REPORT TO COUNCIL
SUBJECT
Title
Public Hearing: Action on Appeal of a Conditional Use Permit (PLN23-00148) for a New Unmanned AT&T Telecommunication Facility with the Installation of Three 42’-6” Monopoles Located in the Parking Lot at 3111 Benton Street
Report
COUNCIL PILLAR
Deliver and Enhance High Quality Efficient Services and Infrastructure
BACKGROUND
On January 15, 2025, following public testimony and deliberation, the Planning Commission approved a Conditional Use Permit (File No. PLN23-00148) for a new unmanned AT&T telecommunication facility with the installation of three 42’-6” monopoles located in the parking lot of the property at 3111 Benton Street.
On January 18, 2025, Vignesh Vivekraja, a member of the “AT&T Tower Relocation Group,” a group of approximately 58 community members from the adjacent neighborhood, filed an appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval of the Conditional Use Permit (File No. PLN23-00148). As required by the code, the appeal is now being heard by the City Council and the appeal application is provided as Attachment 1.
The Conditional Use Permit (File No. PLN23-00148) was initially filed by Complete Wireless Consulting, the applicant, on March 23, 2023, requesting a new unmanned telecommunication facility for AT&T at 3111 Benton Street. The application was filed and deemed complete on December 25, 2023, prior to the adoption of the Updated Zoning Code, which now includes regulations for Wireless Facilities. The previous Code (or “Classic Code”) contained no regulations for Wireless Facilities, but did require a Conditional Use Permit for uses not specifically listed in the Code but which, in the opinion of the Planning Commission, would appropriately be placed in the zoning district.
The subject property has a General Plan land use designation of Public/Quasi-Public and is zoned PQP (Public/Quasi-Public). The project site is located to the northeast of Benton Street and Pomeroy Avenue. The property is about 3.15 acres and is currently built with an existing church, Santa Clara First Baptist, that includes two separate paved parking lots, and an existing cell site on the roof of the church.
This item was heard by the Planning Commission four times. All four Planning Commission staff reports are attached to this report as Attachments 2, 3, 4, and 5. It was first heard at the August 21, 2024, Planning Commission meeting, where there were three public speakers that spoke in opposition of the project with concerns related to the proposed diesel generator and the location of the new telecommunication facility. After the public discussion, the applicant requested a continuance to allow additional time for research and review of comments received during testimony.
At the October 23, 2024 meeting the applicant presented a revised plan that included the removal of the diesel backup generator, replaced with a battery backup cabinet. The Commission had concerns with the monotree design for which the applicant offered an alternative three monopole design. As such, the item was again continued to allow for the applicant to present the alternative three monopole design in a different location on the site.
At the December 4, 2024 meeting the alternative design was presented, but there were concerns from the community and the Planning Commission that not all possible locations for siting the wireless facility within the service area were explored, specifically, Central Park, and the item was again continued to allow time for staff to contact the Parks Department regarding the availability of Central Park for a wireless facility, as well as to confer with the City Attorney’s Office as to the process.
At the final Planning Commission meeting on January 15, 2025, staff presented the results of the thorough examination of the entirety of Central Park by the applicant and Parks Department to identify any other potential locations including those suggested by the public for siting of the wireless facility. Unfortunately, given the park's existing infrastructure, including the recreation center, veteran’s memorial, new playground along with main park pathways, as well as the two elementary schools located at the north and south of the park and future park entry construction project, it was not possible to site a wireless facility at Central Park. In addition, any proposed installation at a park would first need to be submitted to the voters at a municipal election in accordance with the City Charter (see more detailed discussion in the January 15 Planning Commission agenda report, Attachment 5, page 3).
Following public testimony and deliberation, the Planning Commission approved the Conditional Use Permit for a new unmanned AT&T telecommunication facility with the installation of three 42’-6” monopoles located in the parking lot with a vote of 4-2-1 (Bouza and Crutchlow dissenting; Bhatnagar absent).
DISCUSSION
The appeal application (Attachment 1) identifies 10 reasons for the appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval of the new wireless facility. A summary of each reason is provided below, followed by a response. Please see the attached appeal application for full details on each of the appellant’s reasons.
1. Impacts the entire neighborhood. The towers will dominate the skyline since there are few trees. There are other locations those opposed to this project have suggested; please consider a better location that is less conspicuous.
2. Aesthetic problems. Placing the towers on the church property so close to so many homes and so visible to neighborhood residents violates aesthetic considerations that are within the jurisdiction of the City Council.
