The URL can be used to link to this page

14. Wireless communication facilitiesCITY OF CUPERTINO City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 Fax: (408) 777-3333 Community Development Department Summary Agenda Item No. ~~-~' Agenda Date: February 3, 2009 Application: MCA-2008-04, EA-2008-09 Applicant : City of Cupertino Property Owner: Various Property Location: Citywide APPLICATION SUMMARY: Municipal Code Amendment of Chapter 19.108 -Wireless Communications Facilities, regarding the expansion of potential site locations, adding to design and siting review criteria and miscellaneous technical changes. RECOMMENDATION: On a unanimous vote the Planning Commission recommended: 1) Adoption of a Negative Declaration for the project (file no. EA-2008-09); 2) Approval of MCA-2008-04 per the model resolution BACKGROUND: The Technology, Information and Communications Commission (TICC) has been reviewing wireless communications issues for the last two years. In July 2007, it conducted an electronic survey on issues and resident concerns regarding cell phone coverage and antennae in Cupertino. The sLirvey found that half of the users had fair or no cell phone coverage at home and 45% of ;all detailed responses wanted better coverage in Cupertino. The survey also identified key trouble areas in the City where more coverage was needed. A recent 300+ acre fire in the Cupertino hills also exposed the inability of fire protection personnel to communicate effectively during an emergency, using the preferred wireless conununications. On September 4, 2007, the City Council directed TICC to work with stiff on the City's wireless regulations to address and expedite resolution of cell phorie coverage issues. In addition to facilitating the improvement ~~f cell phone coverage in Cupertino, the TICC work on the wireless communication=. facilities ordinance has the added benefit of 14-1 Application: MCA-2008-04, EA-2008-09 Wireless Communications Facilities Ordinance Amendments Page 2 Februrary 3 2009 updating the 1997 ordinance so that it is now consistent with the later, year 2003 adopted Wireless Facilities Master Plan. The Plar+n;ng Commission reviewed the ordinance amendments at its November 25, 2008 and January 27, 2009 meetings DISCUSSION: Planning Commission Comments The Planning Commission reviewed the ordinance amendments on November 25*h Its comments, and those of the TICC members, the public and staff are incorporated in Exhibit A-3. The Planning Comm;ssion approved the ordinance amendments on January 27, 2009 on a unanimous 5-O vote. The Commission s key conclusions are as followed with staff commentary in italics: 1) Leave the antenna setback at 50 feet m;n;mum from a residential property line. Commentaz-t~: The Commission recognized that the setback number zvas arbitrary and exceeded the distances established by the Federal Communications Commission based an the federal RF emissions exposure standards. 'Z7ze TICC proposal to cTzange bozo tTze distance was measured (to a habitable structure, rather than a property line) zvas not accepted because of the potential ofpZacing new emcumberances on residential properties outside of tTze residential zonizzg ordinances. The 50 foot property Zine setback was familiar to tTze public and the Commission zoos unwilling to change it. 2) Require neighborhood noticing of Director's minor modification approvals of cell sites. 3) Require screening of highly visible roof-mounted antennas. Comznentaru: This is already done as a matter of staff-level and Co»znzission-Level design review, but the Commission wanted it explicitly stated. 4) Expand aerial abandonment clause to include cost of land restoration to former condition. 5) Allow antennas to be mounted on all existing and new utility poles and towers. Exclude such .antennas from the setback requirements from a residential property line. Commentary: Most of the utility poles and towers are located in residenizaZZy .zoned areas of tTze conznzunity. A pole setback from a residential property Zine would effectively negate the ability to Locate any antennas on these facilities. 6) Allow antennas in RHS, OS, and common-interest areas of residential and mixed use planned development projects with City review. Cell sites in common- interest areas mentioned above require city use permit approval and homeowner 14-2 Application: MCA-2008-04, EA-2008-09 Wireless Coiiu~~tzzucations Facilities Ordinanc=e A_ mendments Page 3 Februrary 3, 2009 association (HOA) approval. The 50-foot minimum antenna setback, in these areas, is measured from the abutting residentially zoned properties. Conzmentaru: The setback concept is fhat if a RHS property owner or HOA wants a cell site, then they should not impact their residential neighboz•s in a manner dissizniliar froze a cell site on a conznzercial property. '~ Post-construction I2F emission testing is not necessary. Commentaz-u: T7ae City already requires 3ZF assessements in sensitive areas as part of the review process. Testimony presented at the hearing indicates that sudz equipment cannot exceed its maximum power levels without destroying the equipment. 8) Allow aesthetically-designed cell sites as one of the City's review criteria. Commentaz-i/: T`he concept is create opportunities to improve the aesthetic environment, rather tTzan, just preserve the existing condition. WIZi1e an aesthetically-desigzzed cell site znay be interpreted as public art, the Cczmmission did not wazzt to mix tTze public art requirement of major nezo projects zoith cell site entitlements. In addition to these conclusions, the Plazuziilg Commission requests that the City Council direct the TICC to research the feasibility of implementing a Distributed Antenna Systems (DAS). DAS is a commtuzicatiorvs technology that does not rely of antenna towers or monopoles. DAS anteruias are mounted on utility poles and street lights and the radio signals are carried over fiber optic cables (overhead or underground) to a remote base equipment building. TICC Comments: TIC Commissioner Peter Friedland discussed the protocols used in the cell phone users survey and the survey results. He summarized TICC's objectives to improve cell phone coverage and how the ordinance amendments would accomplished them. He provided additional information on power levels and RF safety, and supported the adoption of the ordinance amendments as proposed by staff. Public Comments: Nine residents testified on the ordinance changes. A suiiuziary of their comments appears below: • Owner lives in the Bubb/McClellan corridor and wants better cell phone coverage at home for daily communications and emergency situations. She cannot work effectively from home without cell phone coverage. She supports ordinance changes. • Representative of the Verona HOA (City Center area) wants the City to allow cell sites in mixed use planned developments. The HOA sees the benefits of better cell phone coverage and cell site rental income which will subsidize HOA reserves so the HOA will not have to raise fees on homeowners. 14-3 Application: MCA-2008-04, EA-2008-09 Wireless Communications Facilities Ordinance Amendments Page 4 Februrary 3 2009 • Tower centric approach to wireless planning will not resolve issues. Residents do not Like the looks of towers, so the City should encourage the carriers to provide a communications technology with Iess obtrusive infrastructure, like Distributed Antenna Systems (DAS). Other cities are implementing it, why not Cupertino? • Need better cell coverage. Question is what technology is best for Cupertino and acceptable to residents. Ordinance amendments did not address this, so he is against them. • Against reducing the antenna setback to residences. Concern with visual impact, RF radiation, devaluation of property values. • Wireless carriers should be required to use the latest technology and upgrade camouflage techniques when technology advances. • City should require neighborhood noticing of Director approvals of cell sites. • He has no problem with cell coverage in "poor coverage ' areas. He subscribes to Verizon Wireless. Other carrier's coverage problems should not be the City's problem. • City should have an aesthetic standard for cell towers but not confuse it with public art. Additional Staff Comments: Staff supports the TICC recommended ordinance amendments as modified by the Planning Commission s recommendations. The amendments would actually facilitate the development of a DAS communications network if one were proposed by a wireless carrier. Fiscal Anal~_ Allowing cell sites (antennas and base equipment enclosure) on City-owned lands provides an annual lease income of $30,000 -$35,000 per year per site to the City with an annual inflation adjustment. Space on City-owned street lights was rented to MetroFi for about $40 per pole per year (plus inflation adjuster). MetroFi leased 133 poles, so the aruiual rental income was about $5,320. There is an unknown, but positive economic impact of providing better cell phone communications coverage for daily communications and emergency purposes. A 2.4% utility tax is assessed by the City on all Cupertino-based subscriber cell phone calls. This cell phone call tax generates a total of $500,000 annually to the City. The tax will increase slightly with greater coverage and call capacity. Greater cell phone coverage and capacity are expected to result in more effective emergency response to existing underserved areas, the monetary savings from better coverage is not easily quantified. 14-4 Application: MCA-2008-04, EA-2008-09 Wireless Communications Facilities Ordinance Amendments Page 5 Februrary 3, 2009 ENCLOSURES: Model Resolution 8s Exhibit A (draft ordinar~ce) Exhibit A-2: Planning Commission staff report dated February, 27, 2009 with all attachments. Reviewed by: Submi by: ,-'~- j G Chao Ste e Piasecki rty Planner Director of Community Development Approved by: ~~ David W. Knapp City Manager G:\P1aruluig\PDREPORT\CC\ MCA-2008-04 CC7 Report.doc 14 - 5 MCA-2008-04 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO. 6545 OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 19.108: WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES, OF THE CUPERTINO MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING THE EXPANSION OF POTENTIAL SITE LOCATIONS, ADDING DESIGN AND SITING REVIEW CRITERIA AND MISCELLANEOUS TECHNICAL CHANGES. The Planning Commission finds the proposed amendments to Chapter 19.108: Wireless Communications Facilities as presented in Exhibit A: 1) would facilitate improvements in wireless communications coverage in hillside and residential areas for the convenience of residents and the improvement of community safety in general. 2) are consistent with the Wireless Facilities Master Plan. The Planning Commission requests that the City Council direct the Technology, Information and Communications Commission to research the feasibility of implementing a Distributed Antenna Systems (DAS) communications network in the City. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 27th day of January 2009, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino by the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Chair Giefer, Vice Chair Rose, Miller, Kaneda, Brophy NOES: COMMISSIONERS: none ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: none ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: none ATTEST: /s/Gary Chao Gary Chao City Planner APPROVED: /s/Lisa Giefer Lisa Giefer, Chairperson Planning Commission G: \ PZmxning \ PDReport \ Res \ 2008 \MCA-2008-04.doc 14-6 ~~~~ ORDINANCE NO. 09-2038 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO Al~QENDII~TG CHAPTER 19-108: WII2ELESS COMMlJNICATIONS FACILITIES, OF THE CUPERTINO MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING THE EXPANSION OF POTENTIAL SITE LOCATIONS, ADDIhTG DESIGN AND SITING REVIEW CRITERIA AND MISCELLANEOUS TECHNICAL CHANGES THE CITY COUI~TCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINTO DOES HEREBY ORDAIN that the following sections of the Cupertino Municipal Code shall be amended to read as follows: CHAPTER 19.108: VVIRELES'S COA'Il~'IUNICATIONS FACILITIES Section 19.108.010 Put-pose. 19.108.020 Applicability of regulations. 19.108.030 Definitions. 19. 108A40 Site locations. 19.108.050 General site development regulations. 19.108.060 Specific site development regulations- 19. 108.070 Design and siting review. 19.108.080 Application requirements. 19-108.090 Permitting. 19.108.100 Exceptions. 19.108A10 Purpose. -'-~ -~-s=--~=~-=€T=his chapter~~ establishes ~ __----`--- - _ _`re~ulations i_. r.- t -.t. `...~. - .7 pertaining to the location, siting, development, design and permitting of wireless comn7unications facilities for all zones existing in this city in order to: A. Facilitate the development of a wireless conztnunications infi-astructure in the City for commercial, public and emergency uses, and 14 - 7 Ordinance No. 09-20 ~~~ B. Protect the health, safety, welfare and aesthetic concerns of the public. (Ord. 1736, (pair), 1996; Ord. 1601, Exh. A (part), 1992) 19.108A20 Applicability of Regulations. This chaptea- -#;i_'f app1T~ to all types of aerials and associated facilities used for wireless conununications, that is, the transmitting and/or receiving of voice, data, video images and other information tlu-ough the air via signals in the radio and microwave frequency band. This includes aerials for amateur radio, television, wu-eless modems, cellular phones, enhanced specialized mobile radio (13SMR), personal communications services (PCS), pa~in~ systems, satellite comm~unications and other wireless conm~unication technologies utilizing signals in the radio and microwave frequency band_ No wireless conmTrunication facility: antennas, masts, towers and associated equipment shall be hereafter erected, structurally altered or enlarged other than in conformance with the provisions of this chapter and other applicable provisions of this title_ (Ord. 1736, (part), 1996; Ord. 1601, Exh. A (part), 1992) 19.108.030 Definitions. As used in this chapter, the following terms are defined in this section: A. "Aerial" means a stationary transmitting and/or receivinu wireless conZrnunication device consisting of one or any combination of the e]ements listed below: 1. "Antenna" means a horizontal or vertical element or array, panel or dish that may Ue attached to a mast or a tower for the purpose of transmitting or receiving radio or microwave frequency signals. 2. "Mast" means a vertical element consisting of a tube or rod_ which supports an antenna. 3. "Tower" means a vertical framework of cross elements= which supports either an antenna, mast or both. 4. "Guy wires" means wires necessary to insure the safety and stability of an antenna, mast or both_ B. "Collocation" means the placement of aerials and other facilities belonging to two or more conmiuuication service providers on a single mast or building. (Ord. 1736, (part), 1996; Ord_ 1607., Exh. A (part), 1992) 19.108.040 Site Locations. 74-8 2 Ordinance l~TO. 09-2038 f~-.. L-... .L, -. J .-L ,, L_._- _ .,r~tFa --at r-in hP--~ itor~ v- •L:~ _-_.ti : ~_.~ .c' ~ - -- _ ~L-_ _ __ ~~._ ._ ~l._ _____~__ ___ ° __ ___ _ _ __ rai•i ran u . ____ ~.v.i .. .__y._. _ ~y~....._ .. .... ,. _....._ .,~ ... ~.. ~. L. •L-~ nt...-....:.. .. !".-. _~... ~~:~~:.~ r a ~ .,_ B. Antenna. I . An antenna consisting of a single vertical element not more than four inches in diameter in lieu of a horizontal arrangement shall be excepted from the height resu-iciion. 2. Antetutas and/or guy wires shall not overlap adjoining properties and shall not encroach upon an easement without the written consent of the owner of the easement which shall be attached to the application for a building permit. C. Masts and Towers. 1 . Ee- -e Wit- t- - e :t e- ~d ti" The number of towers, and detached masts exceeding eight inches in diameter at the base and thirty feet in height above ground level, __'.:_.T.<z~ r~- :. -shall be :::rated as follo~~~st-= Lot Size Maximum Number of Toni ers and Detached Masts per lot Less than 30,000 One_ square feet 30,000 square Two. Additional towers, and feet or snore detached masts, above two, not meeting the criteria stated in Section 19.108.050_C.1. reyuire use permit approval by the Planning Con~tuission. 2. Wood towers shall not be erected. w +__. _ _,_ a ..__.~__ _.-. L, }2E 3F2~ @£ 1'3-~~ F~8 ~cLF 8 Ft32 ~2d e-f c}3~~z~-z-c'-z ~sa2.d: •, ,~ ~F;=*3e-1~ '32 aid-~h3-tl nBF 1=f2 ela4e-'Ia 3rF ~-_. °,~t .e e~ti~-ap-rt_:' CfEVTICTT- = l: `. a=1=._. _, `.l .-.-. .i Y J -rr- '_-~' It ~ a" .mss ^"-._v-tHe-ea3leeaF3~ F€se~~}s ~d e! ~-c~ Y _-' 4 14 - 1 O Ordinance No. 09-2035 19.108.070 Design and Siting Re~-ie~r. For aerials requiring discretionary review, •'-~ ^=----~- ..c ~~--~----__:._. ,~-.._, __ __ x#aP o,_., _ r-_~}. ~_-~, __.T. ~3e de-i_-3 nd i~-n~~€fhe aer-i~ -F the prinZary^ rep ieia objective. ~ :y c to ~ nwrc ;lic a~~al~ of ] 9.108.010 arz mgt 3na to blend the design of the aerial into the surrounding environment, or site the aerial in such a manner to niininiize the visual inu-tasiveness of the structure or artistically enhance the appearance of the aerial. This review may include, but not be limited to, the folloeving criteria: A. Gans in coverage that could create emervencv con~n~unication problem. ~ i:sbility of alternative locations_ such as comnzercia] industrial office and public '~uildin_ ~ites- C. ~.'ae~"-ac}aisa af=sla ,a ~~: ,~•-, -•-.a _..~ 3~h-933F3~2- ft3 `' E~3 3~L-~F-F3_2- c~ 3 F1d~~- _ --'s„s~_-.°-:"• . -~-~ ~et3~Fed aer}~ tie u f: ee tad--~_ ' '_~lethod of _-;icnn a-rnQltIICln_- T1731 1S.- ~:~. .ell-i~]C.llntln"_ r~•c,f_*7~,_,. r~iiii" ~-~r .n ir~c~I~i: u'P7" ~;?"LCTllre- Dl~- ~!;e ~~~~ colors, materials and textures to integrate the aerial into the suta-ounding environment or building; EG. . - _ _~~•~- ?Landscaping to screen the aerial; Fes- T-'-~ ~ Proximity and visibility of the aerial to residential properties and public right-of-ways; G€. _ - ~ _'. dispersal of aerial locations to avoid visual clutter- 11F. - . _ ~ concentration of aerial locations to avoid visual clutter; I6. Opportunities for collocation of aerials on existing masts and to~><~ers where visual inuvsiveness is reduced; J~1- - - ' resign of the building car znc]o-ure. which houses the related r_~e equipment and its compatibility with the adjoining building architecture; Kf. Opponunitie. to dzvzlop ~ ~•:~*c~;t-ar,~ rc~nriate artistically enhanced aerial desisns: L- Screenins of highly vicible rooftop-mounted aerial: M~- q~e-L~ Balancing of aesthetic concerns ~~+ith the need to provide a functional conutmnications system. (Ord. 1736, (part), 1996) 6 14 - 12 Ordinance INTO. 09-2038 19.108.080 Application Requirements. In addition to the standard application requirements, the applicant may be required to provide the following materials: A. Lf more than one aerial is planned in the City cyithin a year by a single conirnunication service provider, a master plan shall be prepared of all facilities that can be reasonably foreseen, showing the proposed aerial sites and existing commercial, office, industrial and public utility aerial locations within a one mile radius of the proposed sites. The purpose of this requirement is to identify opportunities for clustering, dispersal and collocation of aerials to reduce visual intrusiveness; B. Erection of a mock aerial, computer simulation or sight-line elevations for al] aerials to help assess the visual effects; C. Documentation that the teclu~ology and usage of that technolo_Qy meets Federal Communications Corrunission adopted safety standards. (Ord. 1736, (part), 1996) 19.108.090 Pernutting. A_ For all zoning districts, aerials that exceed maximum height limits require a height exception except as otherwise provided in Section 19.108.060. B. For zoning districts that require design review, permitting procedures shall be as follo~~vs: 1. For aerials that are nZinimally visible to residential properties and public rights-of-way, the Director of Con'rmm~ity Development shall process such applications in accordance with Chapter 19.132 and in addition provide written mailed notice of his decision to adjacent property o~a~ners. 2. For building-mounted aerials that are moderately visible to residential properties and public rights-of-quay, the Director of Community Development, in lus discretion, may refer an application to the Planning Conuliission for _r~'~::~~=-~ design review and .-e~cr:~:_e:~'~:~ n aopro~ al in accordance with Chapter 19.132_=`.'4-cs__:-:_~.~_su .S~~rerrs?-2; !ti'!:nE•r E.1=~_~T:r p___ , __ _ - -~ ~--- - 3. For detached aerials that are moderately to highly visible to residential properties and public rights-of-way, a use permit approved by the Planning Coniniission is required. 14 - 13 Ordinance No. 09-2038 4. Abandonment_ All City approvals for new aerials and modifications of existing aerial approvals shall be conditioned to require the removal of the aerial, its associated facilities and restoration of the land to its forn-rer condition if the aerial is not used for its permitted purpose for a period of eighteen months. The property owner or applicant shall bear the entire cost of demolition and land restoration. (Ord. 1736, (part), 1996) ~. All commercial. office. inciustrial_ and public utilicv aerial mast and to« er approva]s shall he conditioned to allow the collocation of aerials and related facilities "f ~•ihe_~~- r_;n~rcial_ office_ industrial_ and gublic utility users c;hzre appronri~:~ .::.~.~ c.l~:t-}~ 19_108.100 Exceptions. A. ~n ?=exceptions may be eranted by the Planning Conirrt.ission for .~~-~;~~ ~,~-.~ __ __~ .. ~.'. ~ - an aerial heights exceeding the maximum limits where practical difficulties, unnecessary hardships, or results inconsistent with the purpose and intent of this chapter result from strict application of the chapter provisions. B. A request for exception must be submitted on a form as prescribed by the Director of Con~n~unity Development. The application shall be accompanied by a fee prescribed by City Council resolution. Upon receipt of an exception application, a time and place for a public hearing before the Planning Commission shall be set_ A Notice of Public Hearing for an exception under this chapter shall be given in the same manner as provided in Section 19.120.060. The Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing at which time the Planning Conmrission may grant the exception based upon all of the followinj Fndin~s: 1 _ That the literal enforcement of the provisions of this chapter will result in restrictions inconsistent with the spirit and intent of this chapter; ?. That granting of an exception will not result in a condition that will be detrimental or injurious to property or' improvements in the vicinity and will not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare; 3. That the exception to be Granted will not result in a hazardous condition for pedestrian and vehicular traffic. C_ After closing the public hearing, the Planning Commission may approve, conditionally approve or deny the application for exception_ The Commission's decision on the exception request stay be appealed to the City Council as provided for in ~~-? Chanter 1 y_ 1 ?F-~T (Ord. 1736, (part), 1996) 14 - 14 Ordinance No. 09-2038 INTRODUCED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 3rd day of February, 2009, and ENACTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this day of 2009, by the following vote: Vote Members of the Citv Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED: N[ayor, City of Cupertino 9 14-15 Exi~ibit A - 2 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM Application: MCA-2008-04, EA-2008-09 Agenda Date: January 27, 2009 Applicant: City of Cupertino Property Owner: Various Property Location: Citywide Summary: Municipal Code Amendment of Chapter 19.108 -Wireless Communications Facilities, regarding the expansion of potential site locations, adding to design and siting review criteria and miscellaneous technical changes. RECOMMENDATION Staff recoiiimends that the Planning Commission: Recommend the adoption of a Negative Declaration for the Project, file no. EA- 2008-09 Recommend the adoption of the staff-version of the ordinance amendments, file no. MCA-2008-04. BACKGROUND: On November 25, 2008, the Planning Commission heard a proposal from the TICC (Teleconununications, Information and Communications Commission) to amend the Wireless Communications Facilities Ordinance (WCFO) in order to facilitate the improvement of cellular telephone coverage throughout the City. Staff reviewed the proposed ordinance cha~zges and recommended additional changes (Exhibit A-1). Several residents testified on the changes and the Commission discussed the project and gave direction to staff before continuing the item to the Comm;ssion meeting of January 27, 2009. TICC, Public and Staff comments from the November 25*h meeting are summarized in Exhibit F-1. Planning Commission Comments A majority of Commissioners (at least 3 of 5) were in favor of: 1) Requiring radiation frequency radiation testing after cell site construction, 2) Allowing cell sites iii public parks with City review, 3) Measuring antenna setback from the property line, not the habitable structure. This prevents additional encumberances on residentially zoned property other than the single-family zoning regulations. 14 - 16 MCA-2008-04 -Amendments to Wireless Coiimiunications :Facilities Ordinance, CMC 19.108 January 27, 2009 Page 2 4) Allowing wireless companies the option of "public art type" cell sites, and 5) Not allowing cell antenna in mixed-use planned development residential projects. A minority of the Commissioners expressed their opinions on the following issues: 1) Allowing cell sites on hillsides (IZHS and OS zoned properties) 2) Providing neighborhood notification for cell sites that are approved by staff. Planning Commissioners directed staff to provide the following information at the next hearing on the ordinance amendments: 1) Review federal guidelines and regulati~~ns to see if there are minimum antenna setbacks based on radiation exposure safety standards. 2) Survey surrounding cities to see how they regulate cell sites, that is, do other cities allow them in public parks, in residential areas or do they require a setback. 3) Evaluate allowing cell antennas in residential planned developments if homeowners association coizsents to cell site. DISCUSSION: Federal Guidance on Siting Antennas to Corn~ly with RF Emission Rules After the Federal Communications Corrunission (FCC) established its safety standards for human exposure to radio frequency (RF) electromagnetic fields, it prepared the enclosed guide to help local government officials in addressing issues of facilities siting within their communities (Exhibit B-1). The FCC has determined through calculations and technical analysis that due to their low power or height above ground level, many facilities by their very nature are highly unlikely to cause human exposures in excess of the federal guideline limits and operators of those facilities are exempt by the FCC from routinely having to determine compliance. Facilities with these characteristics are considered "categorically excluded" from the requirement for routine environmer~tal processing for RF exposure by the FCC. The types of facilities that are routinely revie~.ved by the Planning Commission: cellular, and narrowband and broadband personal commui~ications services (PCS) fall into the FCC "categorically excluded" group if they meet the following criteria: 1. For non-building mounted antennas (free-standuzg): 14 - 17 MCA-2008-04 -Amendments to Wireless Communications Facilities Ordinance, CMC 19.108 January 27, 2009 Page 3 • Antenna height above ground level is 10 meters (about 33 feet), • Total power of all radio channels (in a sector) is under 1,000 watts ERP (effective radiated power) • For broadband PCS, total power of all radio channels is under 2,000 watts ERP 2. For building mounted antennas: • Total power of all radio channels (in a sector) is under 1,000 watts ERP • For broadband PCS, total power of all radio channels is under 2,000 watts ERP A review of all city-approved cell sites shows that they all meet the vertical distance requirement above, except for three sites. Two are located on lattice towers at the PGBsE Monta Vista Substation and the third at 20041 Bollinger Road (Pacific Rim Shopping Center site). For the latter site, the applicant was required to prepare an RFR study, which demonstrated that general population RFR exposures, even under the pole, were well within Federal safety standards. Based on the data in Appendix B, the federally required minimum, horizontal distance from a cellular or PCS antenna is 15 to 17 feet. Horizontal distance is measured from the same level as the antenna, and the antennas are assumed to be operating at full power (1000 watts ERP; Broadband PCS- 2,000 watts ERP). According to the FCC document, these type of antennas are designed to emit insignificant amounts of RF energy above or below the horizontal plane, so technically, human populations can be situated closer and still comply with federal exposure standards. Survey of MonoUOle Setback Standards of Local Cities Staff surveyed local cities on their antenna monopole setback regulations (Exhibit E-1). All surveyed setbacks were measured from the property line and varied in restrictiveness from the setbacks of the zoning district (least restrictive) to 150 feet from a residential property line (most restrictive). Staff questioned respondents on the reasoning behind the monopole setbacks. None used the Federal safety standards to establish setbacks. Cities who treat cell sites as accessory structures or utility structures used the minimum setbacks required of buildings or detached accessory structures. If site and design review was required, a larger setback may have been required based on neighborhood opposition or visual impact. Setbacks related to pole height are based on the premise that if the pole was to fall, it would not fall on an adjacent property. The most restrictive monopole setbacks are in Los Altos and Sunnyvale. The Los Altos standard was based on RF reports 14 - 18 MCA-2008-04 -Amendments to Wireless Conmzunications Facilities Ordinance, CMC 19.108 January 27, 2009 Page 4 submitted at the time and a formulation based on community height and setback standards. The Sunnyvale standard was based on the concerns of a falling pole and minimizing line of sight to nearby residences. The minimum City-required setback is 50 feel: (horizontally measured) from the antenna face to the residential property line. In actual practice, staff/Planning Commission have required even larger setbacks than the minimum of 50 feet through the use permit process. The issue of a setback from residential uses needs to be review and discussed by the Commission and potential, ordinance inconsistencies resolved in light of other revisions being contemplated by the Commission, such. as: 1) Allowing cell sites in the RHS zoning district, which is a residential zoning, 2) Allowing antennas on utility poles and structures where most of these structures are located in residential zones, and 3) Allowing cell sites in residential and iruxed-use planned development areas. Allowing Cell Sites in Residential and Mixed Use Planned Developments Staff has received several inquiries from residents and representatives of residential and mixed use planned developments expressing interest in locating cell sites on their common -interest property. Requests are ro»tinely rejected by staff because of the ordinance ban on cell sites on residentially zoned and used properties. Resident interest is typically for one or both reasons below: • The residential planned development is in a remote area that lacks cellular or PCS telephone coverage, or • The rental income from the wireless c~~mpany would help pay for the maintenance of deteriorating commori facilities and improvements. Staff suggests allowing cell sites in residentia:L and mixed use planned developments subject to a use permit approval and homeowner association approval. Language has been added to the draft ordinance. Post-Construction Testing for RF Emissions Compliance with Federal Safety Standards The Planrung Commission expressed much interest in post-construction RF emission testing. The FCC Guide (Exhibit A) indicates that cellular and PCS services operate under FCC blanket area licenses that require self-certification with respect to compliance with FCC safety standards for RF~ emissions. The self -certification covers all of the facility sites within the license area. It is doubtful that the FCC requires testing data for 12F emissions from individual cell sites. 14 - 19 MCA-2008-04 -Amendments to Wireless Conznlunicarions Facilities Ordinance, CMC 19.108 January 27, 2009 Page 5 Enclosed is apost-construction RF emissions report that was required by the Design Review Comr*~+ittee for a cell site on Stevens Creek Boulevard in Monta Vista (Exhibit B). The antennas were mounted on the building roof with a height above ground level of 32 feet and an effective radiated power (ERP) of 800 watts. The measured emissions showed that the power density was well below the FCC public exposure limits. In addition the measurements were well below the pre-construction evaluation because that report made a number of worst case assumptions, such as, all of the antennas operating at full power at the same time. City review procedures already require RF emission assessments whenever residential areas or schools are in a reasonable proximity. In such cases, staff feels post- construction RF emission testing will be redundant. Other Public Input Three emailed comments were received since the last hearing and a letter from the TICC Commission (Exhibit F-1). The comments are summarized below: 1) Lack of cell phone coverage in the lower Creston area will be a problem in the event of an emergency. 2) Cell phone coverage at Santa Paula and Foothill is spotty. Writer works in the wireless communications industry. He explains why cell phone users are exposed to higher radiation levels from handsets when a tower is not close by. 3) Letter from an agent for the Verona Owners Association (a mixed use planned development at City Center) expressing the Association s interest in locating a cell site on the roof of its building. 4) The Commission supports updating the ordinance. Comments and responses are offered to questions about the survey methodology/validity and residential setback. CONCLUSIONS: Staff is recommending approval of the revised wireless facilities ordinance with the following key changes: 1) Allow cell sites in RHS, OS and PR (public park) zoned areas; 2) Allow cell antennas on non-City utility poles and towers regardless of zoning district and in conformance with federal RF emission safety standards; 3) Allow cell sites on common-interest areas in residential and mixed use planned development zoned projects, subject to City use permit and homeowner association approval; 4) Delete Exception requirement for mast or tower cross-sections more than 30 feet in height with a width greater than 12 inches; 14-20 MCA-2008-04 -Amendments to Wireless Conm7unications Facilities Ordinance, CMC 19.108 January 27, 2009 Page 6 5) Add additional design and siting criteria, including potential public art criterion; 6) Define antenna setback from residential property line, not habitable structure distance. Setback should not be greater than 50 feet in order to facilitate more cell site development in the City. Excluded from the setback requirement would be existing utility poles and towers used for cell sites and the roof of a mixed use planned development. Federal safety requirements must be met. 54 Prepared by: Colin Jung, Senior Planner Approved by: Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Developme Attachments Planning Commission Model Resolution and ordinance wording Exhibit A-1: Planning Commission Staff Report dated 11/25/08 Exhibit B-1: A Local Government Official's Guide to Transmitting Antenna RF Emission Safety: Rules, Procedures, and Practical Guidance dated 6/2/00 Exhibit C-1: Hammett 8z Edison Post-Construction RF Emissions Monitoring Report dated 9/20/06 Exhibit D-1: Survey of Wireless Facility Regulations for surrounding cities Exhibit E-1: Additional public comments Exhibit F-1: Summary of TICC, Public and Si:aff Comments at November 25, 2008 Commission Meeting 14-21 MCA-2008-04 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO. OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 19.108: WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES, OF THE CUPERTINO MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING THE EXPANSION OF POTENTIAL SITE LOCATIONS, ADDING DESIGN AND SITING REVIEW CRITERIA AND MISCELLANEOUS TECHNICAL CHANGES. The Planning Commission finds the proposed amendments to Chapter 19.108: Wireless Communications Facilities as presented in Exhibit A: 1) would facilitate improvements in wireless communications coverage in hillside and residential areas for the convenience of residents and the improvement of community safety in general. 