Sunnyvale resident Helen Liang presented to the Sunnyvale Planning Commission an appeal to a siting of a cell phone tower adjacent to her house. Her presentation is below (after the "My Take" section).
You may share your thoughts on this with the City Council or Planning Commission, by emailing to:
City Council: Council@sunnyvale.ca.gov
Panning Commission: PlanningCommission@sunnyvale.ca.gov
A summary with some thoughts of my own:
My Take:
Summary: The Sunnyvale City Council should consider modifying our rules so that cell phone towers are not visibly intrusive and/or ugly and change the financial incentives to keep them away from houses.
Financial Incentives to "Uglification":
The cost to file an application to place a cell phone tower in a neighborhood is over seven times the cost to put a new pole in an out of the way location. This provides an incentive to a cell phone co. to put their towers in neighborhoods. If, like some other cities, Sunnyvale required that towers be disguised that could reverse the financial incentive to "uglify" our streets.
From Sunnyvale City staff:
"The Carlisle application is defined as a “Telecommunication Facility: New- MPP, no Public Hearing” in the Fee Schedule, and the fee required (and paid by Verizon) was $475.50. The fee for a “Telecommunication Facility: New- Planning Commission Hearing” would be $3,653.50."
Health Effects:
There is some controversy surrounding the electromagnetic effects on humans of cell phone radiation. Scientific American reported on a study indicating long term exposure is harmful:
"The findings ... present some of the strongest evidence to date that such exposure is associated with the formation of rare cancers in ... brains and hearts of rats."
...
"This is by far...the most carefully done cell phone bioassay... for trying to understand cancers in humans,” says Christopher Portier, ... who helped launch the study... “There will have to be a lot of work ... to assess if it causes problems in humans, but the fact that you can do it in rats will be a big issue. It actually has me concerned, and I’m an expert."
Above from: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/major-cell-phone-radiation-study-reignites-cancer-questions/
More here: http://it-takes-time.com/2015/09/22/health-effects-of-cell-towers/
and: https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/radiation-exposure/cellular-phone-towers.html
Neighborhood Appearance:
While the 1996 Telecommunications act prohibits local govt. from interfering with cell phone construction on the basis of fears of electromagnetic radiation, govt. can do so on the basis of looks.
As the photos below show, these things can be ugly with a capital "Ugh!"
There are companies dedicated to hiding cell phone towers so they do not visually intrude. They exist because many local governments require cell phone towers not make their communities ugly and hurt property values. Here are a few examples - the links have others.
 | ||||
|
A company dedicated to disguising cell towers: http://utilitycamo.com/homepage/
|
"Property values play a big role, too. ... In a case in Hohokus, N.J., he said, a tax assessor determined that the aggregated value of property near a cell phone tower would drop as much as $660,000."
https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/learning/teachers/featured_articles/20000907thursday.html
---- end of "My Take" ------------
Ms. Liang's Presentation:
Slide 1 ----------------- presentation begins (lightly edited for readability) ------------
Carlisle Way Antenna Appeal
On behalf of Sunnyvale Neighborhood
Slide 2 --------------
Purpose of Design Review:
Sunnyvale
Municipal Code 19.6.19.80
The
purpose of this chapter is to promote the health, safety and general welfare by
establishing a site and architectural design review process to improve the
design quality of developments; enhance and protect existing
neighborhoods; promote economic development; create a strong and positive
image for the city; improve property values;
and enhance the economic well-being of the city by promoting an orderly, attractive,
safe and efficient community.
3 ------------
Violation 1:
Improve property values
•The proposed facility is a violation against the purpose of to improve property values.
•a
number of organizations and studies have documented the detrimental effects of
cell towers on property values.
•Peer-reviewed
studies find that property
values decline by up to 20% near cell towers. See
•press
coverage:
4 ------------
Violation 2:
Creating a strong and positive image for the city
•The proposed facility is a violation against the purpose of creating a strong and
positive image for the city.
•The
proposed facility introduced a significant adverse aesthetic impact to the neighborhood and Sunnyvale city image
There are several violations of Sunnyvale Municipal Code and Design Criteria (discussed more in detail later.
5, 6, 7, & 8 --------------
Violation 3:
Promote an orderly, attractive, safe and efficient community
•The proposed facility is a violation against the purpose of protecting existing
neighborhoods
and promoting an orderly,
attractive, safe and efficient community.
•Influx
of construction workers for the installation
•Maintenance,
repair, routine checks to such facilities brings more personnel,
and trucks
•Increased traffic is dangerous for children playing and biking nearby
•The
proposed cell tower puts unnecessary additional fire, flood and earthquake
hazards
•This
wireless facility poses unnecessary risk of falling debris - a serious safety
hazard for people on the ground, especially for kids.
10 --------------
Co-location Requirement
Sunnyvale
Municipal Code 19.54.140. a)
Wherever
technically feasible, wireless telecommunication service providers are
encouraged to co-locate telecommunication facilities in
order to reduce adverse
visual impacts;
Sunnyvale
Municipal Code 19.54.140. b)
Facilities
which are not proposed to be co-located shall provide a written
explanation why the subject facility is not a candidate for co-location.
11 --------------
Our Neighborhood – Clean & Aligned Posts
12 --------------
Santa Rosa
13 --------------
San Jose
14 --------------
Proposed Post
•No adequate screening in the vicinity of this location
•Significant adverse aesthetic impact
15 --------------
Co-location Option 1
•In Panama Park, less than 800
feet to
the proposed site
on Carlisle Way.
•An existing pole for antennas. It is
disguised as a tree, so it blends in well with the surroundings
Nowhere
near any residential home
16 --------------
Co-location Option 2
•In Panama Park, less than 800
feet to
the proposed site
on Carlisle Way.
•A pole left from WWII (circled in red) , could
be another option to locate the antenna.
•Nowhere near any residential home.
17 --------------
Design Criteria
- Telecom
Facilities
in Public
Right of
Way
resolution No. 626-13
Pole
selection in residential zones should minimize aesthetic impacts
through selection of poles adjacent to trees and foliage that provide screening,
placement away from primary
views,
placement on poles between parcel lines or adjacent to driveways and
avoiding corner
locations that can be viewed from multiple directions
18 --------------
Violation 1:
5
feet from driveway
•Not a secondary driveway for our family,
because we
use both driveways every day.
19 --------------
Violation 2: No
Screening
•The new facilities will be visible from
multiple directions in Carlisle Way and Falcon Ave.
20 --------------
Violation 3: One House away from T-Intersection
21 --------------
Violation 4: Impact on primary view
•This post is right outside my master bedroom
•Significant impact to the primary view from the bedroom window
22 --------------
Violation 4 (cont): Impact on primary view
•This
post
is
directly
outside
my
baby’s
bedroom
•Significant
impact
to
the
primary
view
from
the
bedroom
window
23 --------------
Infringe Public Safety:
•We see children walking and biking under this post every day, because this is a main street that leads to parks and the elementary school
•This is visually very intrusive
•Poses potential hazards:
•Influx of installation and maintenance traffic
•Debris
•Fire and earthquake hazards
24 --------------
Limits Play Area:
•Due to the Telecom Act of 1996, we can not argue about health concerns regarding RF radiation, despite the abundance of recent studies that are proving otherwise.
•Absence of proof does not equal proof of absence
•We will not let our children play in the back yard due to this installation
24 --------------
Design Criteria
- Telecom
Facilities
in Public
Right of
Way
(Click image to enlarge)
25 --------------
Thank you for your attention!
What would you recommend if this was next to your home?