Staff Response: Reasons number 1 and 2 both concern visual impacts to the neighborhood. The applicant originally had proposed the three monopole design located in the eastern parking lot. Staff rejected this design as there was no way to visually screen the poles. This led to the monotree proposal, which was proposed in the western area of the property near existing trees, allowing the pole to blend in with the existing surrounding (See Attachments 16 and 17 for reference). This alternative was not approved by the Planning Commission. The current location approved by the Planning Commission in the parking lot at Moraga and Benton Streets addressed the neighborhood concern of being to close to the adjacent single-family rear yards. The applicant did consider other locations in the general area and presented information as to why the locations were not viable to the Planning Commission and staff. It is important to note that wireless companies identify an area where coverage is needed and then work with individual property owners and negotiate use of their property.
3. Potential property value loss. AT&T's report claims no significant impact on neighboring property values. This report was not peer-reviewed. Recent articles from the National Association of Realtors, a more trusted source, indicate a substantial decrease (up to 20%) in property values for homes near cell towers.
Staff Response: The applicant provided a Real Estate Study completed by Joint Venture Silicon Valley in response to comments received from the public at the August 21, 2024 Planning Commission meeting. This is a professional analysis of the economic impacts to residential real estate from small wireless facilities and was submitted by the applicant as additional information and was not used to make any of the required findings to support the Conditional Use Permit and is included as Attachment 6 to this report. In summary, the study conducted an aggregate statewide level analysis, and found significant increases in residential real estate valuation after construction of wireless sites. Additionally, in response to comments received at the August 21, 2024 Planning Commission meeting, the applicant also provided a Noise Study and Monopole Shade Report which are included as Attachment 7 and 8 to this report, respectively. The Noise Study completed by Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc. assesses that the noise level exposure is expected to comply with City of Santa Clara Municipal code daytime and nighttime noise level criteria and no further mitigation measures are warranted. The Monopole Shade Report was completed by Honeydew Energy Advisors and assessed the impact on future solar panels on residential homes and concluded that a proposed 60’ monopole will not impact solar blockage from the existing home with solar and in addition future solar installations would access is at or above 97%.
4. Proper notification needed. Pomeroy Green Cooperative Corporation, located directly west of the church, was not notified of the project. Only some of the shareholders in the complex received notices.
Staff Response: The City followed its Public Outreach Policy and City Code § 18.146.020 and notified property owners and tenants within a 500-foot radius of the project site. Pomeroy Green is a townhome development adjacent to the subject site with individual properties. Those within the 500-foot radius were sent a notification for the initial Planning Commission meetings. After this concern was brought up at one of the Planning Commission meetings, staff expanded the mailing list as a courtesy to include the entirety of the Pomeroy Green townhome development, starting with the December 4 Planning Commission meeting.
5. Impacts to historic resource not reviewed. Pomeroy Green Cooperative Corporation, located directly west of the site, is registered in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) at the State and federal levels. The impact of the cell phone tower project should be reviewed the City's Historical and Landmarks Commission (HLC).
Staff Response: Santa Clara City Code (SCCC) Chapter 18.130, Historic Preservation, governs the identification and protection of historic resources in the City. SCCC 18.130.070 governs the referral of projects that are near an Historic Resource Inventory (HRI) property to the HLC. In this instance, Pomeroy Green is not on the City’s HRI and therefore the Project was not referred. The location of the three monopole design in the eastern parking lot of the subject site would be far enough away so as not to alter the historic character or viewshed of Pomeroy Green.
6. Health effects. There is a growing body of scientific evidence that suggests that exposure to radio frequency radiation (RFR) from cell towers and other wireless devices can have negative health effects. This is a moral decision the City Council must make. While there are sufficient legal reasons, such as aesthetics, to reject this proposal on FCC grounds, each councilmember must seriously consider the health concerns when casting their vote.
Staff Response: The Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 provides that local agencies can regulate location and aesthetics of wireless facilities, but cannot regulate based on health effects. More specifically, the Telecommunications Act preempts all municipal regulation of Radio Frequency (RF) emissions to the extent that wireless facilities comply with federal emissions standards. 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(iv) (“No State or local government or instrumentality thereof may regulate the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the Commission’s regulations concerning such emissions.”). The proposed facilities will not exceed federal emissions standards; a detailed discussion can be found in the December 4, 2024 Planning Commission staff report (Attachment 4).
7. Violation of new Zoning Codes. The proposed site clearly violates the City’s Zoning Code in 18.66.060 Location Requirements, B. Facility Placement in Residential and Mixed-Use Zones. Wireless communications facilities located within a Mixed-Use zone shall be separated by a minimum distance of 300 feet of any residential structure or any other existing wireless communications facility except as follows." Many single-family homes fall within 50-60 feet of the proposal and approximately 25 houses and a high school are within a 300 feet radius. It shouldn't matter that AT&T filed their petition a few months before the new code was implemented.