2) are consistent with the Wireless Facilities Master Plan. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 27th day of January 2009, at a Regular Meeting of the Plaiiiiii~g Commission of the City of Cupertino by the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ATTEST: Gary Chao City Planner APPROVED: Marty Miller, Chairperson Planning Corrunission ~a-22 Staff-revised T~CC ~IraftL "`t Revision) CHAPTER 19.108: WIRELESS COIMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES Section 19.108.010 Purpose. 19.1 OS_020 Applicability of regulations. ~ 9.108.030 Definitions. '19.108.040 Site locations. 19.108.050 General site development regulations. 19.108.060 Specific site development regulations. 19.108.070 Design and siting review. 19.108.080 Application requirements. 19.108.090 Permittin9_ 19.108.100 Exceptions. 19.108.010 Purpose. ~qe--pucpase-ef Tthis chapter-is-~ts establishes a-sasaaarak+er~eava-seFsf regulations pertaining to the location, siting, development, design and permitting of wireless communication: facilities for all zones existing in this city in order to: A. Facilitate the development of a wireless communications infrastructure in the City for commercial, public and emergency uses, and B. Protect the health, safety, welfare and aesthetic concerns of the public- (Ord. 1736, (part), 1996; Ord. 1601 , Exh. A (part), 1992) 19.108.020 Applicability of Regulations. This chapter span applyles to all types of aerials and associated facilities used for wireless communications, that Is, the transmitting and/or receiving of voice, data, video images and ether Information through the air via signals in the radio and microwave frequency band. This Includes aerials for amateur radio, television, wireless modems, cellular phones, enhanced specialized mobile radio (ESMR), personal communications services (PCS), paging systems, satellite communications and other wireless communication technologies utilizing signals in the radio and microwave frequency band. No wireless communication facility: antennas, masts, towers and associated equipment shall be hereafter erected, structurally altered or enlarged other than in conformance with 'he provisions of this chapter and other applicable provisions of this title. (Ord. 1736, (part), 1996; Ord. 1601, Exh. A (part), 1992) 19.108.030 Definitions. As used in this chapter, the following terms are defined in Yhis section: A. "Aerial" means a stationary transmitting and/or receiving wireless communication device consisting of one or any combination of the elements listed below: 1. "Antenna" means a horizontal or vertical element or array, panel or dish that may be attached to a mast or a tower for the purpose of transmitting or receiving radio or microwave frequency signals. 14-23 1 Staff revised TICC Draft(2n`r Revisiof~ 2. "Mast" means a vertical element consisting of a tube or rod, which supports an antenna. 3. "TOweP means a vertical framework of cross elements which supports either an antenna, mast or both. 4. "Guy wires" means wires necessary to insure the safety and stability of an antenna, mast or both. B. "Collocation" means the placement of aerials and other facilities belonging to two or more communication service providers on a single mast or building. (Ord. 1736, (part), 1996; Ord. 1601, Exh. A (part), 1992) 19.108.040 Site Locations. A. Residential and Home Occupatlon Aerials. 1 . Aerials intended for the private use of onsita residents and guests and for home occupation oumoses aaay~ie are allowed on all residentially zoned and used properties. B. Commercial, Office, Industrtal, Public Utility Aerials. 4-: Aerials Intended for commercial, office, industrial and public use are prohibited on residentially zoned and used properties: except RHS. Aerials may be allowed on common-interest areas of a residential orand mixed-use planned development zoned properties sublect to city use permit aooroval and homeowner association aooroval. , praperties• 2. Such aedalse are allowed in all other zoning districts pursuant to permitting procedures established under Section 19.108.090. S c.,_,....,.~..,...-.. r.~ ..nl.....~.a .. .. ._.~ ..r `~ 4. ^Such aerials are allowed on City utility poles and towers. recardiess of the zoning district. as Iona as the aerial complies with Section 19.108.080fc). (Ord. 1736, (part), 1996) 19.108.050 General Site Development Regulations. Provisions in Section 19 1 OS 050 :poly to all residential and home occupation commercial office industrial and public utility aerials. A. Aerials. 1. The height of receiving aerials, shall not exceed forty-nine feet above grouradaeve~ finished grade measured at the mast base, unless otherwise provided in accordance with Section 19.108.060. 2. Transmitting eF and transmitting and receiving aerials shall not exceed a height of fifty-five feet above •e~a-.'^v~t- finished orade measured at the mast base, unless otherwise provided in accordance with Section 19.108.060_ 4- Cara~araisslart B. Antenna. 1. An antenna consisting of a single vertical element not more than four inches in diameter in lieu of a horizontal arrangement shall be excepted from the height restriction. 14-24 2 Staff-revised TICC Draft~2n`~ Revision, 2. Antennas and/or guy wires shall not overlap adJoining properties and shall not encroach upon an easement without the written consent of the owner of the a:asement which shall be attached to the application for a building penn{t. C. Masts and Towers. 1. .The number of towers, and detached masts exceeding eight inches in diameter at the base and thirty feat in height above ground level, atlewed-per--IaE shall be limited as foliowsed: Lot Size Maximum Number of Towers and Detached Masts Der lot Less than 30,000 One. square feet 30,000 square feet or Two. Additional towers, and detached more mash:, above two, not meeting the criteria stated in Section 19.108.050.0.1. require use permit approval by the Planning Commission. 2. Wood towers shall not be erected. 19.108.060 Specific Site Development Regulations. A. Residential and Home Occupation Aerials. 1. Aerials with panel or dish antennas of more than ten square feet shall comply with the setbacks and height limits for accessory structures. 2. Masts and towers shall be located at least ten feet to the rear of the front building setback Tine and shall be set back at least six feet from env orooertv boundary. B. Commercial, Office, Industrial, Public Utility Aerials. 1. Aerials mounted on buildings that exceed the a~_rial height limits stated in Section 19.108.050 may eMend six feet above the building parapet wall. An additional one foot of height is allowed for every ten feet that the aerial is setback from the parapet, to a maximum height of ten feet above the building parapet, before a height exception is required. 2. With the exceoUon of a utii(ty Dole or tower used as an aerial detached masts and towers shall be located rya-slaser~aa set back a minimum of fifty feet fi~om a residentially zoned praperiy habitable structure tt~ fifty-feet or a distance equal to one foot for every one foot of structure height, whichever is greater. Building mounted aerials skaeld--lie-{asatad sh2:ll be set back a minimum of fifty feet horizontally from any 14-25 Staff-revised TICC ~j~a~(2n`I Revision residentially zoned prsperty habitable structure. except habitable structures in a mixed-use planned development. (Ord. 1736, (part), 1996) 3. Base equipment stations shall comoiv with the setbacks of the zoning district and the CitVs noise standards provided in Chanter 10.48. '19.108.070 Design and Siting Review. For aerials requiring discretionary review, ....,: ..... .........~:.... _...+ ..:w......a «a.e _,-, ~: ~- the primary review objectives Is are to ensure the coals of 19.108.01 O are met and to blend the design of the aerial into the surrounding environment, or site the aerial in such a manner to minimize the visual intrusiveness of the structure or inteorate the aerial desicn and sitinc into the environment as public art. This review may include, but not be limited to, the following criteria: A. Ga sin v a e that would create mer enc communication roblems. B. Viability of alternative locations. such as commercal. industrial. office. and public buildinc sites. C. Method of antenna-mounfinc. that is. wall-mountinc, roof-mountlnc or a freestandinc structure. D€. Tka-use-efs Colors, materials and textures to integrate the aerial into the surrounding environment or building; E6. ref i)=andscaping to screen the aerial; F9. -Tt~e-~ Proximity and visibility of the aerial to residential properties and public right-of-ways; G€. Tbe-d Dispersal of aerial locations to avoid visual Gutter; H€. Thus Concentra tlon of aerial locations to avoid visual Gutter; 16. Opportunities for collocation of aerials on existing masts and towers where visual intrusiveness is reduced; Jkl. The-A Design of the building or enclosure, which houses the related base equipment and its compatibility with the adjoining building architecture; Kt. Oooortunifies to develop context-appropriate public art: L.i. Taaa~ Balancing of aesthetic concerns with the need to provide a functional communications system. (Ord. 1736, , (part), 1996) 19.108.080 Application Requirements. In addition to the standard application requirements, the applicant may be required to provide the following materials: A. If more than one aerial is planned in the City within a year by a single communication service provider, a master plan shall be prepared of all facilities that can be reasonably foreseen, showing the proposed aerial sites and existing commercial, office, industrial and public utility aerial locations within a one mile radius of the proposed sites. The purpose of this requirement is to identify opportunities for clustering, dispersal and collocation of aerials to reduce visual intrusiveness; 14-26 4 Stae~f-revised TICC Df°aft(2n`~ Revision B- Erection of a mock aerial, computer simulation or sight-line elevations for all aerials to help assess the visual effects; C. Documentation that the technology and usage of that G3chnology meets Federal Communications Commission adopted safety standards. (Ord. 1736, (part), 1996) 19.108.090 Permitting. A. For all zoning districts, aerials that exceed maximum hr:ight limits require a height exception except as otherwise provided in Section 19.106.060. 6- For zoning districts that require design review, permitting procedures shall be as follows: 1. For aerials that are minimally visible to residential properties and public rights-of-way, the Director of Community Development shall process such aF~plications in accordance with Chapter 19.132 and in addition provide written mailed notice of his decision to adjacent properly owners..--~4dAair~isirativa 2. For building-mounted aerials that are moderately visible to residential properties and public rights-of-way, the Director of Community Development, in his discretion, may refer an application to the Planning Commission for a~skaitasfaratfsite desicn review and Feset~endatian approval in accordance with Chapter 19.132. , " ages-in-Frsjeats= 3. For detached aerials that are moderately to highly visible to residential properties and public rights-0f--way, a use pertntt approved by the Planning Commission is required. 4. Abandonment. All City approvals for new aerials and modifications of existing aerial approvals shall be conditioned to require the removal of the aerial and its associated fatalities if the aerial is not used for its permitted purpose for a pertod of eighteen mon'hs. The property owner or applicant shall bear the entire cost of demolition. (Ord. 1736, (part), 1996) 5. All commercial, office, industrial. and public utillN aerial mast and tower approvals shall be conditioned to allow the collocation of aerials and related facilities of other commercial. office. industrial. and public utility users where appropriate and feasible. 19.108.100 Exceptions. A. 4~ir, exceptions may be granted by the Planning Commission for an aerial heights exceeding the maximum limits where practical difficulties, unnecessary hardships, or results inconsistent with the purpose and intent of this chapter result from strict application of the chapter provisions. B- A request for exception must be submitted on a form as prescribed by the Director of Community Development. The application shall be accompanied by a fee prescribed by City Council resolution. Upon receipt of an exception application, a time and place for a public hearing before the Planning Commission shall be set. A Notice of Pubic Hearing for an exception under this chapter shall be given fn the same manner as provided in Section 19.120.060. The Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing at which time the Planning Commission may grant the exception based upon all of the following findings: 1. That the literal enforcement of the provisions of this chapter will result in restrictions inconsistent with the spirit and intent of [his chapter; 2. That granfin9 of an exception will not result in a condition that will be detrimental or inJurlous to property or improvements in the viGnity and will not be materially detrimental io the public health, safety or welfare; 3. That the exception to be granted will not result in a hazardous condition for pedestrian and vehicular traffic. C. After closing the public hearing, the Planning Commis<_ion may approve, conditionally approve or deny the application for exception. The Commission's decision on the exception request may be appealed to the City Council as provided for in SectSea Chanter 19-136.064 (Ord. 1736, (part), 1996) 1~-27 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM F~cl~ebdt A -~. Application: MCA-2008-04 Agenda Date: November 25, 2008 Applicant: City of Cupertino Property Owner: Various Property Location: Citywide Summary: Municipal Code Amendment of Chapter 19.108 -Wireless Communications Facilities, regarding the expansion of potential site locations, adding to design and siting review criteria and miscellaneous technical changes. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Coiiuizission_ Recommend the adoption of a Negative Declaration for the Project, file no. EA- 2008-09 Recommend the adoption of the staff-version of the ordinance amendments, file no. MCA-2008-04. BACKGROUND: Wireless Communications Facilities Ordinance (CMC Section 19.108) (WCFO) The existing wireless communications ordinance was adopted in 1997 to establish city review procedures for an unprecedented number of applications the City was receiving for new wireless communications facilities (cell) sites. The City's old ham radio antenna ordinance was amended to address this rapidly expanding communications technology. The ordinance (Exhibit C) has been the City's main implementation tool and policy framework for the review of all wireless communications facilities until the adoption of the City's Wireless Facilities Master Plan. Wireless Facilities Master Plan (WFMP) By late 1999, it became clear to City decisiorur~akers that long-term planning was necessary to address the growth of wireless communications facilities, also known as, personal wireless service facilities. While staff, Planning Commission and Telecommunications (Technology, Information and Communication (TICC)) Commission members were ganung luzowledge and experience reviewing such facilities, the policy structure was not formally memorialized until the Wireless Facilities Master Plan was adopted in October 2003 (Exhibit D). The plan was largely is-Zs MCA-2008-04 -Amendments to VTireless Communications Facilities Ordinance, C.vIC 19.108 November 25, 2008 Page 2 prepared by TICC and staff with the help of a private wireless planning consultant. TICC, formerly known as the Telecommunications Commission, was initially established to advise the City Council on cable television franchise issues. Since then the Council has expanded its mission to include all matters pertaining to telecommunications within the City. The Commission was later renamed the Technology, Information and Communications Commission (TICC). Inconsistencies between the WFMP and the WCFO Since the adoption of the WFNII', the WCFO lies not been updated to address the inconsistencies between the two documents. For example, the master plan anticipated the demand for wireless communications sereices for home use, yet the ordinance still prohibits the development of the needed infrastructure (i.e. cell sites) in residential areas. TICC has been reviewing wireless communications issues for the last two years. In July 2007, it conducted an electronic survey on issues and resident concerns regarding cell phone coverage and antennae in Cupertino. 'I71e survey found that half of the users had fair or no cell phone coverage at home and 45 % of all detailed responses wanted better coverage in Cupertino. The survey also identified key trouble areas in the City where more coverage was needed. A recent large fv-e in the Cupertino hills also exposed the inability of fire protection personnel to communicate effectively, using the preferred wireless communications. The City Council directed TICC to work with staff on the City's wireless regulations to address and expedite resolution of cell phone coverage issues (Exhibit E 8s F). DISCUSSION: TICC has been working closely with staff to understand the nature of wireless communications facility regulation in Cupertino, including the review of the WCFO and WFMI', attendance at public hearings for cell site applications, and studying cell site project proposals. TICC is recommending changes to the WCFO to address and expedite resolution of cell phone coverage is:;ues. Table A summarizes and compares the key ordinance changes to Chapter 19.108 proposed by the TICC and staff's recommendations. 14-29 Table A: Comparison of TICC-Proposed Ordinance Amendments 8z Staff Recommendations Chapter 19.108: Wireless Communications Facilities Proposal Ordinance Section TICC Proposal Staff Recommendation No. 1 19.108.040(B) -Site • Allow in Mixed Use PD, . Concur Locations RI3S, OS 8t PR zones • Exclude from R1, R1C, Concur R2 8i R3 zoned 8z used properties. • Proposal silent on Exclude cell sites from Residential PD's Residential PD's. • Allow on non-City utility • Concur poles and towers, regardless of zoning district. 2 19.108.050(A) -General Delete exception requirement Site Development that a mast or tower section more Concur Regulations than 30 feet above the ground 19.108.100(A) -Exceptions shall have a cross section width of 12 inches 3 19.108.050(0 )(1) -General Limit Residential towers and Recommend deletion. The Site Development larger masts to one on lots less ordinance already treats Regulations than 30,000 sq. ft., and two on residential and commercial aerials larger lots the same with respect to concentration on the lot. . Additional language added to clar' intent. 4 19.108.060(B)(2)- Specific Define 50-foot setback of antenna Concur, but exclude building- Site Development from habitable structure, not mounted antennae from setback Regulations residential property line. requirement in a mixed-use planned development, which is consistent with TICC Pro osal #1 5 19.108.070- Design and Add additional design and siting Concur. Add one more criterion: Siting Review criteria: . Allow design and siting of • Gaps in coverage that aerials as context- would create emergency appropriate public art. communication problems. • Viability of alternative locations, such as commercial, industrial, office and public buildin sites. 6 Various places Minor wording changes to clarify Concur. Several additional language and intent. wording changes/corrections to correct grammar, clarity language and intent. 14-30 MCA-2008-04 -Amendments to Wireless Communications. Facilities Ordinance, CMC 19.1 OS November 25, 2008 Page 4 Staff Comments on Key Ordinance Change Proposals Proposal #1) 19.108.040(B) -Site Locations City areas that have little to no cell phone coverage are in the hillsides and the western and southern residential neighborhoods of Cupertino where there are few cell sites. The ordinance amendments begin to address this issue by .allowing wireless communication facilities in the hillsides (RHS) zoned areas, public parks (PR-zoned areas) and in closer proximity to residential dwellings. Exhibit G shows these land use/cell site relationships. The map depicts where existing, wireless communication facilities are located (red symbols); where the current ordinance potentially allows such facilities I;green areas); and the TICC-proposed additional areas (yellow-orange areas). Additional site locations that are not mapped, are all City and non-City-owned utility poles and towers, regardless of zoning district. The original language was ambiguous and the changes recommended by TICC and staff clarify the City's intent. The ordinance changes are consistent with California Public Utility CodE~ that allows wireless telephone companies to locate their equipment on telephone poles, and City Council decisions to lease City street light poles for wireless Internet antenna installations. The ordinance changes are consistent with the WFMP, which suggests using City parks for the location of cell facilities, as well as utility poles and towers as a means of developing a wireless co*nr+~unications network in residential areas. (WFMP, Chapter 5: Locations and Structures (1)(B), (3)) Proposal #2) 19.108.050(A) -General Site Development_Reeulations_8r,_19.1Q8.lOOCA) -Exceptions A Planning Commission exception is required when a mast or tower section over 30 feet in height cannot fit within a 12-inch square. For structural reasons, this requirement is not feasible for ham radio towers and all cellular monopoles where collocation of additional antennas is a requirement. TICC and staff are recommending deletion of this requirement from the ordinance. Proposal #3) 19.108.050(C )(1) -General Site De_v__elopment Regulations TICC proposes limiting the number of residential/home occupation antenna towers and larger masts (typically ham radio facilities) to one on lots less than 30,000 sq. ft., and two on larger Iots. The existing ordinance already accomplishes this objective and the new wording is unnecessary. Staff is recom~-+-+ending deletion of the wording and adding text to clarify the intent. Recommendations are incorporated i:n the staff-version of the ordinance. 14-31 MCA-2008-04 -Amendments to Wireless Communications Facilities Ordinance, CMC 19.108 November 25, 2008 Page 5 Proposal #4) 19.108.060(B)~2Lpecific Site Development Regulations This proposal changes the (commercial, office, industrial and/or public) 50-fpot antenna setback by measuring it to a habitable structure, instead of a residential property line. It makes all potential cell sites more feasible for antenna locations. Staff concurs with the change but recommends additional clarifying language that: • Exempts from the setback requirement, antenna mounted to existing utility poles and towers. Most utility poles are setback 20 feet from a dwelling. • Exempts from the setback requirement, antenna mounted to a building in a mixed use planned development project. This is consistent with the TICC proposal # 1, allowing cell sites in mixed use planned developments. Recornmendations are incorporated in the staff-version of the ordinance. Proposal #5) 19.108.070- Design and Siting; Review This proposal adds other criteria for decisionmakers to consider when reviewing the design and siting of wireless facilities: • Gaps in coverage that would create emergency communication problems. • Viability of alternative locations, such as commercial, industrial, office and public building sites. Staff recoiizizlends adding one more criterion: • Allow design and siting of aerials as context-appropriate public art. There may be circumstances where a stealth antenna monopole is less preferable to having an opportunity to create acontext-appropriate piece of public art that incorporates a cell site facility. Tlus recommendation is incorporated in the staff-version of the ordinance- The proposed criteria are consistent with the WFMP goal to protect community aesthetics and promote safety by planning for well-designed cell facilities (WFMP, Chapter 2: Goals) and the WFMP's policy to prefer non-residential locations to residential locations (WFMP, Chapter 5: Locations 8i Structures). 14-32 MCA-2008-04 -Amendments to Wireless Communications Facilities Ordinance, CMC 19.108 November 25, 2008 Page 6 Provosal #61 Other Chanf~es TICC has made some proposals and staff has added other changes to correct grammer, edit ambiguous language to clarify intent and reinforce the key changes, and simplify the language. These minor changes do not affect the content, but make the ordinance easier to read and understand. Environmental Review The Environmental Review Committee identified two potentially significant environmental impacts associated with the Ordinance project: 1) Visual Impacts: There could be significant visual impacts because the potential new site locations, hillsides and parks, have generally fewer, taller structures that could be use to integrate the appearance of a tall aerial, like a monopole. Mitigation: The potential visual impacts will be mitigated by the WFMP design and siting guidelines which articulate criteria to lessen visual impacts. In addition, the WCFO has existing provisions that require greater public scrutiny and review when a wireless facility has visual impacts. 2) Tree Loss Impacts: Hillside and park hinds have large number of trees that may be affected by the cell site development that may include an antenna mast, base equipment enclosure and trenching associated with the undergrounding of cables. This may cause potential loss of surrounding trees. Mitigation: Potential tree loss will be nutigated by the City's Protected Tree Ordinance and Tree Removal Permit Process, which require replacement of protected trees removed by development. Another mitigation is the permitting requirements in the WCFO, which can require additional landscaping for non-protected trees removed by development. Prepared by: Colin Jung, Senior Planner Approved by: Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Developme Attachments Planning Commission Model Resolution and ordinance wording ERC Recommendation, Initial Study Exhibit A: Staff-Revised TICC-Proposed Ordinance Amendments Exhibit B: TICC-Proposed Ordinance Amendments Exhibit C: Current Ordinance- Chapter 19.10!3 '14 - 33 MCA-2008-04 -Amendments to Wireless Communications Facilities Ordinance, CMC 19.108 November 25, 2008 Page 7 Exhibit D: Wireless Facilities Master Plan Exhibit E: City Council Report from TICC dated September 4, 2007 Exhibit F: City Council Meeting Minutes from September 4, 2007 Exhibit G: Wireless Communications Facilities Ordinance Map showing existing facilities; existing, potentially allowable sites; and proposed locations. 14-34 CITY OF CU7PERTINO RECOMMENDATION OF ENVIROI~fMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE November 6, 2008 As provided by the Environmental Assessment Procedure, adopted by the City Council of the City of Cupertino on May 27, 1983, as amended, the following described project was reviewed by the Environmental Revie~~ Committee of the City of Cupertino on November 6, 2008. PROTECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATIOt7 Application No.: MCA-2008-04 (EA-2008-09) Applicant: City of Cupertino Location: citywide DISCRETIONARY ACTION REQUEST Municipal Code Amendmerit to Chapter 19..108- Wireless Communications Facilities- regarding the expansion of potential site locations, adding to design and siting review criteria and miscellaneous technical changes FINDINGS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL REEVIEW COMMITTEE The Environmental Review Committee recommends the granting of a Negative Declaration finding that the project is consistent with the General Plan and has no significant environmental impacts. /s/Steve Piasecki Steve Piasecki Director of CoN+munity Development g/erc/XEC EA-2008-09 14-35 EA File No. ~ Case File No. A - zoo8= c~j MG 19 -7.opR- o~ N: PROJECT DESCRIPTIO ttachments ` t Project Title: N1uv,i ci~~A a~ T Project Location: C ~~v w ~c~.2, Project Description: ~ -TV~~1fl~Y`n2~ [~1 +° G~~~~ « ~~g' e i W"-'p~-S% ~""'N`v'h'c~a~~''`S ~0.C~`~`~`~ a ~o~i Environmental Setting: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: SEte Area (ac.) - Building Coverage - % Exist. Building - s. Bidg. - s.f- Zone - G_P. Designation - •iw.~io u S f. Proposed Assessor's Parcel No. - - -~_wriouS if Residential, Units/Gross Acre - h) 1 A Unit Type #1 Unit Type #2 Unit Type #3 Unit Type #4 Unit Type #5 Total# Rental/Own Bdrms I Total s.f. I Price Applicable Special Area Plans: (Check) [~ Monta Vista Design Guidelines ~ O N. De Anza Conceptual 0 [~ Stevens Crk Blvd. Conceptual O If Non-Residential, Building Area - '~,/~1 s. Employees/Shift - Parking Required n Project Site is Within Cupertino Urban Service Area - S. De Anza Conceptual S. Sara-Sunny Conceptual Stevens Creek Blvd. SW 8~ Landscape f. FAR - ~o Max. Parking Provided O YES )~ NO O 14-36 A. CUPERTINO GENERAL PLAN SOURCES ~ . Land Use Element 2. Public Safety Element 3. Housing Element 4. Transportation Element 5. Environmental Resources 6. Appendix A- Hillside Development 7. Land Use Map 8. Noise Element Amendment 9. City Ridgeline Policy ~O. Constraint Maps B. CUPERTINO SOURCE DOCUMENTS 11. Tree Preservation ordinance 778 12. City Aerial Photography Maps 13. "Cupertino Chronicle° (California History Center, '1976) 14. Geological Report (site specific) ~ 5_ Parking Ordinance '1277 16. Zoning Map 17. Zoning Code/Specific Plan Documents ~ a. City Noise Ordinance C. CITY AGENCIES Site ~ 9. Community Development Dept. List 20. Public Works Dept. 21. Parks & Recreation Department 22. Cupertino Water Utility D. OUTSIDE AGENCIES 23. County Planning Department 24. Adjacent Cities' Planning Departments 25. County Departmental of Environmental Health D. OUTS[DE AGENCIES (Continued) 26. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 27. County Parks and Recreation Department 28. Cupertino Sanitary District 29_ Fremont Union High School District 30. Cupertino Union School District 31. Pacific Gas and Electric 32. Santa Clara County Fire Department 33. County Sheriff 34. CALTRANS 35. County Transportation Agency 36. Santa Clara Valley Water District E. OUTSIDE AGENCY DOCUMENTS 37. BAAQMD Survey of Contaminant 38. Excesses FEMA Flood Maps/SCVWD Flood Maps 39. USDA, "Solis of Santa Clara County" 40. County Hazardous Waste Management Plan 47. County Heritage Resources Inventory 42_ Santa Clara Valley Water District Fuel Leak Site 43. CaIEPA Hazardous Waste and . Substances Site F. OT HER SOURCES 44. Project Plan Set/Application Materials 46. Field Reconnaissance 46_ Experience w/protect of similar scope/characteristics 47. ABAG Projection Series A. Complete all information requested on the Initial Study Cover page. LEAVE BLANK SPACES ONLY WHEN A SPECIFIC ITEM IS NOT APPLICABLE. B. Consult the Initial Study Source List; use the materials listed therein to complete, the checklist information in Categories A through O. C. You are encouraged to cite other relevant sources; if such sources are used, job in their title(s) in the "Source" column next to the question to which they relate. D. If you check any of the "YES" response to any questions, you must attach a sheet explaining the potential impact and suggest mitigation if neeeded. E. When explaining any yes response, label your answer clearly (Example °N - 3 Historical") Please try to respond concisely, and place as many explanatory responses as possible on each oaoe_ F. Upon completing the checklist, sign and dates the Preparer's Affidavit. G. Please attach the following materials before submitting the Initial Study to the City. /Project Pian Set of Legislative Document /Location map with site clearly marked (when applicable) 14-37 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: T R .+ t 1 V o ed N O~ V ,.~ R ~ ~.+ .+ ISSUES: . w / C ~ ~ ~ 1--" ~ R ~ rn ~ '3 as Q- 1--- LU e6 rn .E Q 6 G ~ z ~Q- ~ [and Supporting Information Sources] rn a ~ to ~ ~ J to ` 1. AESTHETICS -- Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a O O J81 O scenic vista? [5,9,24,41,44] Ib) Substantially damage scenic resources, O O ~ ~ including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? [5,9,11,24,34,41,44] ' c) Substantially degrade the existing visual ~ 0 ~ ~ character or quality of the site and its - ~ • surroundings? [1,17,19,44] d) Create a new source of substantial light or D ~ ~ $~ - glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? [1,16,44] I1. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In - determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique ~ O O ,J8[ Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? [5,7,39] b) Conflict with existing zoning for O O O ,§~ agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? [5,7,23] c) Involve other changes in the existing ~ O O 1~. environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? [5,7,39] 14-38 ISSUES: [and Supporting Information Sources] III. AIR QUALITY -Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? [5,37,42,44] b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? [5,37,42,44] c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? [4,37,44] _ d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? [4,37,44] e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? [4,37,44] IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: _ a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local oar regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S_ Fish and Wildlife Service? [5,10,27,44] _ b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? [5,10,27,44] c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act r~~i~ ~rt~nn_ but not limited to, marsh, vernal _ ~+ C ~+ ~ C w - .. R ~ C~ !- ~ w y °•3 R a w' ~.'- t C h Z Q m c E , n c rnE ~ ~ O- N J y ~ C J N 0 o a ~ 0 0 ~o ~ p p O : JAI p p ~ • .i p p ~ ~. .. . tp .. E i O ~ ~ sue. ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 o ~ a ~ o ~ ~~ 14-39 ISSUES: ~ ~ `a H .'= = rn °~ ` 3 ~' '= c z cR.. [and Supporting Information Sources] o ~ ~ o '~' ~ a~ J ~ C N a~ E J t ~ - d Cn fJ> o pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? [20,36,44] d) Interfere substantially with the movement O O O ~ of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? [5,10,12,21,26] e) Conflict with any local policies or ~ ~ D ~' ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or , ordinance? [11,12,41] - f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted r Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural O ~ O J~ Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? [5,10,26,27] V_ CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: _ a) Cause a substantial adverse change in O ~ O :~, the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? [5,13,41] b) Cause a substantial adverse change in O O [~ ~ the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? [5,13,41] _ c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique ~ ~ ~ ~ paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? [5,13,41 ] d) Disturb any human remains, including ~ ~ D [23_ those interred outside of formal cemeteries? [1,5] V1. