Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2011 To: "Parineh, Kristin" <Kristin.Parineh@CityofPaloAlto.org> Subject: Re: Update on 1095 Channing WCF > You are receiving this email because you submitted written comments > regarding the proposed 50 foot tall tower to house a telecommunications > facility (nine panel wireless antennas and associated equipment) on the > St. Albert the Great Church property at 1095 Channing.=20 I'm very concerned to hear that a variance application is being considered for a tower that should not be allowed in the first place. My objection to the original proposal extends to the application for a variance. I'm doubly concerned about your remark regarding the ARB hearing being limited to discussion of the design of the tower. First, the tower should not be allowed in the first place, and some of the reasons for that are the responsibility of Architectural Review to enforce. Specifically, zoning code 18.76.020 states that the purpose of architectural review is to: (2) Enhance the desirability of residence or investment in the city; (3) Encourage the attainment of the most desirable use of land and improvements; (4) Enhance the desirability of living conditions upon the immediate site or in adjacent areas; and Are you saying that ARB plans not to fulfill its duties set forth in 18.76.020? The detailed reasons why the City is required to deny the application because of 18.76.020 are included in a letter to the church sent last Friday, which was cc'd to you. That letter also includes an explanation of why 18.20.030 and 18.76.010 require you to deny the CUP application as well. I have included it below in case you missed it: Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 To: mstanley@dsj.org cc: kristin.parineh@cityofpaloalto.org Subject: opposition to cell tower proposal at 1095 Channing Ave. Father Matt, We are neighbors of the church at 1095 Channing. We understand that you are collecting information regarding the your cell tower proposal there. The legal argument against your proposal, broken down by the relevant sections of the City's zoning ordinances, is as follows: 18.42.110 (Wireless Communications Facilities) says in 18.42.110(b) that a conditional use permit and architectural review are required. 18.12.030 (Land Uses) says: "The permitted and conditionally permitted uses for the single family residential districts are shown in Table 1," and Table 1 says "Utility Facilities essential to provision of utility services to the neighborhood" requires a conditional use permit. Wireless facilities are not essential utility services to the neighborhood, and are therefore not a permitted use. Placement of such facilities is not required to be in the neighborhood in order to serve the neighborhood. For example, such facilities could be located in adjacent commercial or other non-residential districts and serve the neighborhood. The intent of the permission of utility facilities was for utilities delivered physically to residences: electricity, water, gas, sewer, wireline-based communications. 18.76.010 (Conditional Use Permit) says in 18.76.010(b) that they can't grant a permit unless it is found to be: (1) Not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience; (2) Be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of this title (Zoning). The proposed facility is injurious to property and improvements through the decrease in property values (Palo Alto real estate professionals signed a petition against the proposed tower), it will be detrimental to general welfare due to demands of 24x7 maintenance, portable generators, and hazardous materials. The property is listed in Appendix F of the Comprehensive Plan as a site to be considered for future residential development. 18.76.020 (Architectural Review) says in 18.76.020(a) that the purpose of review is to: (1) Promote orderly and harmonious development in the city; (2) Enhance the desirability of residence or investment in the city; (3) Encourage the attainment of the most desirable use of land and improvements; (4) Enhance the desirability of living conditions upon the immediate site or in adjacent areas; and (5) Promote visual environments which are of high aesthetic quality and variety and which, at the same time, are considerate of each other. This is clearly not the most desirable use of the property, and Appendix F documents the desire to use the site for future residential expansion. A cell tower does not enhance the desirability of residence or investment, or of living conditions upon the immediate site - diminished property values (as noted above), cell tower hum, hazardous materials stored on-site both permanently (batteries) and temporarily (fuel in portable generators, risk from fuel transfer during refueling of generators), nuisance of 24x7 maintenance. It discourages investment, supported by the woman who spoke at the AT&T PR event at the church and said she would not have bought her house on Lincoln if she had known that the church could apply to put a cell tower on their property. This is also where the bulk of a tower, and the factor of a second tower on the site, run afoul of the 24' special setback on Channing Avenue which was put in place promote an open boulevard-like space. I think that for these reasons the City is required to deny this permit. If the argument is presented that TCA of 1996 only allows them to deny a permit based on aesthetics, that's not true. Cities can deny facilities for any grounds except for on the basis of environmental effects if the facility complies with emissions regulations. This proposal must be rejected because the Municipal Code says it must be rejected, and there is case law that supports this conclusion. As you are no doubt aware, health-related issues can't be presented to the City in an objection - not because cell towers have been proven safe, but because the telecommunications industry bought legislation that prevents people from expressing those concerns. Some simple searches on the Internet should find you plenty of current concerns regarding cell phone use by children, science that shows that cellular radiation affects the blood-brain barrier, etc. In the matter of children entrusted you your care, the church should be adopting a philosophy of "abundance of caution" rather than "rush to irradiate." Especially as there are already 13 cell towers within one mile of your proposed cell tower, and the experts that we have consulted say that with that density there is no reason that AT&T can't use those existing facilities to improve their service. Please be a good neighbor and withdraw the application. Regards, |
READ ME FIRST >