing units directly adjacent to the subject project (The Perlman). Prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant shall notify these tenants of the upcoming rental application opportunity in advance of general public marketing, subject to all standard income qualifications and eligibility requirements. The applicant shall document all outreach efforts and make a good faith effort to facilitate access to the application process. All applications shall be processed in accordance with applicable Fair Housing laws and the project’s established first-come, first-served leasing procedures.
It is important to note that the Fair Housing Laws do not allow any type of priority access for tenants, and the language above was crafted by Danco’s Affordable Housing team to comply.
We have also reached out the property manager of the Union Plaza apartments on a couple occasions (6/5, again on 7/30) to meet and discuss the project, resulting in either a lack of response or unavailable to meet. We have taken best steps to minimize the impacts to the Union Plaza apartments, and we will be happy to go over those measures tonight. Again, we are adhering to the previously approved DA that guides this process.
Loading/Unloading
A good change was made during PC. We have re-located one of the elevators to the NE corner to better facilitate loading and move ins.
Parking Agreement
As this is a 100% affordable project, the financing is very complicated and competitive. There is a condition of approval that requires a Parking agreement for those units that do not have parking available to them onsite. While we completely agree the parking agreement should cover items relating to general upkeep of the structure including signage, lighting, paint, and minor repairs, we are concerned that the agreement will include a requirement to pay for existing structural deficiencies. These unknown costs would potentially render the affordable project financially infeasible. We are also asking that entering into a future business improvement district does not involve paying for structural improvements to the City’s parking garage.
Additionally, the DTSP has allowed for parking incentives which are part and party to the DA.
We are asking that the condition be modified as follows:
Condition 7. A. Parking Area
Prior to Certificate of Occupancy Issuance, the project applicant shall obtain a contractual agreement with the City for the use of parking in the City- owned parking garage to satisfy the parking required which shall also include stipulations of no assigned parking spaces for tenants and release of liability to the City for any damages associated with parking in the structure. The applicant shall not be responsible for costs associated with structural upgrades or improvements to the parking structure. The agreement shall also include entering into a property-based business improvement district and/or other mechanism for the collection of fees to pay for street cleaning, security, downtown signage, business marketing and events, or similar. parking improvement and maintenance
We provided this revised condition to staff, but have not heard back at this time. If this is not agreeable, we request the additional off-site parking be waived through a by-right concession via the State Density Bonus law.
Development Impact Fees
We believe that the Development Agreement vests the development impact fees. Given the recent city discussions about impact fee increases that the city is discussing; it would kill the project. We are requesting confirmation/clarification that the fees be vested as shown in the modified condition below:
Condition 2. Incentives.
C. Developer to pay growth mitigation fees per the rates in effect at time of the Development Agreement.
Finally, we want to thank you for your partnership with us in realizing the future of Santa Maria’s downtown. Please don’t hesitate to contact me with any questions.
Sincerely,
Bradley G. Vernon – CEO
Vernon Construction, Inc.
706 E. Haley St., Santa Barbara, CA 93103
www.vernonconstruction.com
Aaron M. Shank
[email protected]
Porter Wright
Morris & Arthur LLP
41 South High Street
Suites 2800-3200
Columbus, OH 43215
Direct: 614.227.2110
Fax: 614.227.2100
www.porterwright.com
August 5, 2025
VIA EMAIL
Mayor and City Council
([email protected])
City of Santa Maria
City Hall
110 East Cook Street
Santa Maria, CA 93454
RE: AT&T’s Objection to Application for Permit to Construct Apartment Tower at 100 North Broadway
August 5, 2025 Council Meeting, Item 12
Dear Mayor Patino, and Councilmembers Aguilera-Hernandez, Escobedo, Flores, and Soto:
I write on behalf of New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC, d/b/a AT&T Mobility (“AT&T”) to respectfully and ardently request the City Council deny or continue consideration of the permit application for the proposed construction of a six-story apartment tower located at 100 North Broadway. AT&T learned only recently about this proposal, which will cause unacceptable interference to AT&T’s signals and create significant gaps in wireless services and adversely impact many thousands of residents, businesses, and visitors every day. AT&T and other wireless providers operate existing wireless telecommunications facilities on the adjacent rooftop at 120 North Broadway.