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as ~ O D delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the 14-40 T R w R v V o R R O R L V = rt+ L ... R R w t (~ V V ISSUES: ~ _ ~ ~ . rn c 3 •°-~ Q- cn = c ~ Z Q ~ [and Supporting Information Sources] . a N ~ N ~ c J in State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. [2,14,44] ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? ~ ~ O [2, 5,10,44] iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including O O O ,jam liquefaction? [2,5,10,39,44] iv) Landslides? [2,5,10,39,44] O 0 ~ b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the D ~ 0 ,~ loss of topsoil? [2,5,10,44] c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is O ~ ~ ,~ unstable, or that would become unstable as aresult of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? [2, 5,10,39] d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined ~ O O ~ in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1997), creating substantial risks to life or property? [2,5,10] e) Have soils incapable of adequately O O ~ - ,~ supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? [6,9,36,39] VII. HAZARDS AND,HAZARDOUS MATERIALS -Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or ~ O O ~ the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? (32,40,42,43,44] b) Create a significant hazard to the public or D ~ O ~ the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? [32,40,42,43,44] c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle O ,~. ~ 4 hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile 14-41 R V V R = o S v~~ id ~ ... L V" V V ISSUES: S i ~ i'=' `° ~ ti ~'= "= rn a. ~ ~ `.= Q- ~ z Q. ~ on ources] [and Supporting Informat a y ~ ~ J N ~ n r of an existing or proposed school? [2,29,30,40,44] d) Be located on a site which is included on a ~ ~ ~ list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? [2,42,40,43] e) For a project located within an airport land ~ ~ f7 .~, use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? [ ] f) For a project within the vicinity of a private O O O - airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the , project area? [ ] g) Impair implementation of or physically ~ O O ,~ intertere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? [2,32,33,44] h) Expose people or structures to a ~ ~ O significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wiidlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wiidlands?[1 ,2,44] VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY -- Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or ~ O O ,)~. waste discharge requirements? [20,36,37] b) Substantially deplete groundwater O O D ~. supplies or intertere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? [20,36,42] is-az is R ~ o L c~a t° r° .~. t ~ v v ISSUES: ti S ~ ~ `6 ~ . ~ ~~~~ y ~ c ~ Z c ~ on ources) [and Supporting Informa ~ n J ~ ~ c J ~ i c) Substantially alter the existing drainage [~ [~ ~ ~[ pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion of siltation on- or off-site'? [14, 20.,36] d) Substantially alter the existing drainage [7 ~ O ~_ pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site [20,36,38] e) Create or contribute runoff water which o 0 0 >g would exceed the capacity of existing or ' planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additions{ sources of polluted runoff? [20,36,42] f) Otherwise substantially degrade water ~ O O ,~ quality? [20,36,37] g) Place housing within a 100-yearflood ~O O O j~ hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? [2 38] _ h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard are~i O O ~ ~ ~)~ structures which would impede or redirect _ flood flows? [2,38] i) Expose people or structures to a significant ~ ~ O ~ risk of loss, injury or death involving floodincl, including flooding as a result of the failure oi` a levee or dam? [2,36,38] j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or ~ O ~ ~ mudflow? [2,36,38] IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Wouid the project: a) Physically divide an established O O O ~~ community? [7,12,22,41] b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, O ~ O policy, or regulation of an agency with 14-43 R R *i V o L RS ~ ~ ~. .C O V O V ISSUES: r=. R ~ ~ ~ H V~ R O y ~ '3 a~ o R F--' N ~ ~ O e6 z ~ [and Supporting Information Sources] o N J y ~ c J N n . jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? [1 ,7,8,16,17,18,44] c) Conflict with any applicable habitat ~ O O J~ conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? [1 ,5,6,9,26] X. MINERAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known O D ~ ~ mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? [5 ,1 O] b) Result in the loss of availability of a ~ 0 ~ locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? [5,10] XI. NOISE -- Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to, or generation of, O O ~ ~1` noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? [8,18,44] b) Exposure of persons to or generation of ~ O O excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? [8,78,44] c) A substantial permanent increase in ~ O ~ ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? [$.18] d) A substantial temporary or periodic ~ ~ ~ ,~ increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? [8,18,44] e) For a project Located within an airport land O O D ~~ use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project ex ose people residing or working in the 14-44 l6 V t1 o '~ V ~ w:+ v ._, .C ~~j V ISSUES: S i ~ ~ is ~ w = 3 as s- y = s ~ y z° Q- ~ on ources] [and Supporting Informat c rn d a~ ~ ~ J ~ i rn a O.. CA fn C J d7 project area to excessive noise levels? [8.18,44] f) For a project within the vicinity of a private ~ ~ D airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? [8,18] XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING -- Woulci the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an O O O ~ area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? [3,16,47,44] b) Displace substantial numbers of existing D ~ 0 J~ housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? [3,16,44] c) Displace substantial numbers of people, ~ ~ ~ ~, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? [3,16,44] XII1. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial _ adverse physical impacts associated with thc~ - provision of new or physically altered - . - governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the: construction of which could cause significant: environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? [19,32,44] O O O Police protection? [33,44] ~ D ~ ~ ,~ Schools? [29,30,44] O ~ O Parks? [5,17,19,21,26,27,44] O ~ O ~. Other public facilities? [19,20,44] O ~ ~ XIV_ RECREATION -- a) Would the project increase the use of O ~ ~ ~ existing neighborhood and regional parks or 14-45 R ~ ~ C O ~ t6 ~ ~~.. = L la V V ISSUES: y -~ ~ rn •E '3 rn s ~ -E Q- ~ z Q- ~ [and Supporting Information Sources] a y n ~ c ~ ~ y r other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? [5,17,19,21,26,27,44] b) Does the project include recreational ~ ~ ~ .~ facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? [5,44] XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC -- Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is ~ O O ~ substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? [4,20,35,44] b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, O D O ~ a level of service standard established by the i ~ ~ .. county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? [4,20,44] - c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, ~ ~ ~ - j~ including either an increase in traffic levels or ' a change in location that results in - substantial safety risks? [4,?] d) Substantially increase hazards due to a O- D ~ ~ ~ design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? [20,35,44] e) Result in inadequate emergency access? O O ~ ~ [2,19, 32, 33,44] f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? O ~ D ~, [17,44] g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or ~ Q ~ j$ programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? [4,34] XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS - Would the project: 14-46 ~, R _ ~° lQ eC6 O R ~~ R R w ISSUES: [and Supporting Information Sources] y = ~ a H c ~ a~ Q- J ~ = vi '_ c ~ ~ z Q- E y N J a) Exceed wastewater treatment ~ O O requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? [5,22,28,36,44] b) Require or result in the construction of f~ O O ~l new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? [36,22,28,36] c) Require or result in the construction of l~ ~ 0 ~ new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the ' construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? [5,22,28,36,44] e) Result in a determination by the O ~ O ,~]_ - wastewater treatment provider which serves, or may serve the project that it has adequat~a - capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existincl commitments? [5,22,28,36,44] ~ - f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient O O 0 = permitted capacity to accommodate the - project's solid waste disposal needs? [?] ' g) Comply with federal, state, and focal ~ O ~ ~ statutes and regulations related to solid - waste? [?] - 14-47 ~~ -~ _, r ~° ~ ,.."~ ~, o., ~co p eke : - -:~ a . a) Does the project have the potential to D ~ ~ ,~ degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? ^ b) Does the project have impacts that are O O ~ ~ individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, - and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental ~ D D effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or " indirectly? ^ hereby certify that the information provided in this Initial Study is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief; I certify that 1 have used proper diligence in responding accurately to all questions Herein, and have consulted appropriate source references when necessary to ensure full and complete disclosure of relevant environmental data. I hereby acknowledge tha_ n any substantial errors dated within this Initial Study may cause delay or discontinuance of related project review procedures, and hereby agree to hold harmless the City of Cupertino, its staff and authorized agents, from the consequences of such delay or discontinuance. ~ .-. Preparer's Signature Print Preparer's 14-48 ~- ~ = = --P EIJ~[ t?ON EN'fAL. €1EALU~IO~cs~ba~Compjete`d by C ijt~°Staff)~-F~~-~~=.. ~- -' ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ~( Aesthetics O Agriculture Resources ~ Air Quality 1~, Biological Resources O Cultural Resources ~ Geology /Soils O Hazards & Hazardous Materials O Hydrology /Water Quality D Land Use /Planning ~ Mineral Resources ~ Noise ~ Population /Housing ~ Public Services O Recre=ation ~ Transportation/Traffic ~ Utilities /Service Systems O Mand~story Findings of Significance DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) finds that: ~ The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ~ Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. O The proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPOR=T is required. O The proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 't) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal. standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only tl~e effects that remain to be addressed. O Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on-the environment, bec=ause all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARA-rION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is re=quired. _ ~~' Staff Evaluato ~~ :- ~~~ ERC CYiairp~erson //~~~~8 Date ~ C// ,~ /6 ~ Date / 14-49 Environmental Analysis Notes for File No. MCA-2008-04: Municipal Code Amendment to Chapter 19.108: Wireless Communications Facilities Ordinance Aesthetics Impact: The project has the potential impact to create adverse, aesthetic effects, particularly in areas considered that are considered visually sensitive, such as, OS (Open Space), RHS (Residential Hillside) and PR (Parks) zoning districts. Mitigation: The Wireless Ordinance provides different levels of permitting, public noticing and review, depending on the visual intrusiveness of the structure. The Wireless Facilities Master Plan provides detailed siting and design guidelines to avoid negative visual impacts from personal wireless service facilities. Biological Resources Impact: The placement of monopoles and their associated base equipment stations may cause the removal of significant size trees that are protected by City Ordinance. Mitigation: The City's protected tree ordinance provides specific replacement requirements for removal of protected trees. In addition, design review required through the wireless ordinance allows the City to require additional trees for visual screening purposes. is-so Staff-revised TICC Draft E7rhjb~t A CHAPTER 19.108: WIRELESS CI~MMUNICATIONS FACILITIES Section 19.108.010 Purpose. 19.108.020 Applicability of regulations. 19.108.030 Definitlons. 19.108.040 Site locations. 19.108.050 General site development regulations. 19.108.060 Specific site development regulations. 19.108.070 Design and siting review. 19.108.080 Application requirements. 19.108.090 Pertnfttlng. 19.108.100 Exceptions. 19.108.010 Purpose. The-~ur~pese-a€ Tthis chaptervis-ta estabiishg, a~er~eFiertsWe-setsf regulations pertaining to the location, siting, development, design and permitting of wireless communications facilities for all zones existing in this city in order to: A. Facilitate the development of a wireless communications infrastructure In the City for commercial, public and emergency uses, and B. Protect the health, safety, welfare and aesthetic conaarns of the public. _(Ord. 1736, (part), 1996; Ord. 1601, Exh. A (part), 1992) 19.108.020 Applicability of Reguilations. This chapter s#sail applyles to all types of aerials and associated facilities used for wireless communications, that is, the transmitting and/or receiving of voice, data, video images and other information through the air via signals in the radio and microwave frequency band. This Includes aerials for amateur radio, television, wireless modems, cellular phones, enhanced specialized mobile radio (ESMR), personal communications services (PCS), paging systems, satellite communications and other wireless communicatlon technologies utilizing signals In the radio and microwave frequency band. No wireless communication facility: antennas, masts, towers and associated equipment shall be hereaker erected, structurally altered or enlarged other than in conformance with the provisions of this chapter and other applicable provisions of this title. (Ord. 1736, (part), 1996; Ord. 1601, Exh, A (part), 1992) 19.108.030 Definitions. As used in this chapter, the following terms are defined (n this section: A. "Aerial° means a stationary transmitting and/or receiving wireless communication device consisting of one or any combination of the elements listed below: 1. "Antenna" means a horizontal or vertical element or array, panel or dish that may be attached [o a mast or a tower for the purpose of transmitting or receiving radio or microwave frequency signals. 14-51 1 Staff-revised TICC Drab 2. "Mast° means a vertical element consisting of a tube or rod, which supports an antenna. 3. "Towel means a vertical framework of cross elements, which supports either an antenna, mast or both. 4. "Guy wires" means wires necessary to insure the safety and stability of an antenna, mast or both. B. "Collocation" means the placement of aerials and other facilities belonging to two or more communication service providers on a single mast or building. (Ord. 1736, (part), 1996; Ord. 1601, Exh. A (part), 1992) 19.108.040 Site Locations. A. Residential and Home Occupation Aerials. 1. Aerials intended for the private use of onsite residents and guests and for home occupation purposes ~aY--be are allowed on all residentially zoned and used properties. B. Commercial, Office, Industrial, Public Utility Aerials. Aerials intended for commercial, office, industrial and public use are prohibited on residentially zoned and used properties. except RHS and mixed-use planned development zoned properties, htstaFisat4y 2. Such aerials~a are allowed in all other zoning districts pursuant to permitting procedures established under Section 19.108.090. S. c ..,~... .-. n.._. .-.u.....~.a _ .a o n .. ors . aa,.... ._.~~ 4. _^Suc^ aerials are allowed on 6ity utility poles and towers. regardless of the zoning district. as Iona as the aerial complies with Section 19.108.080(cl. (Ord. 1736, (part), 1996) 19.108.050 General Site Development Regulations. Provisions in Section 19.106.050 apply to all residential and home occupation. commerdal, office. industrial and public utility aerials. A. Aerials. 1. The height of receiving aerials, shall not exceed forty-nine feet above Qcew~d-{eyel- finished grade measured at the mast base, unless otherwise provided in accordance with Section 19.108.060. 2. Transmitting ev and transmitting and receiving aerials shall not exceed a height of fifty-five feet above gcauad-level- finished grade measured at the mast base, unless otherwise provided in accordance with Section 19.106.060. B. Antenna. 1. An antenna consisting of a single vertical element not more than four Inches in diameter in lieu of a horizontal arrangement shall be excepted from the height restriction. 19-52 Staff-revised TICC Draft 2. Antennas and/or guy wires shall not overlap ad,ioining properties and shall not encroach upon an easement without the written consent of the owner of the ~aasement which shall be attached to the application for a building permit. C. Masts and Towers. 1 . The number of towers, and detached masts exceeding eight inches in diameter at the base and thirty feet in height at~oye ground level, allowed--per-lot shall be limited as fol lowsed: Lot Size Maximum Number of Towers and Deta~;hed Masts per lot Less than 30,000 One- square feet 30,000 square feet or Two. Additional towers, and detached more masts, above two, not meeting the criteria stated In Section 19.108A50.C.1. require use permit approval by the Planning Commission. 2. Wood towers shall not be erected. , . dam - ~ 19.108.060 Specific Site Develo~~ment Regulations. A. Residential and Home Occupation Aerials. 1 . Aerials with panel or dish antennas of more th~ n ten square feet shall comply with the setbacks and height limits for accessory structures. 2. Masts and towers shall be located at least ten feet to the rear of the front buildinc setback line and shall be set back at least six feet from any orooerty boundary. B. Commercial, Office, Industrial, Public Utility Aerials. ~ . Aerials mounted on buildings that exceed the aerial height limits stated in Section 19.'108.050 may eMend six feet above the building parapet wall- An additional one foot of height Is allowed for every ten feet that the aerial is setback from the parapet, to a ma~:imum hetght of ten feat above the building parapet, before a height exception is required- 2. With the exception of a utility Dole or tower used as an aerial. detached masts and towers shall be located rye-sleser~a set back a minimum of fifty feet from a residentially zoned pcapeHy habitable structure thara €ifry-feet or a distance equal to one foot for eyeiy one foot of structure hetght, whichever is greater. Building mounted aerials should-be--lacafad sh~rll be set back a minimum of fifty feet horizontally from any 14-53 3 Sta ff-revised TICC Df-a, ft residentially zoned Y habitable structure. except habitable structures in a mixed-use planned development. (Ord. 1736, (part), 1996) 3. Base equipment stations shall comply with the setbacks of the zoning district and the Cifv's noise standards provided in Chanter '10.48. 19.108.070 Design and Siting Review. For aerials requiring discretionary review, the primary review objectives is are to ensure the opals of ~ 9.'106.0'10 are met and to blend the design of the aerial into the surrounding environment, or site the aerial in such a manner to minimize the visual intrusiveness of the structure or integrate the aerial design and siting into the environment as public art. This review may include, but not be limited to, the following criteria: A. GADS in coverage that would create emergency communication problems B. Viability of alternative locations. such as commercal. industral_ office and public building sites C. Method of antenna-mounting that is wall-mounting roof-mounting or a freestanding structure. D€. the-use-ef~ Colors, materials and textures to integrate the aerial Into the surrounding environment or building; EO. Ths-use-at 1 Landscaping to screen the aerial; _ F8. -the-$ Proximity and visibliity of the aerial to residential properties and public right-0f-ways; G€. TJiaft Dispersal of aerial locations to avoid visual Gutter; HF. Tlie-s Concentration of aerial locations to avoid visual duffer; 16. Opportunities for collocation of aerials on existing masts and towers where visual intrusiveness is reduced; Jki. T+~e-d Design of the building or enclosure which houses the related base equipment and its compatibility with the adjoining building architecture; j«. Opportunities to develop context-aoorooriata public art- Ld. T~Tb Balancing of aesthetic concerns with the need to provide a functional communications system. (Ord. '1736, (part), '1996) 19.108.080 Application Requirements. In addition to the standard application requirements, the applicant may be required to provide the following materials- A. If more than one aerial is planned in the City within a year by a single communication service provider, a master plan shall be prepared of all fadlities that can be reasonably foreseen, showing the proposed aerial sites and existing commercial, office, industrial and public utility aerial locations within a one mile radius of the proposed sites. Tha purpose of this requirement is to identify opportunities for clustering, dispersal and collocation of aerials to reduce visual intrusiveness; f4-54 4 Staff-revised TICC Ds°aft B. Erection of a mock aertal, computer simulation or sighs. line elevations for all aerials to help assess the visual effects; C. Documentation that the technology and usage of that technology meets Federal Communications Commisslon adopted safety standards. (Ord. 1736, (part), 1996) 19.108.090 Permitting. A. For ail zoning distrcts, aerials that exceed maximum height limits require a height exception except as otherwise provided in Section 19.108.060. B. For zoning districts that require design review, pertniU.ing procedures shall be as follows: 1 . For aerials that are minimally visible to residential properties and public rights-of-way, the Director of Community Development shall process such applications fn accordance with Chapter 19.132. 2. For building-mounted aerials that are moderately visible to residential properties and public rghts-of-way, the Director of Community Development, in his discretion, may refer an application to the Planning Commission for arshitestacaVSita desien revieyi and ~ aoeroval in accordance with Chapter 19.132. , .. :.. o...:~.-.~~ - 3. For detached aerials that are moderately to highly visible to residential properties and public rights-of-way, a use permit approved by the Planning Commission is required. 4. Abandonment. All City approvals for new aeri~ils and modifications of existing aerial approvals shall be conditioned to require the removal of the aerial and its associated facilities if the aerial is not used for its permitted purpose for a period of eighteen months: The property owner or applicant shall bear [he entire cost of tlemolition. (Ord. 1736, (part), 1996) 5. All commercial. office. industrial. and public utility aerial mast and tower approvals shall be conditioned to allow the cellocaUon of aerials and related facilities of other commercial, office. industrial. and public utility users where appropriate and feasible. 19.108.100 Exceptions. A. A_Tr €excepflons may be granted by the Planning Cormission for an aerial heights exceeding the maximum limits where practical difficulties, unnecessary hardships, or results inconsistent with the purpose and intent of this chapter result from strict application of the chapter provisions. B. A request for exception must be submitted on a forth as prescribed by the Director of Community Development. The application shall be accompanied by a fee prescribed by City Council resolution. Upon receipt of an exception application, a time and place for a public hearing before the Planning Commission shall be set. A Notice of Public Hearing for an exception under this chapter shall be given in the same manner as provided in Section 19.120.060. The Planning Commission shall Bold a public hearing at which time the Planning Commission may grant the exception based upon all of the following findings: 1. That the literal enforcement of the provisions cf this chapter will result to restrictions inconsistent with the spirit and intent of this chapter; 2. That granting of an exception will not result in :3 condition that will be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be me~.terially detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare; 3. That the exception To be granted will not result In a hazardous condition for pedestrian and vehicular traffic. C. After closing the public hearing, the Planning Commisslon may approve, conditionally approve or deny the application for exception. The Commission's decision on the exception request may be appealed to the City Council as provided for in Sec-.tiara Chanter 19.136.96fk (Ord_ 1736, Cpart), 1996) 14-55 5 Exhibit B TICC D~a~ i CHAPTER 19.108: WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES Section 19.108.010 Purpose. 19.108.020 Applicability of regulations. 19.108.030 Definitions. 19.108.040 Site locations. 19.108.050 General site development regulations. ', 19.108.060 Specific site development regulations. 19.108.070 Design and siting review. 19.108.080 Application requirements. 19.108.090 Permitting. 19.108.100 Exceptions. 19.'108.010 Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to establish a comprehensive set of regulations pertaining to the location, siting, development, design and permitting of wireless communications facilities for all zones existing in this city in order to: A. Facilitate the development of a wireless communications infrastructure in the City for commercial, public and emergency uses, and B. Protect the health, safety, welfare and aesthetic concerns of the public. (Ord. 1736, (part), 1996; Ord. 1601, Exh. A (Part), 1992) 19.108.020 Applicability of Regulations. This chapter shall apply to all types of aerials and associated facilities used for wireless communications, that Is, the transmitting and/or receiving of voice, data, video images and other information through the air via signals in the radio and microwave frequency band. This Includes aerials for amateur radio, television, wireless modems, cellular phones, enhanced specialized mobile radio (ESMR), personal communications services (PCSj, paging systems, satellite communications and other wireless communication technologies utilizing signals in the radio and microwave frequency band. No wireless communication facility: antennas, masts, towers and associated equipment shall be hereafter erected, structurally altered or enlarged other than in conformance with the provisions of this chapter and other applicable provisions of this title. (Ord. 1736, (part), 1996; Ord. 1601, Exh. A (part), 1992) 19.108.030 Definitions. As used in this chapter, the following terms are defined in this section: A. "Aerial' means a stationary transmitting and/or receiving wireless communication device consisting of one or any combination of the elements listed below: 14-56 TICC D~a t 1. "Antenna° means a horizontal or vertical element or array, panel or dish that may be attached to a mast or a tower for the purpose of transmitting or receiving radio or microwave frequency signals. 2. "Mast" means a vertical element consisting of a tube or rod which supports an antenna. 3. "Tower' means a vertical framework of cross element:: which supports either an antenna, mast or both. 4. "Guy wires" means wires necessary to insure the safety and stability of an antenna, mast or both. B. "Collocation" means the placement of aerials and oth<:r facilities belonging to two or more communication service providers on a single mast or building. (Ord. 1736, (part), 1996; Ord. 1601, Exh. A (part), 1992) 19.108.040 Site Locations. A. Residential and Home Occupation Aerials. 1. Aerials Intended for residential and home occupation use may be allowed on all residentially zoned and used properties. B. Commercial, Office, Industrial, Public Utility Aerials. 1. Aerials intended for commercial, office, industrial and public use are prohibited on residem-tia11~R1. R1C. R2 and R3 zoned and used properties, , pcaparaiee. 2. Such aerials may be allowed on commercial, office Mixed-Use/Planned Developments. RHS. OS! PR. -and/or industrial zoned properties pursuant to permitting procedures established under Secton 19.108.090. 3. Such aerials may be allowed on properties zoned BA ~~r BO with a use permit or modification of an existing use permit. 4. The City may consider allowing aerials on City-utility poles and towers. regardless of the zon(na district. as Iona as the aerial complies with Section 19.1O8.O9Ofc1. (Ord. 1736, (part), 1996) 19.108.050 General Site Developiment Regulations. A. Aerials. 1. The height of receiving aerials, shall not exceed forty-nine feet above ground level, unless otherwise provided in accordance with Section 19.108.060. 2. Transmitting or transmitting and receiving aerials shall not exceed a height of fifty-five feet above ground level, unless otherwise provided In accordance with Section 19.1 Ot3:J6O. 3. An aerial based on the ground and exceeding a height of thirty-four feet and an aerial based on a building and extending more than twenty-four feet above its space shall rec uire a building permit. The building permit requirements shall include adequate details of the location support device including footing, guy wires and braces to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. B. ~ Antenna. I 1. An antenna consisting of a single vertical element not more than four Inches in diameter in lieu of a horizontal arrangement shall be excepted from the height restriction. 14 - 57 ~. TICC D~a~ 2. Antennas and/or guy wires shall not overlap adjoining properties and shall not encroach upon an easement without the written consent of the owner of the easement which shall be attached to the application for a building permit. C. Masts and Towers. 1. Concentration of Towers and Masts. Residential and Home Occupafion Aerials. The number of towers, and detached masts exceeding eight inches in diameter at the base and thirty feet in height above ground level, allowed per lo[ shall be as followed: Lot Size Maximum Number of Towers and Detached Masts Less than 30,OD0 square feet One. 30,000 square feet or more Two. Additional towers, and detached masts, above two, not meeting the criteria stated in Section 19.108.050. C.1. require use permit approval by the Planning Commission. 2. Wood towers shall not be erected. 3. Masts and towers must be located at least ten feet to the rear of the front building setback line and shall not be closer than six feet to any property boundary. 4. All commercial, office, industrial, and public utility aerial mast and tower approvals shall be conditioned to allow the collocation of aerials and related facilities of other commercial, office, industrial, and public utility users where appropriate and feasible. D. Associated Facilities. 1. Base ecuioment stations shall comply with the setbacks of the zoning district and the City's noise standards provided in Chapter 10.48 of the Municipal Code. (Ord. 1736, (part), 1996) 19.108.060 Specific Site Development Regulations. A. Residential and Home Occupation Aerials. 1. Aerials with panel or tlish antennas of more than ten square feet shall comply with the setbacks and height limits for accessory structures. 6. Commercial, Office, Industrial, Public Utility Aedals 1. Aerials mounted on buildings that exceed the aerial height limits stated in Section 19.108.050 may eMend six feet above the building parapet wall. An additional one foot of height is allowed for every ten feet that the aerial is setback from the parapet, to a maximum height of ten feet above the building parapet, before a height exception is required. 2. Detached masts and towers shall be located no closer to a residentially '~^^' zonedhabitable structure than fifty feet or a distance equal to one foot for every one foot of structure height, whichever is greater. Building mounted aerials should be located a minimum of fifty feet hodzontally from any residentially zoned habitable structureaeaed ;;rte}. (Ord. 1736, (part), 1996) 19.108.070 Design and Siting Review. For aerials requiring discretionary review, the Director of Community Development or the Planning Commission shall review the design and siting of the aerial. The primary objectives -isare to ensure the coals of 19.108.01 O are met and to 14-58 TICC D~a t blend the design of the aerial Into the surrounding environment, or site the aerial in such a manner, to minimize the visual intrusiveness of the structure. This review may include, but rn~t be limited to, the following criteria: A. A. Gaps In coverage that would create emeroen~:v communication problems. B. Vlabllity of alternative locations, such as commercial. industrial. office. and public building sites. C. The weighing of the design and site advantages and disadvantages of await-mounted aerial versus aroof- mounted aerial versus a freestanding aerial; DB. The use of colors, materials and textures to integrate the aerial into the surrounding environment or building; _ E.~. The use of landscaping to screen the aerial; F8. The proximity and visibility of the aerial to residential properties and public right-of-ways; G€_ The dispersal of aerial locations to avoid visual clutter; H€. The concentration of aerial locations to avoid visual clutter; j6. Opportunities for collocation of aerials on existing m~rsts and towers where visual intrusiveness is reduced; Jkl. The design of the building or enclosure which houses the related base equipment and its compatibility with the adjoining building architecture; Kl. The balanGng of aesthetic concerns with the need to provide a functional communications system. (Ord. 7736, (part), ~ 996) 19.108.080 Application Requirernents. in~addition to the standard application requirements, the applicant may be required [o provide the following materials: A. If more than one aerial is planned in the City within a :/ear by a single communication service provider, a master plan shall be prepared of all facilities that can be reasonably foreseen, showing the proposed aerial sites and existing commercial, office, industrial and public utility aerial locations within a one mile radius of the proposed sites. The purpose of this requirement is to identify opportunities for clustering, dispersal and collocation of aerials to reduce visual intrusiveness; - B. Erection of a mock aerial, computer simulation or sight-line elevations for all aerials to help assess the visual effects; C. Documentation that the technology and usage of that technology meets Federal Communications Commission adopted safety standards. (Ord. '1736, (part), '1996) 19.108.090 Permitting. A. For all zoning districts, aerials that exceed maximum Height limits require a height exception except as otherwise provided in Section f 9.'I06.060. - B. For zoning districts that require design review, permitting procedures shall be as follows: 1. For aerials that are minimally visible to residential properties and public rights-of-way, the Director of Community '. Development shall process such applications in accordance with Chapter 19.132, "Administrative Approval of Minor Changes in Projects." 