Staff Response: The application was filed on March 23, 2023 and deemed complete on December 25, 2023, prior to the adoption of the Updated Zoning Code. Section 18.02.070, Effect of Zoning Code Amendments on Projects in Progress, states that all planning permit applications that are active and that have been determined to be complete before the effective date of this Zoning Code or any amendment, shall be processed in compliance with the requirements in effect when the application was deemed complete, which applies to this project. Therefore, the wireless regulations in the updated Zoning Code do not apply to this project. Were the updated Zoning Code to apply to the proposed wireless facility it would also require the approval of a Conditional Use Permit along with adherence to development standards. The separation distance mentioned above however would not apply as this site is not located in a Mixed-Use Zoning district, but in the Public/Quasi-Public Zoning district, see further details in response 9.
8. Alternative locations not exhausted. Some alternative tower locations that should be explored and include city public right-of-way, Central Park, Saratoga Creek right-of-way, Earl Carmichael Park, and the commercial property at southwest corner of Kiely and Benton Street.
Staff Response: The applicant and Parks Department staff conducted a thorough investigation of Central Park as a location, and it was determined to not be feasible for AT&T nor the City. Earl Carmichael Park and Central Park both have a significant impediment under Santa Clara City Charter § 714.1 which requires any proposed sale, disposal, lease, or change in use of City owned parkland lasting 180 days or more to be approved at an election by a two-thirds majority of City voters. Further details of this can be found in the January 15, 2025 Planning Commission staff report, Attachment 5. Any facility within a creek right-of-way would need to be coordinated with the water district and would likely not be feasible.
9. Lack of essential information and violation of new codes. Some information provided by staff was misleading and needs to be clarified for reconsideration. Unfortunately, the City Planning did not inform our Group about the correct zoning standards (or lack thereof) that pertain to the proposed project when answering some questions. Specifically, Planning failed to tell our Group that the zoning codes found on the City's website are new and do not apply to this project when answering a question about the 300' clearance required between proposed cell phone towers and residences.
Staff Response: The question was if Section 18.66.060, Location Requirements, which states that wireless communications facilities located within a Mixed-Use zone shall be separated by a minimum distance of 300 feet of any residential structure applies to this site. The response was no as this site is not in a Mixed-Use zone. Staff agrees that Planning could have further clarified that the entire section of this code also does not apply to this project as it is being reviewed under the Classic Code and not the Updated Zoning code.
10. Environmental effects. Operation of cell towers can have significant environmental consequences including habitat disruption, threaten local wildlife, aesthetic degradation of our natural landscape and fire hazard.
Staff Response: The subject site for the wireless facility is in a paved parking lot and not near any habitat area. Telecommunication facilities are a utility. Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) utility extensions are categorically exempt from environmental review. Also, as previously stated in the report, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 limits the authority of local jurisdictions to regulate wireless facilities. Although the City retains the authority to regulate location and aesthetics, the City cannot regulate based on potential health effects. Installation of the wireless facility will also require the approval of building permits and adherence to all applicable building and fire codes.
Timeline for Making Decision
Local governments reviewing applications for wireless telecommunications facilities must make decisions within timeframes set by the Federal Communications Commission, known as the “shot clock.” The City must reach a final decision, including any appeal hearings, prior to the expiration of the shot clock, or the Applicant may be able to claim that the application has automatically been approved. The City and the Applicant can, however, mutually agree to extend the shot clock, and AT&T has already agreed to several extensions to allow for the multiple hearings on this Project. The shot clock is currently set to expire on Friday, February 28, 2025, unless the parties agree to another extension.
Project Analysis
Appeals of Planning Commission decisions are reviewed de novo, which means that the Council is essentially looking at the application as if it were being heard for the first time, without giving deference to the Planning Commission’s findings. Staff determines that the City Council may approve or conditionally approve the Conditional Use Permit in that all of the following required findings could be made for the approval of the three-monopole project.
A. The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan;
B. The proposed use is allowed within the subject zone and complies with all other applicable provisions of this Zoning Code and the City Code;
C. The design, location, size, and operating characteristics of the proposed use are compatible with the allowed uses in the vicinity;
D. Operation of the use at the location proposed would not be detrimental to the harmonious and orderly growth of the City, or endanger, jeopardize, or otherwise constitute a hazard to the public convenience, health, interest, safety, or general welfare; and
E. The subject site is:
1. Physically suitable in terms of design, location, operating characteristics, shape, size, topography, and the provision of public and emergency vehicle (e.g., fire and medical) access and public services and utilities; and;
2. Served by highways and streets adequate in width and improvement to carry the type and quantity of traffic the proposed use would likely generate.