AT&T’s south-facing antennas on that rooftop will be entirely blocked by the proposed Perlman Apartments, which will
eviscerate critical wireless service coverage and capacity to a large and busy portion of the city. Signals from AT&T’s east-facing and west-facing antennas on 120 North Broadway will also be adversely affected because the proximity of the new building would likely require decreasing power output from those antenna sectors as well.
AT&T’s existing antennas have a centerline height of 71 feet above ground. The proposed new building would be 71 feet high with tower elements up to 83 feet high, which would block AT&T’s Santa Maria City Council
August 5, 2025
south-facing antenna sector and create a significant gap in AT&T’s wireless service coverage to this very busy commercial area and surrounding government buildings, residences, and parks. This proposed apartment tower would also eliminate AT&T’s ability to provide sufficient wireless capacity for the broader area. Specifically, AT&T antennas that would be blocked serve the Santa Maria Town Center shopping mall, area businesses, Santa Maria Fire Station No. 1, Santa Maria City Hall, the Santa Maria Public Library, and Santa Barbara County offices, including the Superior Court and Sheriff’s Office. This AT&T facility also provides FirstNet services dedicated to first responders, whose communications could be impacted with losses to coverage and capacity.
More specifically, construction of the proposed building would result in a severe decline in on-street and in-building wireless coverage and capacity. AT&T radio frequency engineers estimate that if this proposed apartment tower is constructed, upwards of 10,000 customers will lose substantially all reliable access to AT&Ts wireless network.
Further, the rooftop at 120 North Broadway is also host to Verizon and T-Mobile wireless facilities.
AT&T’s wireless facility on this rooftop was approved not long ago and went on air just last year. That followed years of planning to eliminate coverage gaps and to avoid network capacity degradation. As Council is no doubt aware, wireless services are vital for communications, connectivity, and safety. This is especially so as Californians rely heavily on wireless connectivity in all aspects of daily life. According to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), more than 91% of California adults, and more than 91% of California adults, and more than 98% of Californians under age 18, rely exclusively or primarily on wireless communications in their homes.
1 Additionally, customers rely on
their mobile phones to do much more than just voice communication, including E911 service, video streaming, GPS, Internet access, and texting. In fact, California reported to the FCC that there were more than 23.3 million wireless calls and 98,065 texts to 911 in 2023 (the most recent year for state level data).
2 The Staff Report provides, under the heading “Alternative(s),” that the City Council may need to continue the item to direct the applicant to work with staff on areas of
1 See Wireless Substitution: State-level Estimates from the National Health Interview Survey, 2023, available at Wireless Substitution: State-Level Estimates from the National Health Interview Survey, 2023.
2 See Sixteenth Annual Report to Congress on State Collection and Distribution of 911 and Enhanced 911 Fees and Charges (Dec. 30, 2024), at 14, available at FCC-16th-Annual- 911FeeReport-2024.pdf.
Santa Maria City Council
August 5, 2025
26407364.1
concern or develop written findings that the project will cause specific, adverse impacts. It appears the city has not yet considered the serious wireless connectivity gaps that will result from approval of the proposed apartment tower.
AT&T is committed to providing reliable wireless services to the city, but strenuously objects to the Perlman Apartments as proposed. While AT&T appreciates the need for affordable housing, approving this proposal will have immediate negative impacts on wireless telecommunications in the area. This project needs to be reimagined and redesigned to ensure the continuity of reliable wireless services throughout the community. We thus urge the City Council to deny this application or, at the very least, to continue this item to allow the developer, city, and wireless providers to explore viable solutions. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Aaron M Shank
Dear Mayor Patino,
The intent of this message is to express my strong support for The Perlman Apartments.
These 150 apartments, located in downtown Santa Maria City, will all be deed-restricted as affordable housing for 55 years. The need for affordable housing is extreme. Currently thousands of County residents are on waiting lists for such units.
It is understood that several Union Plaza residents will lose their current views of the Park. I believe the developer has responded appropriately with a workable and resident-friendly solution. As a result, I urge you to support this project and allow it to move forward at this time.
Thank you for the opportunity to express my strong support for The Perlman Apartment.
joyce ellen
joyce ellen lippman
Jeff Lee
Board Member, Union Plaza
08/02/2025
Santa Maria City Council
Dear Councilmembers,
I am writing in advance of the August 5th City Council meeting to raise specific concerns regarding the proposed Perlman Apartments project at Broadway and Main Street, directly adjacent to Union Plaza Apartments, where I serve as a board member. I also bring over a decade of technical experience as a Radio Frequency (RF) Specialist at Vandenberg, where I routinely conducted RF Radiation Hazard (Radhaz) assessments to ensure compliance with FCC permissible exposure limits (PELs).