14-59 TICC D~la~t 2. For building-mounted aerials that are moderately visible to residential properties and public rights-of-way, the Director of Community Development, in his discretion, may refer an application to the Planning Commission for s~rclaitesttsr~tfsitadasion review and reGammaadaFiaa-aooroval in accordance with Chapter 19.132, "Administrative Approval of Minor Changes in Projects." 3. For detached aerials that are moderately to highly visible to residential properties and public rights-of-way, a use permit approved by the Planning Commission is required. 4. Abandonment. All City approvals for new aerials and modifications of existing aerial approvals shall be conditioned to require the removal of the aerial and its associated facilities if the aerial is not used for its permitted purpose for a period of eighteen months. The property owner or applicant shall bear the entire cost of demolition. (Ord. 1736, (part), 1996) 19.'108.100 Exceptions. A. Exceptions may be granted by the Planning Commission for seed-aerial heights exceeding the maximum limits where practical difficulties, unnecessary hardships, or results Inconsistent with the purpose and intent of this chapter result from strict application of the chapter provisions. B. A request for exception must be submitted on a form as prescribed by the Director of Community Development. The application shall be accompanied by a fee prescribed by City Council resolution. Upon receipt of an exception application, a time and place for a public hearing before the Planning Commission shall be set. A Notice of Public Hearing for an exception under this chapter shall be given In the same manner as provided in Section 19.120.060. The Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing at which time the Planning Commission may grant the exceptlon based upon all of the following findings: 1 . That the literal enforcement of the provisions of this chapter will result in restrictions inconsistent with the spirit and intent of this chapter; ' 2. That granting of an exception will not result in a condition that will be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare; 3. That the exceptlon to be granted will not result in a hazardous condition for pedestrian and vehicular traffic. C. After Dosing the public hearing, the Planning Commission may approve, conditionally approve or deny the application for exception. The Commission's decision on the exception request may be appealed to the City Council as provided for in Section 19.136.060. (Ord. 1736, (part), 1996) 14-60 Exhibit C CHAPTER 19.108: WIRELF.SS~ COMMULVICATIONS FACIIL•>t't'rFc Section 19.108.010 Purpose. 19.108.020 Applicability of regulations 19.108.030 Definitions. 19.108.040 Site locations. 19.108.050 General site development regulations. 19.108.060 Specific site development regulations. 19.108.070 Design and siting review. 19.108.080 Application requirements. 19.108.090 Permitting. 19.108.100 Exceptions. 19.108.010 Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to establish f~ cotuprehensive set of regulations pe**~;n~*+g to the location,. siting, development, design and permitting of wireless communications facilities for all zones existing in this cit}r in order to: A_ Facilitate the development of a wireless: communications infrastructure is the City for commercial, public and emergency uses, and B. Protect the health, safety, welfaze and aesthetic concerns of the public. (Ord. 1736, (part), 1996; Ord.. 1601, Exh. A (part), 1992) 19.108_020 Applicability of Regulations. This chapter shall apply to all types of aerials anct associated facilities used for wireless communications, that is, the tra~,c..,;tting and/or receiving of voice, data, video images and other information through the air via signals itt the radio and microwave frequency band. This includes aerials for a,,,ar.-.~~ radio, television, wireless modems, cellulaz phones, enhanced specialized mobile radio (ESMR), personal communications services (PCS), paging system:, satellite communications and other wireless communication technologies utilizing signals in the radio and microwave frequency band_ No wireless communication facilit3~: antennas, masts, towers and associated equipment shall be hereafter erected, structurally altered or enlarged other tha~i 19.108.010 in conformance with the provisions of this chapter and other applicable provisions of this title. (Ord. 1736, (part), 1996; Ord. 1601, Exh. A (part), 1992) 19.108.030 Definitions. As used is this, chapter, the following terms are defined in this section: A. °Aerial° means a stationary tra.+~.,,;[ring and/or receiving wireless communication device consisting of one or any combination of the elements listed below: 1. °Antenaa° means a horizontal or vertical element or array, panel or dish that may be attached to a mast or a tower for the purpose of transmitting- or receiving radio or microwave frequency signals. 2. ° Mast" means a vertical element consisting of a tube or rod which supports an antenna. 3. °Tower" means a vertical framework of cross elements which supports either an antenna, mast or both_ 4. "Guy wires" means wires necessary to ;*+~+•re the safety and stability of an antenna, mast or both. B. "Collocation° means the placement of aerials and other facilities belonging to two or more communication service providers on a single mast or building. (Ord_ 1736, (part), 1996; Ord. 1601, Exh_ A (part), 1992) 19.108.040 Site Locations. A. Residential sad Home Occupation Aerials. 1_ Aerials intended for residential and home occupation use may be allowed on all residentially zoned and used properties. B. Commercial, Office, Industrial, Public Utility Aerials_ 1. Aerials intended for commercial, office, industrial and public use are prohibited on residentially zoned and used properties, historically designated properties and districts, OS-zoned properties and PR-zoned properties_ 2_ Such aerials maybe allowed on commercial, office and/or industrial zoned properties pursuant to permitting procedures established under Section 19.108.090. 3. Such aerials may be allowed oa properties zoned BA or BQ with a use permit. 4. The City tray consider allowing aerials on City utility poles. (Ord. 1736, (part), 1996) 14 -- 61 127 19.108.050 Cupertino -Zoning 128 19.108.050 General Site Development Regulations. A. Aerials. 1. The height of receiving aerials, shall not exceed forty-nine feet above ground Level, unless otherwise provided in accordance with Section 19.108.060. 2. Transmitting or trancm;tting and receiving aerials shall not exceed a height of fifty-five fcet above ground level, unless otherwise provided in accordance with Section 19.108.060. 3. An aerial based on the ground and exceeding a height of thirty-four feet and as aerial based on a building and extending more than twenty-four feet above its space shall require a building permit. The building permit requirements shall include adequate details of the location support device including footing, guy wires and braces to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. 4. The section of masts and towers more than thirty feet above the ground shall have across-section that can be fitted within a square with a side of twelve inches, unless an exception is granted by the Planning Com**+i~sion. B. Antenna. 1. Aa antenna consisting of a single vertical element not more than four inches in diameter is lieu of a horizontal arrangement shall be excepted from the height restriction. 2. pmrP„naa and/or guy wires shall not overlap adjoining properties and shall not encroach upon an easement without the written consent of the owner of the easement which shall be attached to the application for a building pernut. C. Masts and Towers. 1. Concentration of Towers and Masts. The number of towers, and detached masts exceeding eight inches in diameter at the base and thirty feet in height above ground level, allowed per lot shall be as followed: 3. Masts and towers Est be located at Least ten feet to the rear of the front building setback line and shall not be closer than six feet to any property boundary. 4. All con+**+Prcial, office, industrial, and public utility aerial mast and tower approvals shall be conditioned to allow the collocation of aerials and related facilities of other cpmmrtaial, office, industrial, and public utility users where appropriate and feasible. D. Associated Facilities_ 1. Back up power generators shall comply with the setbacks of the zoning district and the City's noise standazds provided in Chapter 10_48 of the Municipal Code_ (Ord. 1736, (part), 1996) 19.108.060 Specific Site Development Regulations. A_ Residential and Home Occupation Aerials. 1. Aerials with panel or dish antennas of more than ten square feet shall comply with the setbacks and height limits for accessory structures. B_ Commercial, Office, Industrial, Public Utility Aerials. 1. Aerials mounted on buildings that e7tceed the aerial height limits stated in Section 19.108.050 may extend six feet above the building pazapet wall_ An additional one foot of height is allowed for every ten fcet that the aerial is setback from the parapet, to a ma:;mum height of ten feet above the building pazapet, before a height exception is required_ 2. Detached masts and towers shall be located no closer to a residentially zoned property than fifty feet or a distance equal to one foot for every one foot of structure height, whichever is greater. Building mounted aerials should be located a minimum of fifty fcet horizontally from any residentially zoned property_ (Ord. 1736, (part), 1996) Lot Size Maximum Number of Towers and Detached Masts less than 30,000 squaze One. feet 30,000 square fcet or Two. Additional towers, more and detached masts, above two, not meeting the criteria stated in Section 19.108.O50.C.1. require use permit approval by the Planning _ Cpmmi cS10II. Wood towers shall not be erected. 19.108.070 Design and Siting Review. For aerials r~+i*i*+g discretionary review, the Director of Community Development or the Planning Co*n**++~sion shall review the design and siting of the aerial. The primary objective is to blend the design of the aerial into the surrounding environment, or site the aerial is such a manner CD minimise. the visual intrusiveness of the structure. This review may include, but not be Limited tn, the following criteria: A. The weighing of the design and site advantages and disadvantages of awall-mounted aerial versus aroof- mounted aerial versus a freestanding aerial; B. The use of colors, materials and textures to integrate the aerial into the surrounding environment or building; C. The use of landscaping to screen the aerial; D. The proximity and visibility of the aerial to residential properties and public right-of--ways; E. The dispersal of aerial locations to avoid visual clutter; 14 - 62 129 Wireless Communications Facilities 19.108.070 F. The concentration of aerial locations to avoid visual clutter; G. Opportunities for collocation of aerials on existing masts and towers where visual intrusiveness is reduced; H. The design of the building which houses the related equipment and its compatibility with the adjoining building architecture; I. The balancing of aesthetic concerns with the need to provide a functional communications system. (Ord. 1736, (part), 1996) 19.108.OS0 Application Requirements. In addition to the standard application requirements, the applicant may be required to provide the following materials: A. If more than one aerial is planned in the City within a year by~a single communication service provider, a master plan shall be prepazed of all facilities that can be reasonably foreseen, showing the proposed aerial sites and existing com,,,Prcial, office, industrial and public utility aerial locations within a one mile radius of the proposed sites. The purpose of this requirement is to identify opportunities for clustering, dispersat and collocation of aerials [o reduce visual intrusiveness; B. Erection of a mock aerial, computer simulation or sight line elevations for all aerials to help assess the visual effects; C. Documentation that the technology and usage of that technology meets Federal Communications Com,n;~sion adopted safety standards. (Ord. 1736, (part}, 1996) 19.108.090 Permitting. A. For all zoning' districts, aerials that exceed ma:;mtytn height limits require a height exception except as otherwise provided in Section 19.108.060_ B. For zoning districts that require design review, permitting procedures shall be as follows: 1. For aerials that are minimally visible to residential properties and public rights-of--way, the Director of Co,T+m„n;ty Development shall process such applications in accordance with Chapter 19.132, "Adm;n;atrative Approva_1 of Minor Changes in Projects.^ 2. For building-mounted aerials that are moderately visible to residential properties and public rights-of--way, the Director of Community Development, in his discretion, may refer an application to the Planning Commission for architectural/site review and recommendation in accordance with Chapter 19.132, "Administrative Approval of Minor Changes in Projects." 3. For detached aerials that are moderately to highly visible to residential properties and public rights-0f--way, a uses permit approved by the Planning Commission is required. 4. Abandonment. All City approvals for new aerials and modifications of existing aerial approvals shall be conditioned to require the removal of the aerial and its associated facilities if the aerial is not used for its permitted purpose for a period of eighteen months. The property owner or applicant shall bear the entire cost of demolition_ (Ord. 1736, (part), 1996) 19.108.100 IExceptions. A. Exceptions may be granted by the Planning Commission for tower and mast cross section widths and aerial heights exceeding the ,,,a:;,,,~ limits where practical difficulties, unnecessary hazdships, or results inconsistent with the purpose and intent of this chapter result from strict application of the chapter provisions. B. A request for exception must be submitted on a form as prescribed by the Director of Community Development. The application shall be accompanied by a fee prescribed by City Council resolution. Upon receipt of an exception application, a time and place for a public hearing before the Planning Commission shall be set. A Notice of Public Hearing for an exception under this chapter shall be given in the same manner as provided in Section 19.120.060. The Planning Com,n;<sion shall hold a public hearing at which time the Planning Com.*,;~sion may grant the exception based upon all of the following findings: 1. That the literal enforcement of the provisions of this chapter will result in restrictions inconsistent with the spirit and intent of this chapter; 2. That granting of an exception will not result in a condition that will be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements is the vicinity and will not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety or welfaze; 3. That the exception to be granted will not result in a hazardous condition for pedestrian and vehicular traffic. C. After closing the public hearing, the Planning Com**,;csion may approve, conditionally approve or deny the application for exception. The Com*n;csion.'s decision on the exception request may be appealed to the City Council as provided for in Section 19.136.060. (Ord. 1736, (part), 1996} 14-63 Exf~ibit D 14-64 Date Resolution No. Action Taken 10/6/03 03-187 Ci Council ado is Wireless Facilities Master Plan, File No- CP-2000-09 37te coverphotograph depicts antennas from five different personal service wireless facilities along State Highway 85 near Interstate Highway 280_ In the foreground is a monopole with one set of antennas. TTtere are two sets in the treepole. There is another antenna set in the background next to the lattice tower and the final set is mounted on the lattice tower. 14-65 Acknowtedgements CITY COUNCIL Michael Chang, Mayor Sandra James, Vice Mayor Patrick Kwok Richard Lowenthal Dolly Sandoval PLANNING COMMISSION Angela Chen, Chairperson_ Charles Corr Marty Miller Taghi Saadati, Vice-Chairperson Gilbert Wong TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Ernest Tsui, Chairperson Salvatore Algeri Reginald Duhe L. T. Guttadauro, Vice-Chairperson Steve Ting David Eggleston (emerifus) STAFF David W. Knapp, City Manager Steve Piaseclci, Director of Community Development Ciddy Wordell, City Planner Colin Jung, Senior Planner 8s Project Manager Peter Gilli, Senior Planner Ralph Qualls, Director of Public Works CONSULTANT Ted Kreines, AICP, Kreines 8s Kreines, Inc. - Wireless Plaiuung Consultants 14-66 L Tabte of Contents Chapter 1. INTRODUCTION ... . ........................... . ........ . . . . . .. . 3 Chapter 2. GOALS ............................................................ 4 Chapter 3. SUMMARY OF POLICIES .................... . ......... . . .... 5 Chapter 4. BACKGROUND ................................................ 7 Chapter 5. LOCATIONS 8s STRUCTURES ................................. 13 Chapter 6. SITING 8s DESIGN ..................... . • - - - . _ .......... , ........ 18 Chapter 7. F~ALTH 8t SAFETY ...........................•-.--........---.. 27 Chapter 8. MONITORING .................................................... 30 Chapter 9. IMPLEMENTATION ... . .....................:................... 32 Chapter 10. GLOSSARY OF TERMS ........ ................................ 35 2 14 - 67 Chapter 1. Introduction Personal wireless services were first introduced in the region in the early 1980's. The first hand-held equipment or cell phones were very heavy, and service was unreliable and expensive. Consumer demand was small, but continued to grow with continual technological innovation that reduced the size and weight of phones, and improved the reliability and coverage of communications. Increased competition from new companies entering the market have helped drive down prices, making the phones and the cost of service more affordable for the general public. Rapid consumer acceptance and pervasive use of this communications technology in the last decade have also meant a commensurate proliferation of the personal wireless service facilities throughout this community and the country that is often typified by the rectangular-shaped antennas mounted in clusters on buildings, poles and towers. The rapid proliferation of these facilities presents a unique challenge to Cupertino to protect community aesthetics and promote safety. Many communities throughout the United States have reacted to this proliferation of personal wireless service facility applications by amending their zoning ordinances to allow such facilities or creating new ordinances to regulate their siting and design. The City of Cupertino took the later approach in 1996 by adopting an ordinance that specifically regulated the siting and design of personal wireless service facilities. Since then new facility proposals have been reviewed on a case by case basis by the City's Planning Commission with-technical expertise provided by the Telecom-munications Commission. By 1999, it had become increasingly clear to these City decision makers that the long-term impact on the City's visual landscape through the growing accumulation of these facilities was not being addressed. While the community continues to embrace wireless commurcations, it will not do so at the cost of the community's appearance. The City Council has endorsed the preparation of a Wireless Facilities Master Plan and has provided funding-for a consultant. The City has contracted with the consulting firm of IGreines and Kreines to provide technical expertise on the plan. preparation. This plan, by its nature, must rely on a technical jargon that will not be easily understood by the layperson. Please refer to the glossary in the back of the document for an explanation of the terms. "143- 68 Chapter 2. Goats • .Protect co*r+~+unity aesthetics and pr~amote safety by plai-in;ng for well- sited and well-designed personal wireless service facilities that fit unobtrusively in the Cupertino environment. • Guide decision makers and City stafi~ by providing a policy framework and design guidance as they make decisions about these facilities. • Educate the general public about personal wireless service facilities and the community's design expectation~o in order to improve their involvement and participation in the decision making process. • Assist the wireless companies and their representatives with information that facilitates their facility deployment process. 4ia-ss Chapter 3. Summary of Policies Policy 4-I: Applicants shall use the best available camouflage techniques to reduce the intrusive and obtrusive visual impacts ofpersonal wireless service facilities to the extent possible_ Policy 5-1 : Preferred locations far personal wireless service facilities are on existing buildings and structures. Policy 5-2 : Only unobtrusive personal wireless service facilities shall be considered in residential neighborhoods. Policy 5-3 : Development of unobtrusive cell sites in surrounding communities shall be encouraged. Policy 6-2 : Personal wireless service facilities should be sited to avoid visually intrusive impacts as viewed from the public right-of--way and from residential neighborhoods. Policy 6-2 : Personal zoireZess service facilities shall be appropriately scaled to fzt harmoniously with the surrounding elements of the site and neighborhood. Policy 6-3 : Personal wireless service facilities shall be compatible with their surroundings so that their shape, size, color, material, and texture blend with their surroundings. Policy 6-4: Monopoles with co-located antennas are preferred to single user monopoles if they are Zess visually obtrusive than separate monopoles. Policy 7-2 : The City reserves the right to require applicants to prepare radiofrequency radiation assessments for personal wireless service facilities when the general public is in reasonably close proximity to such a facility and to determine compliance with FCC Guidelines. Z'oZicy 7-Z :'The City shall require a radiofrequency radiation assessment for the fallowing types of personal wire Zess service facilities: • For building-inounfed antennas when the building is designed for human occupancy; • For antennas mounted Zess than ZO meters (32.8 feet) above ground Zeve1; • For aI1 co-located antennas; (The concern is for cumulative emissions exceeding the FCC Guidelines) and • For residential deployment ofpersonal wireless service facilities. I45 70 Policy 7-3: If a network of residential-based personal wireless service facilities is proposed, a comprehensive RFR assessment shall! be done for a1I proposed sites. Policy 7-4: The Cih•/ recognizes that it is the responsibility of the carriers to operate its personal zvireZess service facilities within tFte adopted federal radio frequency radiation exposure standards over the Zife of its facilities, regardless of whether the City requires the preparation of a RFR assessment or not. Policy 7-S: When mechanical veniiZation, power generators or other sources of noise are proposed in personal zvireZess service faciliKes, the City shall ascertain whether an acoustical analysis is necessary to determine compliance with the City's Noise Ordinance. Policy 8-1: All personal zvireZess service faczlities approved by the City will be conditioned with a permit"expiration date to create opportunities for the City and applicant to check maintenance, check the Zeve1 o f radio frequency radiation emissions, improve equipment and camouflage techniques z~hen needed. Policy 8-2: AIZ personal zvireZess service facilities approved by the City shall be conditioned with an abandonment provision providing for dismantling and removal of a facility by the company and/or property owner. - 14-71 6 Chapter 4. Background Federal Regulatory Authority Mastef planning for personal wireless service facilities must consider the Telecommunications Act of 1996-abroad revision of the 1934 federal statute governing telecommunications. It is important at the local government level because it conta;nom language that both preserves and limits the authority of local government to regulate personal wireless service facilities. Section 704(a)('~(A) states: Except as provided in this paragraph, nothing in this Act shall Iimit or affect the authority of a State orlocal government or instrumentality thereof over decisions regarding the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities. This same section (704) also sets forth the limitations of that local authority: - Shall not unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services. - Shall not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting. the provision of personal wireless services. - Shall act on any request for authorization to place, construct, or modify personal wireless service facilities within a reasonable period of time after the request is filed.. . - Shall put any decision to deny personal wireless service facilities into writing, supported by substantial evidence contained in the written record. - Shall not regulate personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emission to the extent that such facilities comply with the Federal Communications Com*~-+~~sion Guidelines for such emissions. Technology Overview Wireless communications are transmitted through the air via radio waves of various frequencies. Radiofrequency radiation is one of numerous types of electromagnetic radiation. Cellular and Enhanced Specialized Mobile Radio '14,~ 72 (ESMR) operate at frequencies between 800 and 900 megahertz (MHz), and Personal Communications Systems (PCS) operate at the 1900 MHz band. These three technologies function similarly in that their communications systems consist of interconnected "cell sites' or geographic areas that cover a region. In general, cell sites tend to be smaller in size and more numerous in the cities and larger in size and less numerous in rural areas. This happens because cities have more people (customers) than rural and outlying areas. As more people demand wireless coTn*~-+unications services, wireless systems will require additional capacity to handle calls. Capacity is added when wireless companies: 1) Change technology from analog to digital, 2) Add more cell sites. Currently, the wireless ~oz~npanies are offering voice communications, paging and text messaging and are aggressively working to improve their offerings of data and video communications and wireless Internet services over their wireless networks. To develop the capacity to handle this large amount of information, companies must continue to develop new technologies and undoubtedly provide more cell sites. Each cell site within the system contains a s~~t of transmitting and receiving antennas that are mounted to the ground, building, monopole or lattice tower. All calls placed with a wireless phone are transmitted by the phone to a cell site antenna that is connected via aland-based line to a central computer switching system. -The central switch completes the cull by connecting it to a conventional phone through aland-based line or to another wireless phone through the nearest antenna. When a wireless caller or receiver of a call is mobile, the call is handed off from one cell site to another cell site as the user travels through one cell site to another. Community Issues 1. Height. A deterinirLing factor in the location, siting and design of a personal wireless service facility is the height of the ~intennas. The dish and yagi antennas are used for line of sight transmission, and tthe panel antennas propagate their radio signals directionally. The height of the antennas is important for line of sight and coverage. Buildings, hills and trees tend to attenuate signal strength when they intervene into the signal path. p.t some point an attenuated signal becomes so faint it cannot be used. Wireless companies often seek approval for antenna heights that are above the obstructions. Other problems may occur when the coverage area has varying topography, which makes line of sight transmission difficult. 14-73 8 Personal wireless service facility antennas are often mounted on the roof of a building if the building is of adequate height, that is, of at least 25 feet above ground level (two stories. When the building is taller than 25 feet (three stories minimum), the antennas may be side-mounted on the building wall. The challenges occur when most of surrounding structures in a local area are low- profile, one-story buildings and the wireless carrier must erect a new lattice tower or monopole to mount the antennas and achieve the necessary height. Such mounts can have obtrusive visual effects if not properly camouflaged in an area of low-profile buildings. (Antennas mounted on a lattice tower. Sife Zocafed at De Anza College near Highway 85.) 2_ Facility Proliferation. "How many personal wireless service facilities will be built?" is a frequent question. To some degree the number of facilities will depend on how popular wireless corr.T.-~unications will be to the general consumer, how many new companies enter the field, what types of additional services will be offered by these companies, which affects the capacity of the cell sites, and the willingness of the companies to invest in infrastructure. As more personal wireless service facilities are added to increase capacity, each facility may be shorter in height to serve a smaller area and avoid overlaps in coverage with adjacent cell sites. '149 74 A. Consumer Demand -Most companies: have already established their initial network of cell sites (the Coverage Phase), ~n~hich were designed to provide the most coverage per facility and were established along highways and other major transportation corridors. Most of these wireless companies have now entered a Capacity Phase, where companies are infilling their service area with additional facilities to fill "holes' in their coverage and add capacity to high demand areas. Wireless_com**~+unications continues to be e:Ktremely populaz with the general public. The FCC reports that there were 12:2.4 million wireless subscribers nationwide at the end of 2001, up 54 percent from the end of 1999. In California, wireless phones are even more popular with the total number of subscribers soaring 76% to 15 million in the same time frame. In Cupertino, local high technology companies have sought personeil wireless service facility approval on their owri buildings in order to improve infra-building and inter-building coverage for their own employees. B. Number of Companies -There are at least eight wireless companies operating personal wireless service facilities within the City boundaries. 'There are two cellular companies, one enhanced specialized mobile radio company, four PCS companies, and one paging company. Except for the paging company, which operates one paging facility in the City, and one PCS company, which shares facilities with another carrier, the other companies operate from 3 to 7 facilities within City boundaries_ C. Additional Future Seraices - Most of the companies envision expanding the range of the services they offer over their wireless networks, going beyond voice communications, paging and text messaging to include transmission of larger quantities of data, video communications and even wireless Internet connections.' The quantity of information the companies would like to transmit far exceeds the capacity of their existing coinnzunications networks. New technologies must be developed, including a much more highly distributed set of personal wireless service facilities to make ibis vision a reality. 3. Visibility 8~ Aesthetics. Many people find the personal wireless service facilities to be visually unattractive. City staff and wireless companies spend a lot of time designing facilities that are well-camouflaged, but this is becgrnir,g a more difficult task as the best sites (least visible) are already occupied with facilities. Cupertino has outstanding vistas. The primary one is the neazby western foothills, which are largely in a natural state. A City priority is to beautify its major transportation corridors by landscaping its medians and rights-of-way, 10'14-75 requiring significant private landscaping, and relating building design to the public realm. The height and continued proliferation of facilities will likely make them more apparent to residents in the future. and potentially create more obtrusive visual impacts than ever before. One strategy to reduce the proliferation of facilities is to require the co-location of facilities on a single structure, such as, a lattice tower. There is, however, an inherent tradeoff. Accommodating many facilities on a single structure reduces proliferation, but often causes serious visual impacts. Many antennas and equipment concentrated on one lattice tower tend to draw more attention than the dispersal of less visible but more numerous facilities. An example of this is the lattice tower on the De Anna College Campus. Policy 4-l: Applicants shall use the best available camouflage techniques to reduce the intrusive and obtrusive visual impacts ofpersonaZ wireless service facilities to the extent possible. 4. Facility Installation in Residential Areas. Personal wireless services are increasingly moving toward home usage. If costs continue to decline, consumers will continue to use their "cell" phone instead of their land line phones while at home. A small, but growing number of subscribers have gone completely wireless, abandoning their land lines. The wireless companies follow their subscribers' phone usage. Ultimately, the facilities may serve every neighborhood in the City. The deployment of personal wireless service facilities in residential neighborhoods could have significant, obtrusive visual impacts if not properly planned. It appears in residential neighborhoods, that the best places . for personal wireless service facilities will be on top of or attached to light poles, traffic signal poles or other tall structures in the public right-of-way. (Personal wireless facility on a light pole at Serra Boulevard and Stanford Avenue, Stanford, CA.) i~ - 76 In th~~ past this was done with one company's antennas placed on street lights, which have met with r.o public objection. The company was a wireless Internet service. Even though the comp~~ny is now out of business, their abandoned anterutas continue to dot City streets. Another comp~uzy has bought the technology and plans on reusing the antenna network. (Personal wireless facility at Swa!!ow Drive and Lorne Way, Sunnyvale, CA) Other possible sites for residential deployment include: stadium light poles at high schools, flag poles and light standards in parking lots at churches and other non-residential uses in the neighborhoods. 