As detailed further in the Resolution, Attachment 9, the proposal is consistent with the General Plan most specifically General Land Use policy (5.3.1-P17) and Energy policy (5.10.3-P10) in that the design will increase coverage for AT&T customers in this network area thereby expanding the existing network and improving call quality, signal strength, and wireless connection services in the City.
• 5.3.1-P17 Promote economic vitality by maintaining the City's level of service for public facilities and infrastructure, including affordable utilities and high-quality telecommunications.
• 5.10.3-P10 Maintain the City's level of service for high quality utilities and telecommunications infrastructure.
The proposal is allowed within the subject zoning district and complies with all other applicable provisions of the Zoning Code and the City Code. The monopoles will be disguised as light poles within a parking lot and the operation of the monopoles is not anticipated to produce any additional trips, noise, vibrations, or harmful side effects to the parcel or surrounding parcels. The subject site is of a suitable size for the facility and access to the site is maintained for public services and utilities.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The proposed project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per section 15303(d) of the CEQA Guidelines (New Construction of Utility Extensions).
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact on the City from processing the requested application other than administrative staff time and expenses typically covered by processing fees paid by the applicant.
COORDINATION
This report was coordinated with the City Attorney’s Office.
PUBLIC CONTACT
Public contact was made by posting the Council agenda on the City’s official-notice bulletin board outside City Hall Council Chambers. A complete agenda packet is available on the City’s website and in the City Clerk’s Office at least 72 hours prior to a Regular Meeting and 24 hours prior to a Special Meeting. A hard copy of any agenda report may be requested by contacting the City Clerk’s Office at (408) 615-2220, email clerk@santaclaraca.gov or at the public information desk at any City of Santa Clara public library.
On February 13, 2025, a notice of public hearing on February 25, 2025 for this item was mailed to property owners within 500 feet of the project site. At the time of this staff report, Planning staff has received signed petitions (Attachment 16) from neighborhood residents of Pomeroy Green, Humbolt, Benton, Moraga, and Othello, in Santa Clara (the AT&T Tower Relocation Group). The signed petitions oppose the AT&T Cell Tower Proposal at 3111 Benton Street (File No. PLN23-00148) and support the appeal (File No. PLN25-00029). Public comments received for the proposed project prior to the Planning Commission’s approval have been compiled in Attachment 17 and 18 Correspondence 1 and 2.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Overrule the Appeal and Adopt a Resolution upholding the approval of a Conditional Use Permit (PLN23-00148) for a New Unmanned AT&T Telecommunication Facility with the Installation of Three 42’-6” Monopoles Located in the Parking Lot at 3111 Benton Street, Subject to Findings and Conditions of Approval.
2. Sustain the Appeal in part, and Overrule the Appeal in part, by Directing Staff to Prepare a Resolution modifying the previously approved Conditional Use Permit (PLN23-00148) for a New Unmanned AT&T Wireless Telecommunication Facility by rejecting the Three 42’-6” Monopole design and instead approving the Installation of a single 60-foot-tall Monotree at 3111 Benton Street, Subject to Findings and Conditions of Approval.
3. Sustain the Appeal and Direct Staff to Prepare a Resolution disapproving a Conditional Use Permit for the Conditional Use Permit (PLN23-00148) for a New Unmanned AT&T Telecommunication Facility at 3111 Benton Street.
RECOMMENDATION
Recommendation
Alternative 1: Overrule the Appeal and Adopt a Resolution upholding the approval of a Conditional Use Permit (PLN23-00148) for a New Unmanned AT&T Telecommunication Facility with the Installation of Three 42’-6” Monopoles Located in the Parking Lot at 3111 Benton Street, subject to findings and conditions of approval.
Staff
Reviewed by: Afshan Hamid, Director, Community Development Department
Approved by: Jōvan Grogan, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS
1. Appeal Application
2. August 21, 2024 Planning Commission Staff Report
3. October 23, 2024 Planning Commission Staff Report
4. December 4, 2024 Planning Commission Staff Report
5. January 15, 2025 Planning Commission Staff Report
6. Real Estate Study
7. Noise Study
8. Shade Report - Monotree
9. Resolution to Uphold Approval - 3 Monopole Design
10. Conditions of Approval - 3 Monopole Design
11. Development Plans - 3 Monopole Design
12. Visual Simulations - 3 Monopole Design
13. Radio Frequency Study - 3 Monopole Design
14. Development Plans - Monotree
15. Visual Simulations - Monotree
16. Neighborhood Petitions
17. Correspondence 1
18. Correspondence 2