Union Plaza Apartments currently houses approximately 120 residents and supports several active RF transmitters, including microwave links, cellular antennas, and a business band repeater. These systems operate safely today, but the proposed six-story building introduces new vertical and spatial proximity variables, potentially placing future residents, particularly those in upper-floor units, within zones that may exceed FCC public exposure thresholds.
After reviewing the project documents, I have identified the following critical health and safety issues:
• No RF Radhaz assessment is referenced anywhere in the project materials. • No coordination has occurred with Union Plaza regarding the RF systems on our rooftop.
• We invited Mr. David Everett, RF Spectrum Manager for the United States Space Force, to visit the site. He stated unequivocally that if a study has not been conducted, it must be done, prior to any new construction, to ensure public safety and regulatory compliance.
• The City’s reliance on a 2007 Downtown Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) does not account for site-specific RF exposure risks associated with this new development.
• While some conditions have been added to address Union Plaza residents’ concerns about blocked views and building proximity, RF exposure concerns remain entirely unaddressed.
Additionally, under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15162, if new information becomes available showing that a project may cause significant
environmental effects not previously analyzed, the City is obligated to consider supplemental review. The introduction of a six-story residential structure adjacent to active RF transmitters presents new and potentially significant health risks that were not evaluated in the 2007 EIR. In light of this, I believe the absence of an RF Radiation Hazard assessment constitutes new information requiring further environmental evaluation.
Federal law also supports this requirement. Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 1.1307(b) mandates site-specific RF exposure evaluations when proximity or occupancy changes could increase public exposure. The proposed development clearly triggers the need for such an evaluation. Failure to conduct this assessment could result in noncompliance with federal safety regulations and expose both the City and the developers to legal and public health risks.
To be clear, I fully support affordable housing. However, responsible development requires due diligence. An independent RF Radhaz study must be completed before any approval of this project to determine whether the proposed building creates new RF exposure zones that exceed FCC safety standards for the general public.
I plan to raise these concerns during public comment at the upcoming meeting and respectfully request that the City Council support a formal, transparent, and science- based review process to ensure the health and safety of both current and future residents.
Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or need further information.
Sincerely,
Jeff Lee
Board Member, Union Plaza
Former RF Specialist, Vandenberg Space Force Base
Hello,
My name is Anthony Louis Caligiuri III. I live at . I am writing to submit a comment for tonight's city council meeting regarding the low income housing project.
I feel that this building is vital to the sustained growth of Santa Maria. It will bring a wealth of people and community straight into the heart of the city. These people are the lifeblood of our society, and the most important place for them to be is in its center. They will revitalize the town center. The businesses in the town center will have a huge wave of success.
Crime will be reduced because we are welcoming a marginalized group of people into our Santa Maria family and they will have more access to the community and its resources, thus long needed resources will be accessible. Also, the main cause of crime is isolation and separation. We need people from all walks of life to come together and be part of one big family. When people feel welcome and loved, they will naturally be less likely to violate rules.
I am a military veteran and was homeless for several years. I was recently housed at Hancock Terrace Apartments. If we did not build new housing for the low income population, I would not have been able to use the resources such as Good Samaritan, to find the housing I needed. This apartment would have not been available if we were not building accessible housing for our seniors and our homeless.
In order to qualify for housing through subsidized living, when homeless, we have to make a decision. One that requires us to follow certain rules and standards of living in our communities. Using drugs is not a possibility when seeking housing. We have to choose to follow these rules, or remain on the streets. Therefore, the people who are moving into these low income housing projects are less likely, not more likely to have continued substance abuse problems.
For me, it was so difficult to get housing and get off the streets, that I am very strict with my behaviors, because I know how valuable, and how fortunate I am to have housing at this point that I really appreciate everything our city and community does for me. Breaking the law, violating ordinances, and being a nuisance is never an option. This means staying sober at all costs. And all the other people I know who suffered from chronic homelessness and especially those coming for the justice system understand the value and importance of being a solid member of our society.
I am also a member of the Santa Maria business community, and I have recently obtained my city business license. I know that I am really excited that we have more customers in our area.
Thank you for taking the time to read my note and take it into consideration at tonight's City Council Meeting.
Anthony Louis Caligiuri III 8/5/2025 10:46:05 AM