14-77 12 Chapter 5. Locations ~ Structures This section deals with the topic of the best locations and structures in the community for personal wireless service facilities. The continuing demand for personal wireless services throughout the community will escalate the proliferation of facilities, perhaps even into the residential neighborhoods. At- risk are the visual qualities of this co*r~munity: its natural vistas, the tree-lined streets, the well-tended and attractive commercial and industrial areas. The key challenge is to protect comrr,unity aesthetics and promote safety, while facilitating the use of this technology throughout the community. It is not the purpose of this plan to encourage the location of every local personal wireless service facility within the City's boundazies. There are numerous nearby locations in the five cities and unincorporated azeas that border Cupertino that could serve equally as well or better as potential locations. The best locations in the community for personal wireless facilities is a function of the Land use and the presence or absence of taller structures that can accept antennas that-will not be noticed. One of the overall goals is to locate facilities and to site and design them so they aze as unobtrusive as possible. In general, non-residential locations are better than residential locations because such facilities are less noticeable and more accepted by the public. Also facilities with antennas mounted on existing structures are generally preferred to facilities with antennas mounted on new structures. Antennas mounted on existing taller structures are usually less noticeable because the structure is already part of the City's visual landscape. The City's preference order for locations of personal wireless service facilities is: Most Preferred Least Preferred Existing Stiuct-ures in New Structures in Existing Structures in New Si=uctvres in Non-Residential Areas Non-Residential Areas Residential Areas Residential Areas Policy 5-Z : Preferred locations for personal wireless service facilities are on existing buildings and structures. 1. Existing Structures in Non-Residerctial Locations. The following maps and list describe the structures that have been used or may be potentially used for personal wireless service facilities on non-residential lands. It is meant to be as inclusive as possible, but there may be other opportunities that will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. t~ ~s r ,, t! s p • ~. S ~, .; .. knl ~ ~ ,~ ~ ,, ~ ~ ~ a J o~~ 1 ... . 1 .~ Map Nl CANDIDATE LOCATIONS Existing Facilities Legend • Buildingmounted ~ Monopole/Tower ~ PG&EPoleMount ~ PGkETawerMowd ~ IioofMaunted ~ Sporb Field Ligbt Mount ~ Vallco Sign Mount 1 Tree Pole G Limits Urban Service Area ~w¢ta v 7,mo uw Fut O Prepared by tM Community Development Department IastUpdated. tvLy 5,11106 y z ® ~`u ~~ ~3 .~ "3 ~~.>,< 14-80 a ~. 0 0 14-81 A. Privately-Owned Locations (Maps #1 £~ #3) There are numerous taller structures on private non-residential property that are candidate locations for personal wireless service facilities_ All privately- owned locations are depicted on Map #3, except for personal wireless service monopoles, which are depicted on Map #1. There are two inappropriate structures: 1) billboards-- very large, off-site advertising sigsvs, that are legal, nonconforming structures not permitted to expand their use, and 2) flag poles used for the display of the American and State flags. More appropriate taller structures are described below: • Taller Buildings: 2+ stories in height • Parking Lot Light Standards (not mapped) + Utility Structures transmission towers, taller utility poles, private water tanks - • P.G.Bs E. Service Center and Power Substations • Pylon Signs (not billboards) • Personal Wireless Service Monopoles • Religious Institutions • Historic Structures (e.g. wooden water tower) B. Publicly-Owned Locations (Map #2) City-owned Locations The City of Cupertino owns numerous buildings, structures and properties throughout the community that could be potentially used for personal - wireless service facilities. They include: ~ - One and two story buildings that have yet to be built: • Community Hall • Library Existing one story buildings: • City- Hall • Sports Center • Quinlan Community Center • Pazk 8s Recreation Centers • Service Center (Corporation yazd has three facilities.) ~4 a2 Relatively undeveloped and vacant properties: • Remnant properties along Mary Avenue and Highway 85 soundwall • Parks • Blackberry Farm Golf Course Lands, such as lots and public rights of way that have other structures: • Water tanks • Traffic Signal Poles • Electroliers (i.e., street lights) • Public rights of way (a.k.a. streets) Other Government-Owned Locations Other locations owned by other government agencies may be suitable sites for personal wireless service facilities. Each agency would decide whether its properties would be available for lease for personal wireless service facilities. Such facilities need permits from the City since these commercial personal wireless service facilities do no relate diu~ectly to the government agency's mission. ' • Santa C1aza County Fire Department fire stations • Public School District properti'.es (building mounts, parking lot light standards, stadium light poles:) • De Anna College Campus • Caltrans Rights-of-Way and Service Center 2. New Structures in Non-Residential Locations. There are many non- residential locations that lack. a suitable, mounting structure for a personal wireless service facility. And in those instances, carriers, sometimes propose a new lattice tower, monopole or other structure to elevate the antennas. Under these circunvstances:, the personal wireless service facility should be located in an area that has the least visual impact. In considering such a visible facility, all alternative locations should be reviewed and the best available camouflage techniques should be applied by the carrier to the facility. (See Siting and Design Section of Plan). Sometimes the most appropriate design sobution may be "hiding the facility in plain sight." 'T'his is accomplished by camouflaging the personal wireless service facility with materials in colors, sizes, textw-es and proportions that blend into the environment, without creating visual contradictions. This is discussed in 14-83 15 some detail in the Siting and Design Section. Possible custom-built structures to house or mount personal wireless service facilities include: • City gateway or neighborhood entry features • Church steeples • Building entry features • Rooftop Clunuzeys • Artificial trees (treepoles) • Artificial Rocks • Artificial Electroliers • Artificial Power/Telephone poles Because there are significant topographic differences in the City, there may be hillside locations in the City where aground-mounted personal wireless facility will be technically feasible and considered unobtrusive. There are currently no such facilities located in the City. 3_ Existing Structures in Residential Locations. One of the largest challenges facing this plan will be providing wireless communications coverage to residential areas. There are large portions of the community that have poor to non-existent coverage because of a lack of personal wireless service facilities in these areas, which are located in the western, southern and eastern portions of the City. These areas are predominantly residential in character and situated at a significant distance from non-residential properties. The plan assumes that future deployment of personal wireless service facilities in residential areas will occur at low antennas heights: As such, the most unobtrusive mounting structures will-likely be existing street lights, traffic signals and utility poles and towers. There will be facility opportunities at high schools, churches and fire stations that are located in residential neighborhoods, but these locations are few in comparison to the number of public utility structures. Techniques to camouflage these facilities are discussed in the Siting and Design section of this plan. 4: New Structures in Residential Locations_ Obtrusive personal wireless service facilities that are mounted on new lattice towers or monopoles are inappropriate in residential neighborhoods. Much of Cupertino is developed with one and two-story dwellings and these facilities could stand out in marked visual contrast to their surroundings. If facilities in residential areas are to be considered, the primary goal must be to preserve the visual integrity of the residential neighborhood. Numerous techniques exist to make personal. wireless service facilities more compatible and unobtrusive in residential areas. They are discussed in the Siting and Design section. 74-84 Policy 5-2 : Only unobtrusive. personal zvireles:> service facilities shall be considered in residential neighborhoods. 5. Non-Cupertzno Locations- The City of Cupertino is bordered by the cities of Los Altos, Sunnyvale, Santa Clara, San Jose and Sazatoga. 7n the west foothills, Cupertino is surrounded by the »n;ncorporated lands of Santa Clara County. Each jurisdiction has buildings, taller structures and features, and property that could accommodate a personal wireless service facility. 7n many cases, these locations may be preferable to a Cupertuio-based location if they aze less obtrusive to the surrounding area. Examples of locations include: • Shopping centers in all surrounding cities, • The quarries and lattice towers in the unincorporated west foothills, • The Hewlett Packard campus; water tank, hotel, office buildings, hospital and lattice towers in Santa Clara along Highway 280, • Lattice towers, Caltrans right-of-way, water tanks along Highways 85 and 280 in Sunnyvale, • The Home Depot, office buildings, commercial buildings, high " school, and taller utility poles in San Jose, • The taller utility poles along Prospect Road and hillside locations in Saratoga. Policy 5-3 : Development of unobtrusive cell sites in surrounding communities shall be encouraged. 14-85 17 Chapter 6. Siting F~ Design The previous plan section suggested the interdependence of location, siting and design in determ;n;ng appropriate places for personal wireless service facilities. Some locations will be validated through siting and design, while other locations, such as a substation, depend less on siting and design policies and guidelines_ Siting is the relationship of the personal wireless service facility to its site and any structures on that site. Design is the arrangement of parts, details, form, color, etc. to achieve a desired functionality and appearance. Functionality has to do more with the adequacy of the cell site in the wireless company's grid of cell sites. The wireless company is best able to determine the functionality of its cell site. The City is more concerned with the appearance of the facility and how well it fits into the overall context of the built environment. Sometimes the objectives of functionality and appearance will conflict in the process of designixig a personal wireless service facility_ Policy 6-Z :Personal wireless service facilities should be sited to avoid visually intrusive impacts as viewed from the public right-of-zvay and from residential neighborhoods. Policy 6-2 : Personal wireless service facilities shall be appropriately scaled to fzt harmoniously with the surrounding elements of the site and neighborhood. Policy 6-3 : Personal wireless service facilities shall be compatible with their surroundings so that their shape, size, color, material, and texture blend with their surroundings. SITING AND DESIGN Gi,iIDELINES Specific siting and design guidance is provided for personal wireless service facilities categorized by the type of equipment. In general the equipment should be sited to blend in with their surroundings. The environmental context will help dictate the best site and best camouflage technique(s) to use. This is not intended to be an exhaustive survey of siting and design guidance. Wireless companies are encouraged to provide creative solutions to facility siting and design that meet the plan s goals. 3~-ss 1. Antennas • Antennas near the ground in lolly locations should be screened by existing vegetation. If vegetation is sparse, additional landscaping may be planted that is similaz to the surrounding vegetation or native to the area. • Antennas should be painted and textured to match the background view or foreground view whichever will make the antennas less obtrusive. If the background is the sky, the preference is a flat gray color. • Antennas may be screened with radio wave transparent materials that have been designed and fabricated to match elements normally viewed in the ;mmediate environment. • Typically the least obtrusive placement on a building is a flush . mounting,on some roof-top equipment, structure, penthouse or building wall. A secondary location is a central place on the roof where the roofline can cut off angles of view, making the antennas less visible. The least desirable roof mount is a vertical protrusion at or near the parapet where t7ze antenriac are likely to be the most visible. • For lattice towers, the most successful antennas siting/design solutions are: 1) the top hat design, where a short, rectangular framework of steel is erected on top of the tower and the antennas are mounted to this framework extension, and 2) the leg-mounted design, where the antennas are mounted on the legs of the tower above the ground level. (Personal wireless ' service facitity using a lattice tower at the extension of California Oak Way and the Union Pack Railroad tracks.) 19 is-s7 • Select antennas of a shape and size that are in proportion to the mounting surface, and mount them flush against the structure. • On a monopole, antennas should be mounted flush to the shaft or in vertical alignment with the shaft. Some of the newer monopoles have been designed to accommodate more than one set of antennas and their city approvals conditioned with a co-location requirement. The antennas should be enclosed in a screening cylinder if this reduces the obtrusiveness of the facility. • Anew antennas rack configuration on an existing monopole should only be considered if the monopole can be adapted with adequate tree=type camouflage. • .The antenna shape and mounting orientation guideline may be relaxed if the antenna is of such a small size that its presence would not be noticed by the general public. An example of this is the former wireless Internet antenna suspended from the cross arm of an electrolier_ (Personal wireless facility at Swallow Drive and Lorne Way, Sunnyvale, CA) • Antennas may be mounted on top of a pole-type structure (e. g., Light pole, traffic signal pole, power/telephone pole, golf course net pole, etc.) if the pole i 30 feet or less in height. The antennas ~$-sa should be vertically aligned with the pole and shall not exceed 20% of the height of the pole. 2. Co-Located Antennas Policy 6-4: Monopoles with co-located ante~znas are preferred to single user monopoles if they are Zess visually obtrusive than separate monopoles. 3. Cables • In general co-located antenna:: mounted on the same monopole, lattice tower or building roof ::hould be less visually obtrusive than separate personal wireless service facilities. • All of the siting and design guidelines applicable to a single set of antennas apply to co-located antennas as well. • Building rooftops suitable for numerous co-located antennas should be retro-fitted with larger equipment screens or extensions of the roof element that are architecturally compatible with the building. • Cable *-»r+s along the ground ~~hould generally be undergrounded unless such undergrounding would adversely affect the health of nearby mature trees. • If the cable runs are located above ground, they should be camouflaged from public viev~T. Cables should not be routed along exterior surfaces unless they are camouflaged with materials that integrate with the design of th.e structure. • In lattice towers, cables should be bundled"together and routed along the legs or cross members of the lattice tower. (Depicted are cables enclosed in a conduit that runs along the leg of a lattice tower located above the Monta Vista electrical substation in Cupertino, CA.) 21 ia.- 89 4. Equipment Cabinets 8s Enclosures • On developed sites, the best location for equipment cabinets is an interior building space or a pad in an underground pazking gazage if available. Secondary locations include the roof and ground level parking areas. Roof-mounted equipment should be adequately screened. Ground level equipment enclosures should not remove City-required pazking spaces or landscaped areas. • Ground level enclosures should be tall enough to screen the equipment and match the building materials of other onsite structures whenever possible. • Screening landscaping should also match existing, onsite landscaping if appropriate. • For lattice towers, siting the equipment beneath the lattice tower legs is one of the preferred locations. • For utility pole-type mounts, equipment cabinets may be mounted on the shaft if they are small enough in size to integrate with the appearance of the structure. ~Personat wireless service facility on a utilitypole located on FootFlitl Blvd. next . to Monta Yuta Par7Z Cupertino, C.4.) - ~_ so Larger equipment cabinets should be sited in underground vaults in the public right of way_ The best locations are the street and the sidewalk areas. In general the vaults should avoid landscaped areas and street trees_ Larger equipment cabinets should also'be sited in the rear yards of adjacent residences_ Equipment cabinets should not be visible above the fence line. Wireless companies will need to negotiate land leases and easements wish affected property owners. 5. Lattice Towers 8z Monopoles. • New lattice towers are not allowed by the City because of their - obtrusivenes$ and because monopoles satisfactorily serve the same purpose of elevating the anteimas with fewer visual impacts. • A monopole should be sited among other tall vertical structures or elements to reduce its- obtrusiveness, such as, among a cluster of ower substation.' (Slim line monopole among the cedars. Note the cable trays to the right are above ground to better protect the tree roots_ Monopole is located near the terminus of Portal Avenue at Highway 280, Cupertino, CA.) Monopoles should be apF~roximately the same or smaller diameter as other vertical elements in the surrounding environment. The "slim line' monopoles have dramatically decreased the needed diameter of such poles, but co-location of additional antennas is problematic_ 23~a-si • Monopoles should be colored to match their foreground or background elements. If the sky is the background or foreground element then the monopole should be painted a flat gray color. • Intrusive and obtrusive monopoles should be camouflaged as artificial trees. Since such artificial trees appear more authentic when placed next to real trees, the planting of larger trees near the monopole may be a project requirement. • The artificial tree should be of a form similar to the surrounding trees to which it is being visually integrated, and be constructed of materials that retain a natural appearance for the life of the personal wireless service facility. • The artificial tree should not be significantly taller than the surrounding vertical elements (i.e., buildings, trees, structures, (Treepole style antenna mount located on San Tomas Expressway near its intersection with Hamilton Avenue, Campbell, EA.J t 4 92 Other Structure Mounts. There is a host of other types of structures that are not buildings, lattice towers or monopoles that may be suitable for elevating antennas and around which a satisfactory personal wireless service facilitS~ can be built. This category includes: power/telephone poles, electroliers, taller pylon signs (except billboards), golf course net poles, etc. Some of these structures may not be structurally suitable to carry such wireless facilities, so the City will allow the wireless companies to fabricate suitable replacement structures. IrL other cases where a structure does not exist, the City may allow wireless companies to design and fabricate a custom-built facility that will fit into its surroundings. Additions or changes to city=owned utility structures will require the review and approval of the City Public Works Department. 6. Replacement Structures • If the wireless company needs to fabricate a new structure to replace one that is not suitable for antenna mounting, then the new structure shall approximate the size, height, shape, colors and dimensions of the existing structure in order to fit the new structure into the visual landscape. ReF~lacement public structures will need the approval of the City Public. Works Department. • Replacement structures should accommodate internalized cable runs. (Personal wireless service facility antennalpdrktng light standard pole in a shopping center off Highway 680, Pleasanton, CA.) 14-93 25 Chapter 7. Heattlz £~ Safety Radio Frequency Radiation (RFR) Background. There is an ongoing debate among scientists and the general public as to the health risks associated with exposure to RFR from personal wireless service facilities. The City of Cupertino has co*nm~ssioned its wireless facilities master plan technical consultant, ICreines and Kreines, to prepare a paper investigating the federal government's regulation of RFR emissions from personal wireless service facilities and the City of Cupertino's scope of authority to review health and safety issues involving RFR. This paper, titled: "White Paper: City of Cupertino Scope of Authority to Review Health and Safety Issues Involving Radio Frequency Radiation (including Radiation of Co-located-Facilities)" and dated October 31, 2001 is incorporated by reference into this Plan. A copy may be obtained from Cupertino Community Development staff. The white paper concludes that the City does not have the authority to regulate personal wireless service facilities on the basis of RFR, nor does the City have the authority to set exposure standards for RFR emissions from personal wireless service facilities, which has been pre-empted by the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The Telecommunications Act is very clear that the City may not deny an application for a personal wireless service facility because of RFR if the facility meets the FCC Guidelines for RFR exposure_ The prohibition applies only to personal wireless service facilities. `The adopted federal RFR exposure standards are embodied in FCC Guidelines published on August 1, 1996 and titled: "Guidelines for Evaluating the Environmental Effects of Radiofrequency Radiation." The FCC-adopted standards are the 1991 Institute of Electronics and Electrical Engineers (IEEE) standards that were subsequently adopted by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) and became known as ANSI/IEEE C95.1-1992 in combination with a stricter National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurement (NCRP) standard that NCRP set in 1986. According to the white paper, if the City suspects that RFR standards are being exceeded, it is doubtful that the City has the police powers over a violation of the FCC Guidelines by a personal wireless service facility. An FCC Guide titled: "A Local Government Official's Guide to Transmitting Antenna RF Emission Safety: Rules, Procedures, and Practical Guidance;' published in June 2000, suggests that if a violation is suspected, the local government first contact the facility operator, and if it still has questions about compliance, the local government should contact the FCC. 14-94 26 While the City has no authority to regulate or enforce police powers on RFR, it appears the City may review and monitor RF12 for compliance with FCC Guidelines. In fact the FCC Guide previously mentioned states: "... this document recognizes that, as a practical: matter, state and IocaZ governmenfs have a role to. play ipt ensuring compliance with .FCC's Limits, and it provides guidance to assist you in effectively fulfilling tluzt role. The ;!zvin goals of this document are: (I) to define and promote locally-adapfabZe procedures that will provide you, ..., with adequate assurance of compliance, while (2) at the same time, avoiding the imposition of unnecessary burdens on either the local government process or the FCC's licensees. Review of 12FR Emissions for Compliance with Federal Standards. As a general rule, the applicant should bear the entire cost associated with measuring, recording, reporting and morvtoring RFR emissions associated with personal wireless service facilities. Based on previous RF12 reports, it is likely that most facilities will not exceed FCC RFR Guidelines; however, the City should establish some standards for assessment to ensure FCC Guidelines are meet. Policy 7-I: The City reserves the right to require applicants to prepare radiofrequency radiation assessments far personal wireless service facilities when the general public is in reasonably close proximity to such a facility and to determine compliance with FCC Guidelines. Policy 7-2: The City shall require a radiofrequency radiation assessment for the following types of personal wireless service facilities: • For building-mounted antennas when the building is designed for human occupancy; • For antennas mounted Less than ZO meters (32.8 feet) above ground Level; • For aII co-located antennas; (The concern is for cumulative emissions exceeding the FCC Guidelines) and • For residential deployment of personal wireless service facilities. The RFR reporting must consider potential exposure, as well as, actual exposure. For example, a report that measures ground'. level RFR exposure of residents in their homes may not take into account the potential of residents adding second stories to their homes and possibly bringing; themselves in closer proximity to the transmitting antennas. Policy 7-3 : If a network of residential-based personal zvireless'service facilitr`es is proposed, a comprehensive RFR assessment shall be done for aZZ proposed sites. 14-95 27 Policy 7-4 : 13ce City recognizes that it is the responsibility of the carriers to operate ifs personal zvireZess service facilities within the adopted federal radio frequency radiation exposure standards over the Zife of its facilities, regardless of whether the City requires the preparation of a RFR assessment or not. NOISE Some of the wireless communication companies require mechanical ventilation to keep their equipment operating within an acceptable temperature range and generators to provide power or backup power in the event of a power outage. All of this equipment are potential noise sources and must comply with the City's Community Noise Ordinance. Policy 7-5 : When mechanical ventilation, power generators or other sources of noise are proposed in personal zvireZess service facilities, the City shall ascertain whether an acoustical analysis is necessary to determine compliance with the City's Noise Ordinance. xAZArzDOUS zvr~z~EnL4Ls Hazardous materials that are typically used in personal wireless service facilities may include such materials as Gallium Arsenide (a carcinogen), sulfuric acid in batteries, diesel fuel for generators and compressed gases. The quantities found at these facilities are usually not large and do not present a serious threat to life or property. All such facilities require building permit review, which includes review by the Fire Department of Santa Clara County that administers the City's hazardous materials ordinance. That ordinance addresses the identification, containment, storage and monitoring of hazardous materials. Fire Department personnel also has-specialized equipment, training and personnel to deal with hazardous material releases. FALLING MATERIAL S Antennas mounted at taller heights and the artificial branches and foliage found on a treepole are subject to strong winds, which may cause breakage and a potential falling material hazard to persons and property at the ground level. The City requires a building permit for all mounted antennas and treepoles. Specific structural analysis for treepoles is also required. At the building permit stage, applicants should be prepared to provide for the aztificial tree branches: 1) an analysis of wind resistance factors, testing for material strength and stiffness, and a description of the environmental effects related to solar degradation and fatigue. 14-96 ZS Chapter S. Monitoring Wireless comT*-cunications is a high growth :industry subject to rapid innovation and technological change. The City should keep abreast of the growth and changes as wireless co*nmunications become even more pervasive and integrated into society and our community life. In the future, how the equipment functions, how it looks, and wh<>re it is located will probably change and the City must prepare itself to react to change, set standards and plan for the future infrastructure of wireless communication. Since many personal wireless service facilities have been approved by the City before the preparation of this muster plan, many may not meet the City's current guidelines and standards. Periodic review, if legally possible, would benefit the City and the applicant if needed to update i:he installed equipment. Presently, any modifications to a facility require some type of City approval. Periodic reviews can be accomplished by placing an expiration date on the City's discretionary approvals. 'The City permit ~n~ill then need to be "renewed" after a certain period of time by the applicant, which creates an opportunity for-the City and the applicant to check maintenance, meike beneficial modifications, not only because of advances in equipment technology, but also advances in camouflaging techniques. The City has been placing 5-year expiration. dates on most facility approvals. Some of these will expire in the next few years_ Carriers are responsible for monitoring the expiration dates of their City approvals and applying for time extensions in a timely manner. The City has the right to revoke permits that have expired and terminate the use_ Staff should monitor its facility approvals to ensure that future approvals are likewise conditioned and that expirations are . "caught" and re-permitEed as necessary. Policy 8-T AIZ personal wireless service facilities approved by the City zvi1l be conditioned with a permit expiration date to create opportunities for the City and applicant to check maintenance, check the Ievel of radio frequency radiatiorc emissions, improve equipment and camouflage techniques when needed. In the event a company abandons its personal wireless service facility, the facility should be dismantled and removed by the ~~ompany and/or property owner. Such a condition should be placed in City approvals for private property and in City lease agreements for City-owned and ].eased properties. ~a-s~ 29 Policy 8-2 : A11 personal wireless service facilities approved by the City shall be conditioned with an abandonment provision providing for dismantling and removal of a facility by the company and/or property owner. ~~- ss Chapter 9. Imptementation BACKGROLIIVD This section of the plan addresses how this wireless facilities master plan will be implemented by the City through its zoning ordinances, City lease agreements and development standards. While all personal wireless service facilities will require some sort of discretionary review and/or approval, the City will not be overly burdensome from a regulation standpoint for well-designed and sited facilities that meet the goals of this plan. Applicants can expect a "tiered permit system' where the level of staff and public review of a facility proposal will depend on how well a facility is camouflaged and how unobtrusive it is in appearance to the viewing public. The necessity for a RFR report is a separate issue. The RFR report's conclusions may affect the level of review. The Pla,-,,,;ng Division staff is the main contact for most ~:ity approvals of personal wireless service facilities. Facility Development Permits Simple Complex Building Permit Only Director's Approval ASA/Design Approval Use Penmit (Stay (Planning Commission) 1. Building Permit Only_ Only a building permit is required for personal wireless service facilities that are totally screened from any public view. The facility is able to use existing ~, structures to screen the equipment, or replace existing structures with ones composed of radio transparent materials that are identical in appearance. While Plann;ng staff reviews these proposals for qualification, no separate planning permit is required. To date, very few facilities have qualified for this rr,;n;,,~um level of review. 2. Director's Approval. Also known as a Director's Minor Modification, this approval is executed by Planning staff and the Community Development Director. No public hearing or notice is required, but the decision is reviev~ed and may be appealed by anyone during a 14 calendar-day appeal period. Typically, well-screened, building- mounted or structured-mounted personal wireless facilities qualify for this level of planning approval. A separate building permit i also required. 31 is-ss 3. ASA/Design Approval_ Certain personal wireless service facility projects require design approval by the Design Review Comm;ttee, atwo-member subcommittee of the Planning Comm;~sion. The public meeting is less formal than a full Planning Commission hearing and requires 10-day advanced noticing of adjacent property owners. This type of plane;ng application is required for more noticeable building and structure-mounted personal wireless service facilities. Plans are reviewed by a member of the Telecommunications Commission. A separate building permit is also required. 4, i3se Permit. Typically, new tower- or monopole-mount personal wireless service facilities will require public review by the City's P1aT,n;T,g Commission. Public hearing noticing consists of a notice published in a local newspaper of general circulation and mailed noticed to property owners within 500 feet. Plans are reviewed by a member of the Telecommunications Comm+ssion. A separate and sequential building permit is also required. The Community Development Director may refer a Director's Minor Modification to the Plan„;ng Comm;ssion for public hearing review. This is necessary when the Director believes there are significant design issues or potential public controversy about the project. Noticing may be just adjacent property owners or more if warranted by the Director. WIRELESS COMNILZNICATIONS FACILITIES ORDINANCE The wireless communications facilities ordinance was adopted and incorporated into the City's Municipal Code (Chapter 19.108) in 1997. It has been the City's main implementation tool and by default its policy document for the review of all personal wireless service facilities in the City. With the adoption of a wireless facilities master plan, this ordinance will need to be updated and broaden to implement the master plan. The ordinance shall specify maximum antenna height and provide for an exception process. This ordinance also regulates ham radio facilities intended for personal use. Implementor: Community DeveTopmentDept. OTI-IER ZONING ORDINANCES. The Location Section of this Plan identifies all types of locations and structures that may be appropriate for personal wireless service facilities. Since these locations and structures may be in any number of zoning districts, a review and probable amendments of the zoning code is required to ensure that it is ~432~00 internally consistent with the Wireless F:~cilities Master Plan. Implementor: Community Development Dept. OTHER CITY ORDINANCES AND C'IT'Y POLICIES As this master plan proposes the potential lease of all. types of City property for private purposes, a review of other City ordinances and policies regarding such. lease to private concerns is necessary to ensure that they are internally consistent with the Wireless Facilities Master Plan ancL that appropriate levels of review aze built into the leasing process. Implementors: Community Development Dept., Pulilic Works Dept. £~ City Attorney LEASE AGREEMENTS A lease to locate personal wireless service facilities on an existing City-owned facility or structure is typically negotiated with Public Works Department staff and approved or disapproved by the City Council at a public hearing. The level of Planning Division involvement and public review depends on the obtrusiveness of the facility. A building permit may also be required. An example of this type of entitlement is the lease of City light standards to a wireless company for its antenna boxes. Leases involving the construction of new stand-alone facilities will probably require greater scrutiny. Model lease agreements should be developed by the Ciiy to facilitate lease of public property and structures for personal wireless service facilities and to protect City interests. Coordination with affected departments, such as the Parks and Recreation Dept. for City parklands, will be necessary to ensure their concerns aze met. The City's consultant has prepared a survey of lease rates to ascertain market rental rates for such facilities. Implementor: Pu&Zic W~~rks Dept. CITY STANDARD DETAIZ,S The City Public Works Department mauitains standard specifications for all public works structures. Some of the structures suggested in this plan, like traffic signal poles and light poles, may not be physically or structurally suited to accommodate a personal wireless service facility. These structures should be evaluated by the wireless companies and the Public Works Department to determine their suitability: An alternative design or standard may need to be adopted to acco~*+modate a residential deployment of personal service wireless facilities. Implementors: Public Works Dept. £~ Wireless Companies. 33~a - ioi Chapter 10. Gtossary of Terms A meaningful understanding of this Wireless Facilities Master Plan depends on a comn-+on knowledge and understanding of the terminology used in this document. The Plan uses the following terms and their definitions in regulating and planning personal wireless service facilities. Above Ground Level (AGL). A measurement of height from the natural grade of a site to the highest point of a structure. • Antenna. An antenna is the transmitting/receiving portion of the personal wireless service facility that tends to be, proportionally, asmall part of the total personal wireless service facility. Presently, five (5) types of antenna have been identified: - bish or Parabolic Antenna. This is a bowl-shaped antenna of varying diameter used for point-to-point microwave communications. - Global Positionuzg System (GPS) Antenna. This is a small can-shaped antenna affix to a rod and mounted at a lower height, usually near the equipment cabinets. - Panel Antenna.- This is an antenna usually deployed in clusters of three and commonly used in cellular and PCS systems. These antennas usually are rectangular in shape, standing with the end up. They can resemble plastic or glass light casings, such as seen on streetlights, but the more typical shape is like a fluorescent light case. iaj4io2 They are typically 45 feet in height, 6-12 inches in width and 6-8 inches in depth_ - Whip Antenna. This is an omru-directional antenna that appeals as a very thin, rod-like elerr-ent, projecting up or down from its mount. They are typically 2-6 inches in diameter and 1-18 feet in length. - Yagi Antenna. This is a directional antenna designed to "see' one site. It consists of a thin, rod-like element with half a dozen or more short cross members mounted at right angles. This antenna is mounted in a horizontal direction from its mount. • Antenna Mount or Mount. 'This term refers to the antenna mounting hazdware and the structure, if any, that elevates the antennas above the surrounding landscape, for example; a building, monopole, lattice tower, etc. There aze four (4) typical types of mounts: - Ground-mount. Each antenna is fastened to a sepazate, short, thin rod that is anchored to the ground. These installations would be typically seen on foothill properties where the height of the hill provides the elevation for the antennas. - Roof-mount. Antennas are mounted on the roof of a building. - Side-mount. Antennas are mounted on the side of a building. 14 - '103 35 Tower or Monopole-mount. Antennas aze mounted on the top or side of a lattice tower, guyed tower or monopole, or a monopole. Sometimes a large and substantial framework is added so the antennas will protrude noticeably above or beyond the surface of the tower or monopole. This is referred to as a "top hat" or "rack" configuration, which is often used to accommodate more than three panel antennas at one mount. On monopoles, sometimes adual-polazized or cross- polarized panel antennas are used which allows the antennas to be mounted very closely, almost flush, to the surface of the monopole. - Structure-mount. Antennas are mounted to the top or side of a structure, other than a building, tower or monopole, such as a water tank or tall ground sign. • Applicant. A person-or entity who submits a permit application for a personal wireless service facility before the City of Cupertino. • Base Transceiver Station. The personal wireless service facility equipment housed in cabinets or an enclosure or shelter. The term is usually used for a PCS-type cell site. • Camouflage. A palette of techniques used to disguise, hide and conceal a personal wireless service facility from public view by blending its appeazance into elements of the visual background. The term connotes the use of paint, landscaping, building materials and artificial screens in patterns that merge with the elements in the background environment. • Carrier_ An entity or company in the business of providing personal _ wireless services. • Cell Site_ An informal term for a personal wireless service facility. • Cellular. A mobile telephone technology operating in the 800 MHz range of the electromagnetic spectrum. • Co-applicant. All other persons and/or entities jo~n;ng with an applicant in permit application for a personal wireless service facility, including the owner(s) of the personal wireless service facility, the property owner(s), and any tenant(s) for the personal wireless service facility. • Co-location. The practice of installing antennas from more than one wireless co~*+n'+unications company on a single antenna mount. • Co-location, Horizontal. The horizontal orientation of personal wireless service facilities from more than one carrier on a building_ • Co-location, Vertical. The generally vertical orientation of personal wireless service facilities from more than one carrier on a vertical mount such as a monopole or lattice tower. i~6ioa • Commercial Mobile Radio Services (CMRS). As defined by Section 704 of the 1996 Teleco*r+r+-+unications Act, any of several technologies using radio signals at various frequencies to send and receive voice, video and. data. These are considered "functionally equivalent services' by the Telecommunications Act. • Cross-polarized Antenna. Three panel antennas flush-mounted or attached very close to a shaSt. • Design. The appearance of a personal wireless service facility, which includes materials, colors and shape. • Enhanced Specialized Mobile.Radio (ESMR). Private land"mobile radio with telephone services. The local purveyor of this communications technology is Nextel Communications. • Environmental Assessment. The document required by the Federal Communications Commission and the National Environmental Policy Act when a personal wireless service facility is proposed in an area that may be environmentally affected by the facility. The environmental assessment must show how negative environmental impacts can be mitigated. • Equipment Cabinets. Personal wireless service facilities also include one (1) or more small, enclosed structures, cabinets, boxes, sheds or underground vaults near the base of the antenna mount. These structures house power connections, emergency batteries, hardwire telephone connections and sometimes ventilation equipment needed for the operation of the facility. The equipment is connected to the antennas by cable(s). The equipment is usually secured by an enclosing structure, such is - ios 37 Horizontal Co-I~~cation of Antennas as a fence, shed or vault. "Base transceiver station' is also used to _ describe the radio equipment in these structures used by PCS technology. • Facility. See Personal Wireless Service Facility. • Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The FCC is the United States governmental agency responsible for regulating personal wireless services. This agency issues licenses and writes federal regulations and standards governing telecommunication companies. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 granted this agency significant authority to regulate personal wireless services. • Functionally Equivalent Services. Cellular, PCS, ESMR, Specialized Mobile Radio and Paging. .According to the Telecommunications Act, . these five services must receive the same treatment by local government. • Guyed Monopole or Guyed Tower. A monopole or lattice tower that is anchored to the ground or other surface by diagonally-oriented cables. • Intrusive. A term used to describe a personal wireless service facility that visually contrasts with its surroundings to the point of conflicting with it, but not to the extent of visually dominating the surroundings (See Obtrusive.) • -Lattice Tower. Aself-supporting mount with multiple legs and cross " bracing of structural steel. • Licensed Carrier. A company authorized by the FCC to construct and operate a commercial mobile radio services system. • Location. The area where a personal wireless service facility is located or proposed to be located. The term differs from "siting". • Mean Sea Level (MSL). A uniform reference point from which height can be measured. • Modification. The changing of any portion of a personal wireless service facility from what was approved in a previous City permit. • Monopole. Aself-supporting mount consisting of a single shaft of wood; steel or concrete specifically designed and constructed to carry more than one personal wireless service antenna. • Mount. See Antenna-Mount. • Obtrusive_ A term used to describe a personal wireless service facility that is visually domitlatirig to its surrounding environment. This term usually applies to a facility where a new monopole or lattice tower is erected to mount the antennas. It may also apply to building-mounted or structure-mounted facilities that lack adequate camouflage. • Omni-directional Antenna_ A thin rod that transmits or receives a radio signal in all directions. Also called a "whip ' antenna. • Paging. A service that provides tone, text and limited voice messaging. Commercial paging operates on several frequencies, including narrowband PCS. i~g~os • Panel Antenna. A flat surface antenna that is usually deployed in three directional sectors and used to transmit and receive signals from that sector only. • Personal Communications Services (PCS). A form of radiotelephone service capable of transmitting and receiving voice, data, text and video messaging and which operates in the' 1850-1900 MHz range. • Personal Wireless Services. The Plan uses the definition found in Section 704 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Unlicensed Wireless Services, Common Carrier Wireless Exchange and Commercial Mobile Radio Services, which includes: Cellular, Personal Communications Services (PCS), Enhanced Specialized Mobile Radio, Specialized Mobile Radio and Paging- . Personal Wireless Service Facility_ As defined in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, a facility that is designed to provide personal wireless services. • Pylon Sign. A sign erected on a tall and substantial supporting structure, but is not a billboard sign. • Radio Frequency (RF) Engineer. Someone with a background in electrical engineering who specializes in the study of radio frequencies. RF engineers are licensed by the State as Professional Engineers. • Radio Frequency Radiation (RFR). The emissions from personal wireless service facilities that in excessive amounts can be harmful to humans. • Search Icing. A generally circulaz geographic area of a specific radius that a carrier uses to focus his search for a personal wireless service facility location. • Separation. The distance between o:ne carrier's antenna array and another carrier's antenna array. Separation may be horizontal or vertical. • Siting. The method of placing-a personal wireless service facility on a specific site or property. The term differs from determining "location." • Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR)_ A group of services serving dispatch and data communication users, usually over a small geographic area. SMR operates over several frequencies in the 800 to 900 MHz range. • Telecommunications Act of 1996_ This is a broad revision of the 1934 federal statute govern;,,g telecommtmications_ It is important at the local government level because it contair-e: language that both preserves and limits the authority of local government to regulate personal wireless service facilities. •_ Unobtrusive. A term used to describe a personal wireless service facilit-y that is not visually dominating to its surroundings. These are usually facilities mounted on buildings or other structures that are well- camouflaged. This also describes facilities that are not as well camouflaged, but do not visually stand-out because of placement, shape 39~ a - i o~ and/or relative size of the facility compared to surrounding visual elements. • Unlicensed Wireless Services. Commercial mobile services that can operate on public domain frequencies and that therefore need no FCC license for each personal wireless service facility. However, an unlicensed carrier needs a FCC license. Examples are Metricom and Wi-Fi. 14 - '108 40 IXHIBIT E OFFICE OF COMMUNICATION CITY HALL X0300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO,~CA 950'I4-3255 C U P E RT I N O - (408) 777-3212 :• FAX (408) 777-3368 , SUMMARY Agenda Item ~ ~ Date: September 4, 2007 5nbject: Report Regarding Cell Phone Coverage: from the Technology, Information, and Communication Commission (TICC). . Background and Analysis: Over the last several years, the prevalence and ubiquitous cell phone usage has made the mobile phone the communication tool of first resort, both for everyday conversations and emergency calls. In July 2007, the TICC conducted an electronic survey on issues and resident concerns regarding cell phone; coverage and antennae in Cupertino. The survey was conducted during three weeks in July of 2007. Survey links and notices were distributed via Metrofi advertising, the Cupertino Scene, the city web site, and by a-mail to over a thousand Cupertino residents and to all city cornmicsioners. Questions focused on residents' experience with cell phone services. The goal of the survey was to better understand the state of wireless services, and residents' perception of those services. Analysis of the 614 respondent results, (with a +/- 4% confidence interval) were: • Carrier market share is dominated by AT~3cT and Verizon • About half report excellent or good coverage at home • Half have Fair or No coverage at home • 45% of all detailed responses wanted better cell phone coverage in Cupertino • Key trouble areas for coverage o Kennedy/Monta Vista/Bubb/McClellan azea o Foothill Blvd (Stevens Creek to 280) o De Anza (Homestead to Stevens Greek) Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council direct the Technology, information, and Comnnunicatioa Commission to revise and update the Wireless Facilities Master Plan in order to address and expedite resolution of coverage issues identiffed in the wireless services survey. Submi y Approved for submission: Rick Kitson David W. Knapp Public Communication Manager City Manager ~ 4 - 109 September 4, 2007 Cupertino City Council E71Cfll~b~t F BUSINESS -None NEW 9. Review bids award the contract for Contractual Janitorial Services Project No. 2007- 03, to C e t' C r oration, in the amount of $312,441.50, and approve a contract contingency $32,558.50 to cover any unforeseen work required to carry out the services, for a total of 45,000.00. Staff distributed a list of requir plies, including paper supplies, cleaning supplies, and special items like flooring cleancrs. Lowenthal/Sandoval moved and seconded to ward the contract to Clean Innovation Corporation and approve the contingency amount. emotion carried unanimously. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS -Continued Mayor Wang reopened the oral communications section for a speaker v1i i~p had arrived a few minutes late. ~ ~ Jim Griffith, campaign chairman for "Build the Library - Measure B" in Sunnyv asked Council for their endorsement of this measure. He noted that in the past Sunnyvale had no een an active supporter in the library system. Many Sunnyvale residents used neighbo community libraries, especially the Cupcrtino library, and this measure would correct that. Council referred this request to the Legislative Action Committee for a report back to the City ^----°_' 10. Receive report regarding cell uhone coverage from the Telecommunication, Information and Conununications Commission (TICC). Andrew Radle and Peter Freidland, members of the Telecommunications, Information and Communications Commission, presented a summary of their report on cell phone coverage. They also introduced Com,,,;ssioners Eric Kline and Bill Allen, who were present, and said that Wallace Imamura had also worked on the document. They explained that a resident survey had been conducted which asked for input on cell phone services including coverage, health and safety issues, and tower esthetics. The responses covered a geographic distribution of the city. The results showed that coverage varied widely in the city, with 50% of the respondents reporting poor coverage. It was further noted that ATBcT and Verizon were the major carriers in the city, but several vendors could use one pole. The commission noted that a master plan had been done some time ago but it had not been implemented and needed to be updated. They asked if they could work with staff on various options to address these concerns and establish a work plan. Michael Gottwald said that ceii phone coverage was very poor near Kennedy School and more cell phone towers would be appreciated. 14- 110 September 4, 2007 Cupertino City Council Page 4 Councilmember Lowenthal suggested that the survey results be sent to all the cell phone carriers. He further noted that the commission needed to address the political issue as well, in part by educating the cotrununity and encouraging advocates to attend public meetings on this cell phone issue. Council also addressed the importance of cell phone use in emergency situations such as the recent local fires. Emily Poon said there was no need for cell phone towers any more because of improvements in technology. She also believed the survey results were representative of a small number of Cupertino residents and questioned the interpretations made by the committee. The City Council agreed to receive the report and direct the commission to work with the City Manager to develop a scope of work, and to report back to the City Council at a future meeting. (Continued from August 21). S doval/Lowenthal moved and seconded to approve the recommended changes to the admi trative procedures to eliminate the requirement to advertise in print media, and to replace t 'th a requirement to advertise online using CalOpps and online news media. Staff shall o inform the existing news media of the change so that they have an opportunity top icipate in the online option. The motion carried unanimously. 12. Authorize an amount t to exceed $25,000 for a feasibility study of solar~anels on the Blackberry Farm Golf Co a maintenance building. Director of Parks and Recreatio Therese Smith noted that this study was not just for solar panels but also for the overall oject. Council suggested looking into solar for the library and the Blue Pheasant, and to c ider solar solutions for the swimming pool as well. Lowenthal/Sandoval moved and seconded to aut rite the feasibility study for solar or other environmentally-friendly options, as recomme ed by staff. The motion carried ~a n i m OUSIy. 13. Review Council committee appointments and reassi n Councii embers to fill vacancies created by Patrick Kwok's resignation. Sandoval/Lowenthal moved and seconded to recocrtmend Councilmemb Lowenthal to the Board of Supervisors for appointment to the Bay Area Air Quality agement District (BAAQMD). Council discussed whether to recommend that Patrick Kwok be replaced as the city representative, which agency made the appointment, and who was in a position to recommend anoointment, 14-~11 --~- Exhihit G PA \~ kl r. 1 i ... . \' :.ni to ~ _ A1~1a - '~ °, ' ~~I [~~rl ni rs 1__ - r t=~r (( +~ I 1 ~~ . , ~ ~; -~ ~ ,, ~ ~ n,,, ,u •ry ~ -- -f- ~ - i`I~ I1L, n , ~) ~~ir~rrrriyyi ~ i nrro ~ /~ .,. „. I; I S ~°j fl- AI~S I,=.~ A,e ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~~~ PA 1~~ `. fl1A y j ~., `~ i~~ ~ NN ~~`~°~4~'' '~ / rl I AH8 II S. ... ~ ~ '° Wireless Communications Facilities ~ : ~~ Cxisting Facilities, Areas allowed by current Ordinance ~ ~ ~~ ~"~~ ~~~~ +~- ~ °°""'"° &Areae rn osedb T1CCDraftOrdinance ~~ ~ J~, oe m ~~ 1 ~~ PP Y ~ ~ i »a ~ Uuddul mowded ~/; ~ I Y plnosl K I ,'~ ~ i ® ~ Monopole/Tracer ~.\, p ~. Ll ~ PG&GTnH~erMounl ~ S~orlsFieldLi hlA1ount ~+~~ ~ I K il~ l/~ ~ VaIlcoSi nMounl I "~ B 4 _`_~ ~~ W ~ PRw~x N~ ~ TI'ee pule C L „JJ - Proposed Locations ~' ~' ®Currently, potentially ellulrerl sites / ~ _ 1.11q eb a I,I~ a~ra~rael O ~ "'- .. ~ Prepared by Piu Ghosh, Planning Ucpartmem \~ _. ~ ~ Last Updated November U, AWN ~ `~ - _ _ ~ la-n2 -- 'ar .~ ¢~~ r` _ ~-= :_ FA FA . FR ari z--- _ - _ _ , _ _ _ __ I_~. ;~~~ ® fS'' NStl '~% ` / ~w~ _ _. Gil M ~ ~ ~~ _ °~ _ Wireless Communications Facilities ~'~ '~' "~~ ~-. - _ : ~ ~ M_~ - ~ Existing Facilities, Areas allowed by current Ordinance FA4,m ~`~ 1 h .w ~- - _ ~. _ CUPEFiINO 1 I ~~\X~/~~ ~ ~ & Areas proposed by TICC Draft Ordinance ~f~' i ..J!) ~a~ J~ ' /~'i xl\ iV~,;~~Mt -_R1e = Legend ~., -~ P(Res) _ • Building mounted A~~ ..,, ~y ,~; ~~' ; ~ q~ A ~,~ ®; - ~ A~onopole/To1~~er \ ~F f ~ _ ~ ~ _ • PG&E Pole ?Mount i ~ ;; _ _ j _ _ ~ PG&E Totiser A7ount as ,~ ~ l-l l !; ' T _ ~ • Roof ARounted ~ti~~p ~ ~ ~ Sports Field Ligllt A7ount `~ ~~ ~~~,~~ _` ~' J _, • ~~allcoSign?~4ount - ~ Tree Pole 'l ~, ~. Proposed Locations ~~\~ ,, ,~ ,~ ®Currently, potentially allol~~ed sites _ ~ ~ ; ~10o ao 0 laoo ?,~o~ Feet '~ ~ ~~ ~ - Federal Communications Commission Local and State Government Advisory Committee A Local Governmenit Official's Guide to Transmitting Antennas RF Emission Safety: Rules, Procedures, and Practical Guidance 1 .r ~ • ~ r June 2, 2000 14 - 113 A Local Government Official's Guide to Transmitting Antenna RF Emission Safety: Rules, Procedures, and Practical Guidance Over the past two years, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and its Local and State Government Advisory Committee (LSGAC) have been working together to prepare a voluntary guide to assist state and local governments in devising efficient procedures for ensuring that the antenna facilities located in their communities comply with the FCC's limits for human exposure to radiofrequency (RF) electromagnetic fields. The attached guide is the product of this joint effort. We encourage state and local government officials to consult this guide when addressing issues of facilities siting within their communities. This guide contains basic information, in a form accessible to officials and citizens alike, that will alleviate misunderstandings in the complex area of ]ZF emissions safety. This guide is not intended to replace OET Bulletin 65, which contains detailed technical information regarding RF issues, and should continue to be used and consulted for complex sites. The guide contains information, tables, and a model checklist to assist state and local officials in identifying sites that do not raise concerns regarding compliance with the Commission's RF exposure limits. In many cases, the model checklist offers a quick and effective way for state and local officials to establish that particular RF facilities are unlikely to exceed specific federal guidelines that protect the public fiom the environmental effects of RF emissions. Thus, we believe this guide will facilitate federal, state, and local goven~nients working together to protect the public while bringing advanced and innovative communications services to consumers as rapidly as possible. We hope and expect that use of this guide will benefit state and local governments, service providers, and, most importantly, the American public. We wish all of you good luck in your facilities siting endeavors. William E. Kennard, Chairman Kenneth S. Fellman, Chair Federal Communications Commission Local and State Government Advisory Committee 14 - 114 FCC/LSGAC Local Official's Guide to RF A LOCAL GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL'S GUIDE TO TRANSNIITTING ANTENNA RF EIVIISSION SAFETY: RULES, PROCEDURES, AND PRACTICAL GUIDANCE A common question raised in discussions about -the siting of wireless telecommunications and broadcast antennas is, "Will this tower create an_~ health concerns for our citizens?" We have designed this guide to provide you with informal:ion and guidance in devising efficient procedures for assuring that the antenna facilitie:> located in your community comply with the Federal Communication Commission's (FCC's) Limits for human exposure to radiofrequency (RF) electromagnetic fields.l We have included a checklist and tables to help _~ou quickly identify siting applications that do not raise RF exposure concerns. Appendix A to this guide contains a checklist that you niay use to identify "categorically excluded" facilities that are unlikely to cause RF exposures in excess of the FCC's guidelines. Appendix B contains tables and figures that set forth, for some of the most common types of facilities, "worst case" distances beyond which there is no realistic possibility that exposure could exceed the FCC's; guidelines. As discussed below, FCC rules require transmitting facilities to comply with RF exposure guidelines. The limits established in the guidelines are designed to protect the public health with a very large margin of safety. These limits have been endorsed by federal health and safety agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency and the Food and Drug Administration. The FCC's rules have been upheld by a Federal ~~ourt of Appeals.Z As discussed below, most facilities create maximum exposures that are only a small fraction of the limits. Moreover, the limits themselves are many times below levels tl-;at are generally accepted as having the potential to cause adverse health effects. Nonetheless, it is recognized that any instance of noncompliance with the guidelines is potentially very serious, ar„d the FCC has therefore implemented procedures to enforce compliance with its rules. At the same time, state and local governments may wish to verify compliance with the FCC's exposure limits in order to protect their own citizens. As a state or local government official, you can play an important role in ensuring that innovative and beneficial communications services are provided in a manner that is consistent with public health and safety. This document addresses only the issue of compliance with RF exposure limits established by the FCC. It does not address other issues such as; construction, siting, permits, inspection, zoning, environmental review, and placement of antenna facilities within communities. Such issues fall generally under the jurisdiction of states and local governments, within the limits imposed for personal wireless service facilities by Section 332(c)(7) of the Communications ACt.3 i This guide is intended to complement, but not to replace, the FCC's OET Bulletin 65, "Evaluating Compliance with FCC Guidelines for Human Exposure to Radiofreque-ncy Electromagnetic Fields," August 1997. Bulletin 65 can be obtained from the FCC's Office of Engineering and. Technology (phone: 202-418-2464 or a-mail: rfsafety@fcc.gov). Bulletin 65 can also be accessed and downloaded from the FCC's "RF Safety" website: http://www. fcc. gov/oet/rfsafety. Z See Cellular Phone Taskforce v. FCC, 205 F.3d 82 (2d Cir. 2000). t4- ttS 1 FCC/LSGAC Local Official's Guide to RF This document is not intended to provide legal guidance regarding the scope of state or local government authority under Section 332(c)(7) or any other provision of law. Section 332(c)(7)4 generally preserves state and local authority over decisions regarding the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities,s subject to specific limitations set forth in Section 332(c)(7). Among other things, Section 332(c)(7) provides that "[n]o 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 [FCC's] regulations concerning such emissions." The full text of Section 332(c)(7) is set forth in Appendix C. State and local governments and the FCC may differ regarding the extent of state and local legal authority under Section 332(c)(7) and other provisions of law. To the extent questions arise regarding such authority, they are being addressed by the courts. Rather than address these legal questions, this document recognizes that, as a practical matter, state and local governments have a role to play in ensuring compliance with the FCC's limits, and it provides guidance to assist you in effectively fulfilling that role. The twin goals of this document are: (1) to define and promote locally-adaptable procedures that will provide you, as a local official concerned about transmitting antenna emissions, with adequate assurance of compliance, while (2), at the same time, avoiding the imposition of unnecessary burdens on either the local govenzunent process or the FCC's licensees. First, we'll start with a sunlnnary of the FCC's RF exposure guidelines and some background information that you'll find helpful. Next, we'll review the FCC's procedures for verifying compliance with the guidelines and enforcing its rules. Finally, we'll offer you some practical guidance to help you determine if personal wireless service facilities may raise compliance concerns. Note, however, that this guide is only intended to help you distinguish sites that are unlikely to raise compliance concerns from those that may raise compliance concerns, not to identify sites that are out of compliance. Detailed technical information necessary to determine compliance for individual sites is contained in the FCC's OET Bulletin 65 (see footnote 1, above). s 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7). Under limited circumstances, the FCC also plays a role in the siting of wireless facilities. Specifically, the FCC reviews applications for facilities that fall within certain environmental categories under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), see 47 C.F.R. § 1.1307(a). Antenna structures that are over 200 feet in height or located near airport runways must be marked or lighted as specified by the Federal Aviation Administration and must be registered with the FCC, see 47 C.F.R. Part 17. Section 332(c)(7) of the Communications Act is identical to Section 704(a) of the Teleconmzunications Act of 1996. e "Personal wireless services" generally includes wireless telecommunications services that are interconnected with the public telephone network and are offered commercially to the public. Examples include cellular and similar services (such as Personal Communications Service or "PCS"), paging and similar services, certain dispatch services, and services that use wueless technology to provide telephone serviceto a fixed location such as a home or office. 14 - 116 2 FCC/LSGAC Local Official's Guide to RF Before we start; however, let's take a short tour of the radiofrequency specttlini. RF signals may be transmitted over a wide range of frequencies. The frequency of an RF signal is expressed in terms of cycles per second or "Hertz," abbreviated "Hz." One kilohertz (1cI Iz) equals one thousand Hz, one megahertz (1VITIz) equals one naillion Hz, and one gigahertz (GHz) equals one billion Hz. In the figure below, you'll see that AM radio signals are at the lower end of the RF spectrum, while other radio services, such as analog and digital TV (DTV), cellular and PCS telephony, and point-to-point microwave services are much higher in frequency. Cordless Cordless Cordless Shortwave Radio Phones Phones Phones A\M BaJn/d //~ \\\ Aircraft Microwaves v ~/ CB VHF VHF UHF p,C.S. Phones N+ON N+DN N+ON Ham Ham Pagers Cellular Phones FM Band 0.3 Mhz 3 Mhz 30 t`9hz 300 Mhz 3000 Mhz As the frequency increases, the wavelength of the transmitted signal decreases Mhz =Megahertz =Millions of cyGes per second Illustrlation 1 The FCC's limits for maximum permissible exposure (MPE) to RF emissions depend on the frequency or frequencies that a person is exposed to. Different frequencies may have different MPE levels. Later in this document we'll show you how this relationship of frequency to MPE limit works. I. The FCC's RF Exposure Guidelines a>t><d Rules. Part 1 of the FCC's Rules and Regulations contains provisions implementing the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). NE'.PA requires all federal agencies to evaluate the potential environmental significance of an agency action. Exposure to RF energy has been identified by the FCC as a potential environmental factor that must be considered before a facility, operation or transmitter can be authorized or licensed. The FCC's requirements dealing with RF exposure can be found in Part 1 of its rules at 47 C.F.R. § 1.1307(b). The exposure limits themselves are specified in 47 C.F.R. § 1.7.310 in terms of frequency, field strength, power density and averaging time. Facilities and transn utters licensed and authorized by the FCC must either comply with these guidelines or else an applicant must file an Environmental Assessment (EA) with the FCC as specified in 47 C.F.R. § 1.1301 et seq. An EA is an official document required by the FCC's rules whenever an action may have a significant environmental impact (see discussion below). In practice, however, a F~otential environmental RF exposure problem is typically resolved before an EA would become necessary. Therefore, compliance with the FCC's RF guidelines constitutes a de facto threshold for obtaining FCC approval to construct or operate a station or transmitter. The FCC guidel fines are based on exposure criteria 14 - 117 3 FCC/LSGAC Local Official's Guide to RF recommended in 1986 by the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) and on the 1991 standard developed by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) and later adopted as a standard by the An-terican National Standards Institute (ANSI/IEEE C95.1-1992). The FCC's guidelines establish separate MPE limits for "general population uncontrolled exposure" and for "occupational/controlled exposure." The general population/uncontrolled limits set the maximum exposure to which most people may be subjected. People in this group include the general public not associated with the installation and maintenance of the transmitting equipment. Higher exposure limits are permitted under the "occupational controlled exposure" category, but only for persons who are exposed as a consequence of their employment (e.g., wireless radio engineers, technicians). To qualify for the occupational controlled exposure category, exposed persons must be made fully aware of the potential for exposure (e.g., through training), and they must be able to exercise control over their exposure. In addition, people passing through a location, who are made aware of the potential for exposure, maybe exposed under the occupational controlled criteria. The MPE limits adopted by the FCC for occupational controlled and general population uncontrolled exposure incorporate a substantial maruin of safety and have been established to be well below levels generally accepted as having the potential to cause adverse health effects. Determining whether a potential health hazard could exist with respect to a given transmitting antenna is not always a simple matter. Several important factors must be considered in making that determination. They include the following: (1) What is the frequency of the RF signal being transmitted? (2) What is the operating power of the transmitting station and what is the actual power radiated from the antenna? a (3) How long will someone be exposed to the RF signal at a given distance from the antenna? (4) What other antennas are located in the area, and what is the exposure from those antennas? We'll explore each of these issues in greater detail below. For all frequency ranges at which FCC licensees operate, Section 1.1310 of the FCC's rules establishes maximum permissible exposure (MPE) limits to which people maybe exposed. The MPE limits vary by frequency because of the different absorptive properties of the human body at different frequencies when exposed to whole-body RF fields. Section 1.1310 establishes MPE limits in terms of "electric field strength," "magnetic field strength," and "far-field equivalent power density" (power density). For most frequencies used by the wireless services, the most relevant measurement is power density. The MPE limits for power density are given in terms of "milliwatts per square centimeter" or mW/cmZ. One milliwatt equals one thousandth of one watt (1/1000 of a watt). 7n terms of power density, for a given frequency the FCC MPE limits can be interpreted as specifying the maximum rate that energy can be transferred (i. e., the power) to a square centimeter of a person's body over a period of time (either 6 or 30 minutes, as explained 5 Power travels from a transmitter through cable or other connecting device to the radiating antenna. "Operating power of the transmitting station" refers to the power that is fed from the transmitter (transmitter output power) into the cable or connecting device. "Actual power radiated from the antenna" is the transmitter output power minus the power lost (power losses) in the connecting device plus an apparent increase in power (if any) due to the design of the antenna. Radiated power is often specified in terms of "effective radiated power" or "ERP" or "effective isotropic radiated power" or "EIRP" (see footnote 14). ~ Thus, by way of illustration, it takes 100,000 milliwatts of power to fully illuminate a 100 watt light bulb 14- 11S 4 FCC/LSGAC Local Official's Guide to RF below). In practice, however, since it is unrealistic to measure separately the exposure of each square centimeter of the body, actual compliance: with the FCC limits on IZF emissions should be determined by "spatially averaging" a person's exposure over the projected azea of an adult human body (this concept is discussed in the FCC's OET Bulletin 65). For determining compliance, exposure is averaged over the approximate projected area of the body. ~1'~ /~ Power decreases as the distance from the: antenna increases. Illustration 2 Electric field strength and magnetic field strength are used to measure "near field" exposure. At frequencies below 300 MHz, these aze typically 1:he more relevant measures of exposure, and power density values are given primarily for reference purposes. However, evaluation of faz- field equivalent power density exposure may still be appropriate for evaluating exposure in some such cases. For frequencies above 300 MHz, only one field component need be evaluated, and exposure is usually more easily characterized in terms of power density. Transmitters and antennas that operate at 300 MHz or lower include radio broadcast stations, some television broadcast stations, and certain personal wireless :service facilities (e.g., some paging stations). Most personal wireless services, including all cellular and PCS, as well as some television broadcast stations, operate at frequencies above =500 MHz. (See Illustration 1.) As noted above, the MPE limits are specified astime-averaged exposure limits. This means that exposure can be averaged over the identified time interval (30 minutes for general population/uncontrolled exposure or 6 minutes for occupational controlled exposure). However, for the case of exposure of the general public, time averaging i"s usually not applied because of uncertainties over exact exposure conditions and difficulty in controlling time of exposure. Therefore, the typical conservative approach is to assume that any RF exposure to the general public will be continuous. The FCC's limits for exposure at different frequencies are shown in Illustration 3, below: 14 - 119 5 FCC/LSGAC Local Official's Guide to RF Illustration 3. FCC Limits for Maxin:uns Permissible Exposure (2VIPE) (A) Limits for Occupational/Controlled Exposure Frequency Range (MHz Electric Field Strength (E) (V/m Magnetic Field Strength (H) A/m Power Density (S) mW/emZ Averaging Time ~E~2, ~H~2 or S minutes) 0.3-3.0 614 1.63 100 * 6 3.0-30 1842/f 4.89/f 900/f2 * 6 30-300 61.4 0.163 1.0 6 300-1500 -- -- f1300 6 1500-100,000 -- -- 5 6 (B) Limits for General Population/Llncontrolled Exposure -~ Frequency Range (NIHz) Electric Field Strength (E) V/m) Magnetic Field Strength (H) A/m) Power Density (S) mW/cm2) Averaging Time ~E~Z, ~H~Z or S minutes 0.3-134 614 1.63 (100 * 30 134-30 824/f 2.19/f (180/ * 30 30-300 27.5 0.073 0.2 30 300-1500 -- -- (/1500 30 1500-100,000 -- -- 1.0 30 f =frequency in MHz *Plane-wave equivalent power density NOTE 1 : Occupational controlled limits apply in situations in which persons aze exposed as a consequence of their employment provided those persons are fully aware of the potential for exposure and can exercise control over their exposure. Limits for occupational/controlled exposure also apply in situations when an individual is transient through a location where occupational/controlled limits apply provided he or she is made aware of the potential for exposure. NOTE 2: General population/uncontrolled exposures apply in situations in which the general public may be exposed, or in which persons that are exposed as a consequence of their employment may not be fully aware of the potential for exposure or cannot exercise control over their exposure. Finally, it is important to understand that the FCC's limits apply cumulatively to all sources of RF emissions affecting a given area. A common example is where two or more wireless operators have agreed to share the cost of building and maintaining a tower, and to place their antennas on that joint structure. In such a case, the total exposure from the two facilities taken together must be within the FCC guidelines, or else an EA will be required. A. Categorically Excluded Facilities The Commission has determined through calculations acid technical analysis that due to their low power or height above ground level, many facilities by their very nature are highly unlikely to 14 - '120 6 FCC/LSGAC Local Official's Guide to RF cause human exposures in excess of the guideline: limits, and operators of those facilities are exempt from routinely having to determine compliance. Facilities with these characteristics are considered "categorically excluded" from the requirement for routine environmental processing for RF exposure. Section 1.1307(b)(1) of the Commission's rules sets forth which facilities are categorically excluded.$ If a facility is categorically excluded, an applicant or licensee may ordinarily assume compliance with the guideline limits for exposure;. However, an applicant or licensee must evaluate and determine compliance for a facility that is otherwise categorically excluded if specifically requested to do so by the FCC.9 If potential environmental significance is found as a result, an EA must be filed with the FCC. No radio or television broadcast facilities are categorically excluded: Thus, broadcast applicants and licensees must affirmatively determine their :Facility's compliance with the guidelines before construction, and upon every facility modificatio~i or license renewal application. With respect to personal wireless services, a cellular facility is categorically excluded if the total effective radiated power (E12P) of all-channels operated by the licensee at a site is 1000 watts or less. If the facility uses sectorized antennas, only the total effective radiated power in each direction is. considered. Examples of a 3 sector and a single sector antenna array are shown below: Example of a 3 sector Example of a single sector antenna array antenna array Sector C Sector B Antenna Array ~ ~ Antenna Array Sector A ~ Antenna Array Single Sector Antenna ray Illustration 4 s "The appropriate exposure limits ...are generally applicable to all facilities, operations and transmitters regulated by the Commission. However, a detera-tination of complia;rice with the exposure limits ... (routine environmental evaluation), and preparation of an EA if the limits are exceeded, is necessary only for facilities, operations and transmitters that fall into the categories listed in table 1 [of § 1.1307], or those specified in paragraph (b)(2) of this section. All other facilities, operations and transmitters are categorically excluded from making studies or preparing anEA..." e See 47 C.F.R § 1.1307(c) and (d). 14 - f 2'I.~ FCC/LSGAC Local Official's Guide to RF Tn addition, a cellular facility is categorically excluded, regardless of its power, if it is not - mounted on a building and the lowest point of the antenna is at least 10 meters (about 33 feet) above ground level. A broadband PCS antenna array is categorically excluded if the total effective radiated power of all channels operated by the licensee at a site (or all channels in any one direction, in the case of sectorized antennas) is 2000 watts or less. Like cellular, another way for a broadband PCS facility to be categorically excluded is if it is not mounted on a building and the lowest point of the antenna is at least 1 O meters (about 33 feet) above ground level. The power threshold for categorical exclusion is higher for broadband PCS than for cellular because broadband PCS operates at a higher frequency where exposure limits are less restrictive. For categorical exclusion thresholds for other personal wireless services, consult Table 1 of Section 1.1307(b)(1).1O For your convenience, we have developed the checklist in Appendix A that may be used to streamline the process of determining whether a proposed facility is categorically excluded. You aze encouraged to adopt the use of this checklist in your jurisdiction, although such use is not mandatory. B. What If An Applicant Or Licensee Wants To Exceed The Limits Shown In Illustration 3? Any FCC applicant or licensee who wishes to construct or operate a facility that, by itself or in combination with other sources of emissions (i. e., other transmitting antennas), may cause human exposures in excess of the guideline limits must file an Environmental Assessment (EA) with the FCC. Where more than one antenna is collocated (for example, on a single tower or rooftop or at a hilltop site), the applicant must take into consideration all of the RF power transmitted by all of the antennas when determining maximum exposure levels. Compliance at an existing site is the shared responsibility of all licensees whose transmitters produce exposure levels in excess of 5% of the applicable exposure limit. Anew applicant is responsible for compliance (or submitting an EA) at a multiple-use site if the proposed transmitter would cause non-compliance and if it would produce exposure levels in excess of 5% of the applicable limit.l t An applicant or licensee is not permitted to construct or operate a facility that would result in exposure in excess of the guideline limits until the FCC has reviewed the EA and either found no significant environmental impact, or pursued further environmental processing including the preparation of a formal Environmental Impact Statement. As a practical matter, however, this process is almost never invoked for RF exposure issues because applicants and licensees normally undertake corrective actions to ensure compliance with the guidelines before submitting an application to the FCC. Unless a facility is categorically excluded (explained above), the FCC's rules reouire a licensee to evaluate a proposed or existing facility's compliance with the 12F exposure guidelines and to 1O Table 1 of §1.13o7(b)(1) is reproduced in Appendix A to this guide. ~ t For more information, see OET Bulletin 65, or see 47 CFR § 1. 1307(b)(3). 14 - '122 8 FCC/LSGAC Local Official's Guide to RF determine whether an EA is required. In the case of broadcast licensees, who are required to obtain a construction permit from the FCC, this a:valuation is required before the application for a construction permit is filed, or the facility is constructed. In addition, if a facility requires the filing of an EA for any reason other than RF emissions, the RF evaluation must be performed before the EA is filed. Factors other than RF emissions that may require the filing of an EA are set out in 47 C.F.R. § 1.1307(a). Otherwise, new facilities that do not require FCC-issued construction perziiits should be evaluated before they are placed in operation. The FCC also requires its licensees to evaluate existing facilities and operations that are not categorically excluded if the licensee seeks to modify its facilities or renew its license. These requirements are intended to enhance public safety by requiring periodic site compliance reviews. All facilities that were placed in service before C~ctober 15, 1997 (when the current RF exposure guidelines became effective) are expected to comply with the current guidelines no later than September 1, 2000, or the date of a license renewal, whichever is eazlier.tZ If a facility cannot meet the September 1, 2000, date, the licensee oi'that facility must file an EA by that date. Section 1.1307(b) of the FCC's rules requires the licensee to provide the FCC with technical information showing the basis for its determination of compliance upon request. II. How the FCC Verifies Compliance withh and Enforces Its Rules. A. Procedures Upon Initial Construction, Modification, and Renewal.. The FCC's procedures for verifying that a new facility, or a facility that is the subject of a facility modification or license renewal application, will comply with the RF exposure rules vary depending upon the service involved. Applications for broadcast services (for example, AM and FM stations, and television stations) aze reviewed by the FCC's Mass Media Bureau (MMB). As part of every relevant application, the MMB requires an applicant to submit an explanation of what steps will be taken to limit RF exposure and comply with FCC guidelines. The applicant must certify that RF exposure procedures will be coordinated with all collocated entities (usually other stations at a common transmitter site or hilt or mountain peak). If the submitted explanation does not adequately demonstrate a facility's compliance with the guidelines, the MMB will require additional supporting data before grantin;~ the application. The Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (WTB) reviews personal wireless service applications (for cellular, PCS, SMR, etc.). For those services that operate under blanket area licenses, including cellular and PCS, the license application and renewal form require the applicant to certify whether grant of the application would have a significant environmental impact so as to require submission of an EA. The applicant's answer to this question covers all of the facilities sites included within the area of the license. For those services that continue to be licensed b3~ site (e.g., certain paging renewals), the WTB requires a similar certification on the application form for each site. To comply with the FCC's rules, an applicant must determine its own compaiance before completing this certification for iz Prior to October 15, 1997, the Conunission applied a different set of substantive guidelines. 14 - '123 9 FCC/LSGAC Local Official's Guide to RF every site that is not categorically excluded. The WTB does not, however, routinely require the submission of any information supporting the determination of compliance. B. Procedures For Responding To Complaints About Existing Facilities. The FCC frequently receives inquiries from members of the public as to whether a particular site complies with the RF exposure guidelines. Upon receiving these inquiries, FCC staff may ask the inquiring party to describe the site at issue. In many instances, the information provided by the inquiring party does not raise any concern that the site could exceed the limits in the guidelines. FCC staff will then inform the inquiring party of this determination. In some cases, the information provided by the inquiring party does not preclude the possibility that the limits could be exceeded. Under these circumstances, FCC staff may ask the licensee who operates the facility Yo supply information demonstrating its compliance. FCC staff may also inspect the site to determine whether it is accessible to the public, and examine other relevant physical attributes. Usually, the information obtained in this manner is sufficient to establish compliance. If compliance is established in this way, FCC staff will inform the inquiring party of this determination. In some instances, a Licensee may be unable to provide information sufficient to establish compliance with the guideline limits. 7n these cases, FCC staff may test the output levels of individual facilities and evaluate the physical installation. Keep in mind, however, that instances in which physical testing is necessary to verify compliance are relatively rare. If a site is found to be out of compliance with the RF guidelines, the FCC will require the licensees at the site to remedy the situation. Depending on the service and the nature and extent of the violation, these remedies can include, for example, an immediate reduction in power, a modification of safety barriers, or a modification of the equipment or its installation. Actions necessary to bring a site into compliance are the shared responsibility of all licensees whose facilities-cause exposures in that area that exceed 5% of the applicable MPE limit. In addition, licensees may be subject to sanctions for violating the FCC's rules and/or for misrepresentation. The FCC is committed to responding fully, promptly, and accurately to all inquiries regarding compliance with the RF exposure guidelines, and to taking swift and appropriate action whenever the evidence suggests potential noncompliance. To perform this function effectively, however, the FCC needs accurate information about potentially problematic situations. By applying the principles discussed in this guide about RF emissions, exposure and the FCC's guidelines, state and local officials can fulfill a vital role in identifying and winnowing out situations that merit fiirther attention. III. Practical Guidance Regarding Compliance. This section is intended to provide some general guidelines that can be used to identify sites that should not raise serious questions about compliance with FCC RF exposure guidelines. Sites that don't fall into the categories described here may still meet the guidelines, but the determination 14 - '124 10 FCC/LSGAC Local Official's Guide to RF of compliance will not be as straightforward. In such cases, a detailed review maybe required. The tables and graphs shown in Appendix B are intended only to assist in distinguishing sites that should not raise serious issues from sites that may require further inquiry. They are not intended for use in identifying sites that are out of compliance. As noted above, the factors that can affect exposure at any individual site, particularly a site containing multiple facilities, are too numerous and subtle to be practically encompassed within this framework. Applying the basic principles discussed in this guide should allow you to eliminate a lazge number of sites from further consideration with respect to health concerns. You may find it useful to contact a qualified radio engineer to assist you in your inquiry. Many larger cities and counties, and most states, have radio engineers oil staff or under contract. In smaller jurisdictions, we reconmzend you seek initial assistance from other jurisdictions, universities that have RF engineering programs, or perhaps the engineer in charge of your local broadcast station(s). We'll exclude any discussion of broadcast sites. .As explained before, broadcast licensees are required to submit site-specific information on e~ich facility to the FCC for review, and that information is publicly available at the station as long as the application i pending. The focus in this section is on personal wireless services, particularly cellular and broadband PCS, the services that currently require the largest numbers of new and modified facilities. Many other personal wireless services, however, such as paging services, operate in approximately the same frequency ranges as cellular and broadband PCS. ~a Much of the information here is broadly applicable to those services as well, and specific information is provided in Appendix B for paging and narrowband PCS operations over frequency bands between 901 and 940 MHz. Finally, this section only addresses the general population/uncontrolled exposure guidelines, since compliance with these guidelines generally causes the most concern to state and local govermnents. Compliance with occupationaUcontrolled exposure limits should be examined independently. A. Categorically Excluded Facilities. As a first step in evaluating a siting application for compliance with the FCC's guidelines, you will probably want to consider whether the facility is categorically excluded under the FCC's rules from routine evaluation for compliance. The checklist in Appendix A will guide you in making this determination. Because categorically excluded facilities are unlikely to cause any exposure in excess of the FCC's guidelines, determination that a facility is categorically excluded should generally suffice to end the inquiry. B. Single Facility Sites. If a wireless telecommunications facility is not categorically excluded, you may want to evaluate potential exposure using the methods discussed below and the tables and figures in Appendix B. "The major exception is fixed wireless services, which often operate at much higher frequencies. In addirion, some paging and other licensees operate at lower frequencies 14-'1211 FCC/LSGAC Local Official's Guide to RF If you "run the numbers" using the conservative approaches promoted in this paper and the site in question does not exceed these values, then you generally need look no further. Alternately, if the "numbers" don't pass muster, you may have a genuine concern. But remember, there may be other factors (i. e., power level, height, blockages, etc.) that contribute to whether the site complies with FCC guidelines. Where a site contains only one antenna array, the maximum exposure at any point in the horizontal plane can be predicted by calculations. The tables and graphs in Appendix B show the maximum distances in the horizontal plane from an antenna at which a person could possibly be exposed in excess of the. guidelines at various levels of effective radiated power (ERP).14 Thus. if people are not able to come closer to an antenna than the applicable distance shown in Appendix B, there should be no cause for concern about exposure exceeding the FCC m,idelines. The tables and graphs apply to the following wireless antennas: (1) cellular omni-directional antennas (Table B1-1 and Figure B1-1); (2) cellular sectorized antennas (Table B1-2 and Figure B1-2); (3) broadband PCS sectorized antennas (Table Bl-3 and Figure B1-3);15 and (4) high- power (900 MHz-band) paging antennas (Table B1-4 and Figure B1-4). Table B1-4 and Figure B1-4 can also be used for omni-directional, narrowband (900 MI-Iz) PCS antennas. Note that both tables and figures in Appendix B have been provided. In .some cases it maybe easier to use a table to estimate exposure distances, but figures may also be used when a more precise value is needed that may not be listed in a table. It's important to note that the predicted distances set forth in Appendix B are based on a very conservative, "worst case" scenario. In other words, Appendix B identifies the furthest distance from the antenna that presents even a remote realistic possibility of RF exposure that could exceed the FCC guidelines. The power levels are based on the approximate maximum number of channels that an operator is likely to operate at one site. Zt is further assumed that each channel operates with the maximum power permitted under the FCC's rules and that all of these channels are "on" simultaneously, an unlikely scenario. This is a very conservative assumption. In reality, most sites operate at a fraction of the maximum permissible power and many sites use fewer than the maximum number of channels. Therefore, actual exposure levels would be expected to be well below the predicted values. Another mitigating factor could be the presence of intervening structures, such as walls, that will reduce RF exposure by variable amounts. For all these reasons, the values given in these tables and graphs are considered to be quite conservative and should over-predict actual exposure levels. 14 ERP is the apparent effective amount of power leaving the transmit antenna. The ERP is determined by factors including but not limited to transmitter output power, coaxial line loss between the transmitter and the antenna, and the "gain" (focusing effect) of the antenna. In some cases, power may also be expressed in terms of EIRP (effective isotropically radiated power). Therefore, for convenience, the tables in Appendix B also include a column for EIRP. ERP and EIRP are related by the mathematical expression: (1:64) X ERP = E112P. is Because broadband PCS antennas are virtually always sectorized, no information is provided for omni-directional PCS antennas. 14 - 126 12 FCC/LSGAC Local Official's Guide to 12I' _ _ "~. ~' ® ~ = Power decreases as the distance from tfie antenna increases Illustration 5 Personal wireless service antennas typically do n~~t emit high levels of 12F energy directed above or below the horizontal plane of the antenna. Although the precise amount of energy transmitted outside the horizontal plane will depend upon the- type of antenna used, we are aware of no wireless antennas that produce significant non-horizontal transmissions. Thus, exposures even a small distance below the horizontal plane of these antennas would be significantly less than in the horizontal plane. As discussed above, the tables and figures in Appendix B show distances in the horizontal plane from typical antennas at which exposures could potentially exceed the guidelines, assuming "worst case" operating conditions at maximum possible power levels. 7n any direction other than horizontal, including dia;~onal or straight down, these "worst case" distances would be significantly less. Where unidirectional antennas aze used, exposure levels within or outside the horizontal plane in directions other than those where the antennas are aimed will typically be insignificant. Iii addition, many new antennas are being designed with shielding capabilities to minimize emissions in undesired directions. C. Multiple Facility Sites. Where multiple facilities are located at a single site, the FCC's rules require the total exposure from all facilities to fall within the guideline limits, unless an EA is filed and approved. 7n such cases, however, calculations of predicted exposure levels and overall evaluation of the site may become much more complicated. For example, different transmitters at a site may operate different numbers of channels, or the operating power per channel may vary from transmitter to transmitter. Transmitters may also operate on different frequencies (for example, one antenna array may belong to a PCS operator, while the other belongs to a cellular operator). A large number of variables such as these make the calculations more time consuming, and make it difficult to apply a simple rule-of--thumb test. Se~~ the following illustration. 14 - 127 13 FCC/LSGAC Local Official's Guide to RF ~aRa ~ ~ ~- -~-+--•~---•--~-f-• -•- --, t--•--~--~ Power decreases as the distance from the antenna increases Illustration 6 However, we can be overly conservative and estimate a "worst case" exposure distance for compliance by assuming that the total power (e. g., E12P) of all transmitting antennas at the site is concentrated in the antenna that is closest to the area in question. (In the illustration above, this would be the antenna that is mounted lower on the building.) Theri the values in the tables and graphs in Appendix B may be used as if this were the only antenna at the site, with radiated power equal to the sum of the actual radiated power of all antennas at the site. Actual RF exposure at any point will always be less than the exposure calculated using these assumptions. Thus. if yeonle are not able to come closer to a group of antennas than the annlicable distance shown in Avvendix Busing these assumptions, there should be no cause for concern about exposure exceeding the FCC guidelines. This is admittedly an extremely conservative procedure, but it may be of assistance in making a "first cut" at eliminating sites from further consideration. IV. Conclusion. We've highlighted many of the most common concerns and questions raised by the siting of wireless telecommunications and broadcast antennas. Applying the principles outlined in this guide will allow you to make initial conservative judgments about whether RF emissions are or should be of concern, consistent with the FCC's rules. As we have explained, when first evaluating a siting application for compliance with the FCC's guidelines, you will probably want to consider whether the facility is categorically excluded under the FCC's rules from routine evaluation for compliance. The checklist in Appendix A will guide you in making this determination. Because categorically excluded facilities are unlikely to cause any exposure in excess of the FCC's guidelines, determination that a facility is categorically excluded should generally suffice to end the inquiry. If a wireless telecommunications facility is not categorically excluded, you may want to evaluate potential exposure using the methods discussed in Part III of this paper and the tables and figures in Appendix B. If the site in question does not exceed the values, then you generally need look no further. Alternately, if the values don't pass muster, you may have a genuine concern. But ~4-128 14 FCC/LSGAC Local Official's Guide to 12F remember, there maybe other factors (i. e., power level, height, blockages, etc.) that contribute to whether the site complies with FCC guidelines. If you have questions about compliance, your initial point of exploration should be with the facilities operator in question. That operator is required to understand the FCC's rules and to know how to apply them in specific cases at specific sites. If, after diligently pursuing answers from the operator, you still have genuine questions regarding compliance, you should contact the FCC at one of the numbers listed below. Provision of the information identified in the checklist in Appendix A may assist the FCC in evaluating your inquiry. General Information: Compliance and Information Bureau, -(888) CALL-FCC Concerns About RF Emissions Exposure at a Particular Site: Office of Engineering and Technology, RF Safety Program, phone (202) 418-2464, FAX (202) 418-1918, a-mail rfsafetvC7a,fcc. gov Licensing and Site Information Regarding Wireless Telecommunications Services: Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Commercial Wireless Division, (202) 418-0620 Licensing and Site Information Regarding Broadcast Radio Services: Mass Media Bureau, Audio Services Division, (202) 418-2700 Licensing and Site Tnformation Regarding Television Service (Including DTV): Mass Media Bureau, Video Services Division, x(202) 418-1600 Also, note that the RF Safety Program Web site is a valuable source of general information on the topic of potential biological effects and hazards of RF energy. For example, OET recently updated its OET Bulletin 56 ("Questions and An:~wers about Biological Effects and Potential Hazards of Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields"). This latest version is available from the program and can be accessed and downloaded from the FCC's web site at: http://www. fcc.l;ov/oet/rfsafety/ 14 - '129 15 FCC/LSGAC Local Official's Guide to RF APPENDIX A Optional Checklist for Determination Of Whetl:er a Facility is Categorically Excluded 14 - 130 FCC/LSGAC Local Official's Guide to RF Optional Checklist for Local Government To Determine Whether a Facility is Categorically Excluded Purpose: The FCC has determined that many wireless facilities are unlikely to cause human exposures in excess of 1tF exposure guidelines. ~~perators of those facilities are exempt from routinely having to determine their compliance. These facilities are termed "categorically excluded." Section 1.1307(b)(1) of the Commis~;ion's rules defines those categorically excluded facilities. This checklist will assist state and locaa govermment agencies in identifying those wireless facilities that are categorically excluded., and thus are highly unlikely to cause exposure in excess of the FCC's guidelines. Provision of the information identified on this checklist may also assist FCC staff in evaluating any inquiry regarding a facility's compliance with the RF exposure guidelines. BACKGROUND INFORMATION 1. Facility Operator's Legal Name: 2. Facility Operator's Mailing Address: - 3. Facility Operator's Contact Name/Title: 4. Facility Operator's Office Telephone: 5. Facility Operator's Fax: 6. Facility Name: 7. Facility Address: 8. Facility City/Con~niunity: 9. Facility State and Zip Code: 10. Latitude: 11. Longitude: continue -> 14 - 131 FCC/LSGAC Local Official's Guide to RF Optional Local Government ChecKlist (page 2) ~ EVALUATION OF CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION 12. Licensed Radio Service (see attached Table 1): 13. Structure Type (free-standing or building/roof-mounted): 14. Antenna Type [omnidirectional or directional (includes sectored)]: 15. Height above ground of the lowest point of the antenna (in meters): 16. O Check if all of the following are true: (a) This facility will be operated in the Multipoint Distribution Service, Paging and . Radiotelephone Service, Cellular Radiotelephone Service, Narrowband or Broadband Personal Communications Service, Private Land Mobile Radio Services Paging i Operations, Private Land Mobile Radio Service Specialized Mobile Radio, Local ', Multipoint Distribution Service, or service regulated under Part 74, Subpart I (see question 12). (b) This facility will not be mounted on a building (see question 13). (c) The lowest point of the antenna will be at least 1 O meters above the ground (see question 15). If box 16 is checked, this facility is categorically excluded and is unlikely to cause exposure in excess of the FCC's guidelines. The remainder of the checklist need not be completed. If box 16 is not checked, continue to question 17. 17. Enter the power threshold for categorical exclusion for this service from the attached Table 1 in watts ERP or EIRP" (note: EIRI' _ (1.64) X ERP): 18. Enter the total number of channels if this will be an omnidirectional antenna, or the maximum number of channels in any sector if this will be a sectored antenna: 19. Enter the ERP or EIIZP per channel (using the same units as in question 17)- 20. Multiply answer 18 by answer 19• 21. Is the answer to question 20 less than or equal to the value from question 17 (yes or no)? If the answer to question 21 is YES, this facility is categorically excluded. It is unlikely to cause exposure in excess of the FCC's guidelines. If the answer to question 21 is NO, this facility is not categorically excluded. Further investigation may be appropriate to verify whether the facility may cause exposure in excess of the FCC's guidelines. "'ERP" means "effecrive radiated power" and "EIRP" means "effective isotropic radiated power 14 - 132 FCC/LSGAC Local Official's Guide to RF TABLE 1: TRANSMITTERS, FACILITIES Al~]D OPERATIONS SUBJECT TO ROUTINE ENVIl20NMENTAL EVALUATION SERVICE (TITLE 47 CFR RULE PART) EVALUATION REQUIRED IF: Experimental Radio Services power> 100 W ERP (164 W EII2I') (part 5) Multipoint Distribution Service non-building-mounted antennas: height above (subpart K of part 21) ground level to lowest point of antenna < 10 m and power > 1640 W EIRP building-mounted antennas: power > 1640 W EIRP Paging and Radiotelephone Service non-building-mounted antennas: height above (subpart E of part 22) ground level to lowest point of antenna < 10 m and power > 1000 W ERP (1640 W EIRI') building-mounted antennas: power > 1000 W ERP (1640 W EIRP) Cellular Radiotelephone Service non-buildinf>_-mounted antennas: height above (subpart H of part 22) ground level to lowest point of antenna < 1 O m and total power of all channels > 1000 W ERP (1640 W EIRP) buildine-mounted antennas: total power of all channels > 1000 W ERP (1640 W EIRP) 14 - 133 FCC/LSGAC TABLE 1 (cont.) j<.ocal Official's Guide to RF SERVICE (TITLE 47 CFR RULE PART) EVALUATION REQUIRED IF: Personal Cormmunications Services (1) Narrowband PCS (subpart D): (part 24) non-buildine-mounted antennas: height above ground level to lowest point of antenna < 1 O m and total power of all channels > 1000 W ERP (1640 W EIRP) building-mounted antennas: total power of all channels > 1000 W ERP (1640 W EIRP) (2) Broadband PCS (subpart E): non-building-mounted antennas: height above ground level to lowest point of antem--a < 10 m and total power of all channels > 2000 W ERP (3280 W EIRP) buildine-mounted antennas: total power of all channels > 2000 W ERP (3280 W EIRP) Satellite Communications all included (part 25) General Wireless Communications Service total power of all channels > 1640 W EIRP (part 26) Wireless Communications Service total power of all channels > 1640 W EIRI' (part 27) Radio Broadcast Services all included (part 73) 14 - 134 FCC/LSGAC TABLE 1 (cont.) Local Official's Guide to RF SERVICE (TITLE 47 CFR RULE PART) EVALUATION REQLTIlZED IF: Experimental, auxiliary, and special subparts A, G, L: power > 100 W ERP broadcast and other program distributional services subpart I: (part 74) non-building-mounted antennas: height above ground level to lowest point of antenna < 1 O m and power > 1640 W EIRP building-mounted antennas: power > 1640 W E1RP Stations in the Maritime Services ship earth stations only (part 80) Private Land Mobile Radio Services non-building-mounted antennas: height above Paging Operations ground level to lowest point of antenna < 10 (part 90) m and power > 1000 W ERP (1640 W E1RP) building-mounted antennas: power > 1000 W ERP (1640 W EIRP) Private Land Mobile Radio Services non-building-mounted antennas: height above Specialized Mobile Radio ground level to lowest point of antenna < 1 O (part 90) m and total power of all channels > 1000 W ERP (1640 W EIRP) buildine-mounted antennas: total power of all channels > 1000 W ERP (1640 W EIRP) ~4-135 FCC/LSGAC TABLE 1 (cont.) Local Official's Guide to RI' SERVICE (TITLE 47 CFR RULE PART) EVALUATION REQUIIZED IF: Amateur Radio Service transmitter output power > levels specified in (part 97) § 97.13(c)(1) of this chapter Local Multipoint Distribution Service non-buildine-mounted antennas: height above (subpart L of part 1 O1) ground level to lowest point of antenna < 1 O m and power > 1640 W EIRP building-mounted antennas: power > 1640 W EIRP LMDS licensees are required to attach a label to subscriber transceiver antennas that: (1) provides adequate notice regarding potential radiofrequency safety hazards, e.g_, information regarding the safe minimum separation distance required between users a~ld transceiver antennas; and (2) references the applicable FCC-adopted limits for radiofrequency exposure specified in § 1.131 O of this chapter. 14 - '136 FCC/LSGAC Local Official's Guide to RI' APPENDIX B Estimated "l~Vorst Case"Distaz:ce:: tJzat Slzould be Maintaiz:ed from Single Cellular, PCS, and Pagis:g Base Statiozz Azztenz:as 14 - 137 FCC/LSGAC Local Official's Guide to RF Table B1-1. Estimated "worst case" horizontal* distances that should be maintained from a single, omni-directional, cellular base-station antenna to meet FCC RF exposure guidelines Effective Radiated Power (watts) per channel based on maximum total of 96 channels per antemia Effective Isotropic Radiated Power (watts) per channel based on a maximum total of 96 channels per antenna Horizontal* distance (feet) that should be maintained from a single omni- directional cellular antenna O.5 0.82 3.4 1 1.6 4.8 5 g,2 10.8 1 O 16.4 15.2 25 41 24. 1 50 82 34.1 100 164 48.2 For intermediate values not shown on this table, please refer to the Figure Bl-1 •These distances are based on exposure at same level as the antenna, for example, on a rooftop or in a building directly across from and at the same height as the antenna. Note: These estimates aze worst case, assuming an omnidirectional antenna using 96 channels. Lf the systems are using fewer channels, the actual horizontal distances that must be maintained will be less. Cellular omnidirectional antennas transmit more or less equally from the antenna in all horizontal directions and transmit relatively little energy directly towazd the ground. Therefore, these distances are even more conservative for °•non-horizontal" distances, for example, distances directly below an antenna. 14 - '138 FCC/LSGAC Local Official's Guide to RF Table B1-2. Estimated "worst case" horizontal* distances that should be maintained from a single, sectorized, cellular base-station antenna to meet FCC RF exposure guidelines Effective Radiated Power (watts) per channel based on maximum total of 21 channels per sector Effective Isotropic Radiated Power (watts) per channel -based on maximum total of 21 channels per sector Horizontal* distance (feet) that should be maintained from a single sectorized cellular antenna O.5 O,f;2 1.6 1 1.6 2:3 5 8.2 5 1 O 16.4 7.1 25 41 11.3 50 g:Z 16 100 l E;4 22.6 For intermediate values not shown on this table, please refer to the Figure B1-2 *These distances aze based on exposure at same level as the antenna, for example, on a rooftop or in a building directly across from and at the same height as the antenna. Note: These estimates are "worst case," assuming a sectorized antenna using 21 channels. If the systems are using fewer channe]s, the actual horizontal distances that must be maintained will be less. Cellulaz sectorized antennas transmit more or less in one direction from the antenna in a horizontal direction and transmit relatively little energy directly toward the ground. Therefore, these distances are even more conservative for "noir-horizontal" distances, for example, distances directly below an antenna. 14 - '139 FCC/LSGAC Local Official's Guide to RF Table B1-3. Estimated "worst case" horizontals distances that should be maintained from a single sectorized Broadband PCS base station antenna to meet FCC RF exposure guidelines Effective Radiated Power (watts) per channel based on maximum total of 21 channels per sector Effective Isotropic Radiated Power (watts) per .channel based on maximum total of 21 channels per sector Horizontals distance (feet) that should be maintained from a single sectorized Broadband PCS antenna O.5 0.82 1 .2 1 . 1.6 1.7 5 g,2 3.8 1 O 16.4 5.4 25 41 8.6 50 82 12.1 100 164 17.2 For intermediate values not shown on this table, please refer to the Figure B1-3 *These distances are based on exposure at same level as the antenna, for example, on a rooftop or in a building directly across from and at the same height as [he antenna. Note: These estimates are "worst case;' assuming a sectorized antenna using 21 channels. If the system is using fewer than 21 channels, the actual horizontal distances that must be maintained will be less. PCS sectorized antennas transmit more or less in one direction from the antenna in a horizontal direction and transmit relatively little energy directly toward the ground. Therefore, these distances are even more conservative for "non-horizontal" distances, for example, distances directly below an antenna. ~4-140 FCClLSGAC Local Official's Guide to RF Table B1-4. Estimated "worst case" horizontal* distances that should be maintained from a single omnidirectional paging or narrowband PCS antenna to meet FCC RF exposure guidelines. Note: this table and the associated figure only apply to the 900-940 MHz band; paging antennas at other frequencies are subject to different values. Effective Radiated Power (watts) based on one channel per antenna Effective ]=sotropic Radiated Po~.ver (watts) Horizontal* distance (feet) that should be maintained from a single omnidirectional paging or narrowband PCS antenna 50 82. 3.4 100 16.1 - 4.8 250 410 7.5 500 g20 10.6 1,000 1,6~E0 15.1 2,000 3,2E>O 21.3 3,500 5,740 28. 2 For intermediate values not shown on this table, please refer to the Figure B1-4 *T'hese distances are based on exposure at same level as the antetma, for example, on a rooftop or in a building directly across from and at the same height as the antenna. - Note: These distances assume only one frequency (channel) per .antenna. Distances would be greater if more than one channel is used per antenna. Omnidirectional paging and narrowband PCS antennas transmit more or less equally from the antettna in all horizontal directions and transmit relatively little energy towazd the ground. Therefore, these distances are even more conservative for "non-horizontal" distances, for example, distances directly below an antenna. 14 - 141 FCC/LSGAC Figure B 1-4. Estimated "worst case" horizontal"` distances that should be maintained from a single omnidirectional paging or narrowband PCS antenna to meet FCC RF exposure guidelines. Note: this figure and the associated table only apply to the 900-940 MHz band; paging antennas at other frequencies are subject to different values 3, 500 ~ 2,000 3 ~ ~ ~ 1,000 o Q ~- 500 v ~ c a~ --C°-a ~ 250 ca o= a> ~ 0 100 o w ~ 50 N (6 m 25 Local Official's Guide to RF - 25 watts/antenna T 50 watts/antenna -~- 100 watts/antenna ~ 250 watts/antenna --~- 500 watts/antenna -i-- 1000 watts/antenna - 2000 watts/antenna ~~ 3500 watts/antenna Horizontal distance from an omnidirectional paging or narrowband PCS antenna (feet) * These distances are based on exposure at the same level as the antenna, for example, on a rooftop or building directiy across from and at the same height as the antenna. Note: These distances assume only one frequency (channel) per antenna. Distances would be greater if more than one channel is used per antenna. Omnidirectional paging and narrowband PCS antennas transmit more or less equally from the antenna in all horizontal directions and transmit relatively little energy towards the ground. 14-t42 FCC/LSGAC APPENDIX C Text of 47 U..S. C. ~ 332(c) (7) (7) PRESERVATION OF LOCAL ZONING AUTHORITY. Local Official's Guide to RF (A) GENERAL. AUTHORITY. Except as provided in this paragraph, nothing in this Act shall limit or affect the authority of a State or local government or instrumentality thereof over decisions regarding the placement, constuction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities. (B) LIMTTA"I'IONS. (i) The regulation of the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities by and State or local government or instrumentality thereof (I) shall not unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services; and (III shall not prohibit or have: the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services. (ii) A State or local government or instrumentality thereof shall act on any request for authorization to place, construct, or modify personal wireless service facilities within a reasonable period of time after the request is duly filed with such government or instrumentality, taking into account the nature and scope of such request. (iii) Any decision by a State or local government or instrumentality thereof to deny a request to place, construct, or modify personal wireless service facilities shall be in writing and supported by substantial evidence contained in a written record. (iv) No State or local government or :instrumentality thereof may regulate the placement, construction, or 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 n~gulations concerning such emissions. (v) Any person adversely affected b}~ any final action or failure to act by a State or local government or any instrumentality thereof that is inconsistent with this subparagraph may, within 30 days after such action or failure to act, conmience an action in any court of competent jurisdiction. 'The court shall hear and decide such action on an expedited basis. Any person adversely affected by an act or failure to act by a State or local government or any instrimentality thereof that is inconsistent with clause (iv) may petition the Commission for relief. (C) DEFINITIONS. For purposes of this paragraph (i) the term "personal wireless servi~~es" means commercial mobile services, unlicensed wireless services, and common carrier wireless exchange access services; (ii) the term "personal wireless servi~~e facilities" means facilities for the provision of personal wireless services; and (iii) the term "unlicensed wireless service" means the offering of telecommunications service using duly authorized devices which do not require individual licenses, but does not mean the provision of direct-to-home satellite services (as defined in section 303 (v)). 14 - '143 Exhibit C - j. HAMMETT 8z EDISON, INC. 4 CONSULTING ENGINEERS RADIO AND TELEVISION VyILLIAM F. HAMMETT. P.E. DANE E. ERICKSEN, P.E. STANLEY SALEK, P.E. ROBERT D. WELLER, P.E. MARK D. NEUMANN, P.E. ROBERT P1. S.!M~ITH, IR. RA]AT 1V11\THUR ROBERT L. HAMMETT, P.E. 1920-2002 EDWARD EDISON. P.E. BY E-MAIL TORIANA.HENDERSON@PARSONS.COM September 20, 2006 Ms. Toriana Henderson Urban Planning Specialist Parsons 185 Berry Street, Suite 5300 San Francisco, California 94107 Dear Toriana: As you requested, we have visited the T-Mobile base station (Site No. SF 14973) located at 21760 Stevens Creek Boulevard in Cupertino, Califoniia, and have prepared a short report summarizing our findings that the operation complied with the FCC guidelines limiting human exposure to RF energy. An electronic copy of our report is enclosed. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service and would welcome any questions on this material. Please let me know if we may be of additional assistance. Sincerely, ~~ ~ ~ Mark D. Neumann tm Enclosure e-i~:ail: mneumann~fi-e.com US Mail: Box 280068 San Francisco, California 94128 Delivery: 970 Third Street West Sonoma, California 95476 Telephone: 707/996-5200 San Francisco 707/996-5280 Facsimile 202/396-52D0 D.C. 14 - 144 T-Mobile -Base Station No. SF14973 21760 Stevens Creek Boulevard -Cupertino, Califomia Statement of Hammett 8~ Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers The firm of Hammett c~ Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers, has been retained on behalf of T-Mobile, a personal wireless telecommunications carrier, to evaluate the existing base station (Site No. SF14973) located at 21760 Stevens Creek Boulevard in Ci.tpertino, California, for compliance with appropriate guidelines limiting human exposure to radio frequency electromagnetic fields. Prevailing Exposure Standards The U.S. Congress requires that the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") evaluate its actions for possible significant impact on the environn~e:nt. In Docket 93-62, effective October 15, 1997, the FCC adopted the human exposure limits for field strength and power density recommended in Report No. 86, "Biological Effects and Exposure Criteria for Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields," published in 1986 by the Congressionally chartered National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements ("NCRP"). Separate limits apF~ly for occupational and public exposure conditions, with the latter limits generally five times more restrictive. The more recent Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers ("IEEE") Standard C95.1-1999, "Safety Levels with Respect to Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, 3 kHz to 300 GHz," includes nearly identical exposure limits. A summary of the FCC's exposure limits is shown in Figure 1. These limits apply for continuous exposures and are intended to provide a prudent margin of safety for all persons, regardless of age, gender, size, or health. The most restrictive limit for exposures of unlitnited duration- to radio frequency energy for several personal wireless services are as follows: Personal Wireless Service Ag~c. Frequen cv Occ~anati onal Limit Public Limit Personal Communication ("PCS") 1,9:50 MHz 5.00 mW/cm2 1.00 mW/cm2 Cellular Telephone 870 2.90 0.58 Specialized Mobile Radio 8:55 2.85 0.57 [most restrictive frequency range] 30-300 1.00 0.20 General Facility Requirements Antennas for base station use are designed to concentrate their energy toward the horizon, with very little energy wasted toward the sky or the ground. Along with the low power of such facilities, this means that it is generally not possible for exposure conditions to approach the FCC limits without being physically very near the antennas. I3aMME'I"I' Sz EDISON, INC. coNSVLrINCEt.*csrsIIZS TM14973596M 3 swtu Frw.c~sco Page 1 of 3 ~4-145 T-Mobile • Base Station No. SF74973 2'1760 Stevens Creek Boulevard • Cupertino, California Site Description The site was visited by the undersigned engineer during normal business hours on September 13, 2006, a non-holiday weekday. T-Mobile had installed three panel antennas within a new fiberglass enclosure, configured to resemble a chimney, above the roof of the building located at 21760 Stevens Creek Boulevard in Cupertino. Explanatory warning signs' were installed at the roof access hatch and near the antennas. Measurement Results The Ineasurement equipment used was a Wandel ~ Goltermann Type EMR-300 Radiation Meter with Type 18 and 25 Isotropic Electric Field Probes (Serial Nos. C-0034 and E-0001, respectively). Both meter and probes were under current calibration by the manufacturer. Access to the antennas was controlled by the need to use a ladder located within a storage closet on the second floor of the building to reach the roof through an access hatch. Based upon information provided by T-Mobile, the Conditional Use Permit issued by the City of Cupertino requires that post-construction measurements be performed at the following locations: • Ground level, 30 feet from the antennas, • On the roof, adjacent to the antennas, • 7n the second floor office suite below the antennas, and • At the second floor level of the office building immediately adjacent to the east. The maximum observed power density Levels measured were as follows: Location Power Density vs FCC Public Limitt Ground level, 30 feet from the antennas 0.00008 mW/cm2 0.008% Anywhere at ground level 0.00034 0.034% Roof of the subject building$ 0.086 8.6% Second floor suite of the subject building 0.00061 0.061% Second floor level of the adjacent building 0.00015 0.015% Conclusion Based on the information and analysis above, it is the undersigned's professional opinion that the base station installed by T-Mobile at 21760 Stevens Creek Boulevard in Cupertino, California, as installed and operating at the time of the visit, complies with the FCC guidelines limiting public exposure to Contact information ~~~as provided in English to arrange for access to restricted areas (the choice of language(s) is not an engineering matter). t Applicable at PCS frequencies # Up to 2 meters above the roof `° I3AMMETT 8z EDISON, INC. . £ coNSCnJmt.rc Fa.+c~szzs ~ TM 14973596M SAN FRANC15C0 Page 2 of 3 14-~46 T-Mobile • Bases Station No. SF14973 21760 Stevens Creek Boulevard • Cupertino, Caiifornta radio frequency energy and, therefore,-does nl~t for this reason cause a significant impact on the environrrlent. Authorship The undersigned author of this statement is ai qualified Professional Engineer, holding California Registration No. E-16747, which expires on September 30, 2006. This work has been carried out by hiln or under his direction, and all statements are true and correct of his own knowledge except, where noted, when data has been supplied by others,, which data he believes to be correct. w No. 16747' m Mark D. Neumann, September 20, 2006 j, E>~- 9~0-06 ~ ~_ ~ ~~ HAMMETT 8z EDISON, INC. ~~ coivsuc.rsresl.c>r~.Eas ~ TM14973596M ~'J SAN FRANCISCO Page 3 of 3 14 - '147 FCC Radio Frequency Protection Guide The U.S. Congress required (1996 Telecom Act) the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") to adopt a nationwide human exposure standard to ensure that its licensees do not, cumulatively, have a significant impact on the environment. The FCC adopted the limits from Report No. 86, "Biological Effects and Exposure Criteria for Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields," published in 198.6 by the Congressionally chartered National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, which are nearly identical to the more recent Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Standard C95.1-1999, "Safety Levels with Respect to Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, 3 kHz to 300 GHz." These limits apply for continuous exposures from all sources and are intended to provide a prudent margin of safety for all persons, regardless of age, gender, size, or health. As shown in the table and chart below, separate limits apply for occupational and public exposure conditions, with the latter limits (in italics and/or dashed) up to five times more restrictive: Frequency Electromagnetic Fields (f is frequency of emission in MHzL Applicable Electric Magnetic ~ Equivalent Far-Field Range Field Strength Field Strength Poyer Density (1viHz) (V/m) (A/m) (mW/cmZ) 0.3 - 1.34 614 614 1.63 I.63 100 I00 1 .34 - 3.0 614 823.8/f 1.63 2.I9/f 100 I80/J2 3.0 - 30 1842/ f 823.8/f 4.89/ f 2.I9/f 900/ f l80/f 30 - 300 61.4 27.5 0.163 0.0729 1 .O 0.2 300- 1,500 3.541rf I.59ff ~f/106 ~f/238 f/300 f/ISOO 1,500- 100,000 137 61.4 0.364 O.I63 5.0 I.D 1000 ! Occupational Exposure 100 PCS o .~ ~ 10 ~~ FM Cell a. C7 ~ 1 ~~ ~ ~~~~~. v O.1 ~ ~ Public Ex osus•e O.1 1 10 100 103 104 105 Frequency (MHz) Higher levels are allowed for short periods of time, such that total exposure levels averaged over six or thirty minutes, for occupational or public settings, respectively, do not exceed the limits, and higher levels also are allowed for exposures to small areas, such that the spatially averaged levels do not exceed the limits. However, neither of these allowances is incorporated in the conservative calculation formulas in the FCC Office of Engineering and Technology Bulletin No. 65 (August 1997) for projecting field levels. Hammett 8c Edison has built those formulas into a proprietary program that calculates, at each location on an arbitrary rectangular grid, the total expected power density from any number of individual radio sources. The program allows for the description of buildings and uneven terrain, if required to obtain more accurate projections. I-IAMMETT 8t EDISON, INC. CONSCTLTING ENGINEERS FCC Guidelines snxfan»c~soo .Figure 1 14 - '148 Survey of Wireless Facility Regulations of Local Cities Exhibit D -1 Updated January 21, 2009 Local Jurisdiction Allowed in Public Allowed in Allowed in Monopole Setback from Parks? Hillside/0 en S ace? Residential Zones Residential Property Line Campbell Yes N/A -hillside Yes Setbacks of zoning Yes- 0 en S ace district Cupertino No No No 50 ft. min. or height of ole whichever is eater Gilroy Yes Yes Yes 1 foot for every foot of ole hei ht. Los Altos Yes . N/A No 150 feet from residential ro line Los Altos Hills Yes Yes Yes None stated. Mitigate si ' icant visual im act Los Gatos Yes Yes Yes Setbacks of zoning district Milpitas ? No -Hillside Yes Decided on a case by case ?- 0 en S ace basis thru use ennit Mountain View Maybe N/A Yes Setbacks of zoning district Morgan Hill ? ? ? 25 feet San Jose Yes* Yes Yes 35 feet, or 1 foot for every foot of pole height whichever is greater. 20 feet on existing utility structure. Santa Clara Yes N/A-Hillside Yes Setbacks of zone. Yes - 0 en S ace Sunnyvale Yes N/ A No (lands zoned and 2 feet of setback for every used residentiall foot of mono ole hei ht IXHIBIT E -1 Colin Jung From: Bart Gach [bbgach@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Saturday, November 29, 2008 7:24 AM To: Colin Jung Subject: Cell phone service I live to vacation and vacation to live. Attention Colin Jung Just wanted to put my two cents in about the cell phone service in Cupertino. I only have a problem with my service (T-Mobile) in the area of lower Creston but boy is it bad service. In an emergency we would not be able to use our phones to communicate with anyone and this could be very bad especially with the creek n^nn;ng right behind this area. When we signed up for this service there was no way of knowing that this one area would be so bad as we have lived in upper Creston for 20 years with no service problems. It is hard to believe in such a tech area that anywhere would not be top notch. Thank you, Bart Gach 14-~50 12/8/2008 Colin Jung From: Peter Froeberg [pete@froeberg.c:om] Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2008 2:31 PM To: Colin Jung Subject: Cell phone coverage issue Colin, I just read the promising developments in the Courier regarding proposed cell phone coverage expansion in west Cupertino. Let me first say that I live on Santa Paula at Foothill -- so right smack in the "orange" area of the map where cell phone coverage has been spotty for many years. Secondly, I'm an engineer who works from home and for the last 7 years much of the work 2 do involves wireless data development. Thus, S believe I have an experienced perspective regarding not only voice, but also data usage coverage patterns in west Cupertino across several carriers GSM (Cingular/AT&T), CDMA (Sprint), and iDEN (Nextel) Finally, my official business phone is in fact my AT&T GSM phone. To combat the issue within my home I have installed a Wi-Ex repeater which takes the signal from atop my roof and (via coax) re-radiates within my home to essentially provide those bars in my office. If it's not obvious at this point -- I'm clearly in favor of expanding cell coverage in the west areas. And, naturally 2'd like the antennas to be as tasteful as possible -- but many will have at least as an informed opinion on that topic so I stick to the physics rather than the aesthetics. The main point I would like to address is the radiation hysteria that always come up. Several years ago I recall a proposition by AT&T to locate an antenna atop one of the buildings of the Monta Vista HS campus. This made sense as the area around M~JHS and Kennedy was poorly served and there was a growing pool of student users. Unfortunately, irrational fears by parents of radiation esse-ztially killed the plan. 1 read this with a feeling of irony as the par e:zts who feared for their children's health were drawing exactly the 'kw.rong~ conclusions on this issue from a physics point of view. If one were to look at studies regarding radiation health effects and cell pl-ione use there are many. And to my kno~Nledge, none of them conclusive as to long term effects. However, virtually ~a11* the studies relate to the transmission o£ the individual phone as held in proximity to one's body -- '~not* the proximity of a tower in the neighborhood. Ce11 phones operate by modulating power based as needed to communicate with a tower. Handheld phones are restricted to 600mW maximum transmission power and throttle down ~to the minimum necessary to communicate with a tower. It's precisely their ability to *lower* the power of transmission as needed that is the basis of cellular network design. It's when a phone does not have a tower in close proximity (e.g. rural situation) that it must in fact use *more~ transmit power to communicate. Hence, the irony is that unless these fearful parents forbid their children from ever using a cell phone near MVHS, they were in Pact ~increasing~ their radiation exposure at the brain by blocking installation of a more proximate tower. A lo~~a1 tower would allow all cell phones to transmit with much less power ;wear the school. I'd like to make this point at the Jan 27th m._eting. However, S have a family commitment that evening. I'd appreci ate it if this could be forwarded or posted to whomever is assimilat i;~g citizen perspectives. I can be reached (on my cell. phone) at 408-823-1~1APS. Pete Froeberg 14 - 151 '.i ,err;d~~Y#~~~i 1~~ ~-its , tf. '?~ ~j~ ~ g~,, ~ BOARDWALK INVESTMENT GROUP, INC. AMO® '~ January 16, 2009 ii Colin Jung Senior Planner City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 RE: Cupertino Cell Site Location Dear Mr. Jung: This letter will memorialize our conversation regarding Verona Owners Association's interest in having the opportunity to locate a cell repeater on their roof top. I am the agent for the Association working with the Boazd of Directors in exploring this opportunity. The Verona Owner's Association is a homeowner's association, which by its designation is a non-profit entity, representing the mixed use development at 20488 Stevens Creek Boulevard consisting of 206 residential units and 1 colruiiercial unit. The Board of Directors sees many benefits form locating a site on the available roof top, two of which aze better service for the potential end users in our community and the potential revenue stream that could offset our short and long term operating costs. While we have not I entered into discussions with any providers at the present time, I have represented other Association clients who have located a repeater site on their property to the benefit of the Association. Please let me know if I can provide you with any further information that would illustrate our desire and support in locating a site at our location. Thank you. Respectfully Yours, llarren G. Merritt As Agent for the Verona Owners Association DGM/kj Boardwalk Investment Group, Inc. AMO 317 Lennon Lane • Suite 200 • WalnuC Creek • CA • 94598 • (925) 937-4378 • (925) 947-2643 fax W:\Montebello\Ce11 Site\09.01.16.Verona Jung.Cel1 Site Letter.doc 14 - 152 Dear Commissioners, I am following up on the discussion at the November 25, 2008 Planning Commission meeting on item #2, MCA-2008-4, modifications to the Wireless Communications Facilities -Chapter 19.108. Our commission, TICC, wanted to provide some additional information regarding the proposed ordinar~ce changes and respond to some statements made during the public comment portion of the meeting prior to the Planning Commission taking this item back ~p at the January 27, 2009 meeting. First, I want to reiterate our support for the overall update of this ordinance. We are strongly in support of updating this ordinance and taking reasonable steps to enable telecommunications carriers to provide cell phone coverage to poorly covered portions of Cupertino such as the Monta Vista area. We also believe that the community is best served when there are multiple, competing carriers for telecommunications services, which means that there may need to be multiple towers serving the same portion of the city. We believe the ordinance needs the proposed updating both to reflect changes in wireless technology and the use of cellphones since the ordinance was originally passed and because our Cupertino-wide sv~vey showed that the community wants to see improved cell phone coverage in the residential areas. I have attached the full presentation on the survey results that were ~~ccepted by the City Council last year and that triggered the current proposal. Since there were comments that challenged the validity of ovr results, I will respond to that issue. We provided notice of the survey not only via the normal channels the city uses such as the Scene and city web site, we also worked with the Senior and Teen commissions to ensure that those communities were encouraged to respond. We also informed the Chamber of Commerce about the survey so that local businesses could respon<~ as well. As a result, more people responded to our survey than any other survey the city has conducted including the biennial survey. Since there has been a history of organization by community members opposed to cell towers, we paid particular attention to any signs of gaming the survey but saw none. A valid criticism is that the survey was self-selecting and we acknowledge that weakness. However, a self-selecting bias in this case would tend to draw the same people who come to the meeting and speak out against the tower applications. Despite the tendency for thos<s opposed to towers to speak up, the survey showed strong support for improved coverage. If anything, the survey may under represent how important improved coverage is to the majority of the community. By applying standard statistical approaches to the number of respondents vs. the city 14 - '153 population, we are 95% sure that the actual values are within 4% either side of the numbers shown in the survey. In addition to the public comments made, there were several issues with the proposed ordinance pointed out by the commission. I would like to respond to some of them. The topic of Radio Frequency(RF] testing was raised and the proposed ordinance does not currently touch on that subject. We do not object to changes that ensure that towers meet federally limited RF requirements. While we believe that the Residential Hillside (RHS) zones should be opened up for possible tower sites to improve coverage primarily for public safety, we recognize the complication created by the current proposal calling fora 50 ft setback from habitable structures as it could cause problems for adjacent parcels. Therefore, since no clear basis for the 50 ft fixed setback seems to exist, we believe the 50 ft setback should be removed entirely from the ordinance. Instead, the applicable setbacks for any structure would apply or the minimum distance required to meet the federally limited RF levels, whichever is the more restrictive. We believe this approach also addresses potential setback issues when antennae are placed on utility poles. If you have any questions or comments prior to the meeting, feel free to contact Peter Friedland or me. Sincerely, Andy Radle, Chairman Technology, Information, and Communications Commission City of Cupertino Andy-ticc@radle.com 408.9 73.0638 is-isa 14 155 14 - '1 56 Carrier 300 250 ZOO 150 1D0 50 O Lei .• o`' c o ~Z < V~9J .C2`O Z~ ?°T JeS~ ~ O ~° P~ ' ~ zoo 1so 160 140 320 SOD 80 60 40 20 O Coverage 14 - 157 3 Suellen[ Good Fair Poor Non-e xiste n[ 35D 300 250 zoo iso >oo Tower Safety Concerns 14 - 1 58 None Little MoGer2[e Severe 300 250 2D0 150 100 SD Tower Esthetics 14 - '159 None Little 1-0oa ¢rd[e Seve~¢ 14 - 160 ~4 - 161 14 162 14 163 r~I~rI3iT: r-i Summary of TICC, Public and Staff Comments from the November 25, 2008 Planning Commission Hearing on the Amendments to the Wireless Facilities Ordinance TICC Comments TICC conducted an electronic survey of residents and found that half of the users had fair or no cell phone coverage at home, and 45% of all detailed responses wanted better coverage in Cupertino. TICC is proposing modest changes to the WCFO in order to increase the number of potential locations for aiztennas in underserved areas of Cupertuzo, which are primarily in the western and southern areas of town. This would be accomplished by allowing consideration of cell sites in public parks, residential hillside areas, on non-City utility poles and towers aiZd closer to residential structures by measuring the antenna setback from the habitable structure, instead of the residential property line_ TICC felt that adjacent residential properties might need to be encumbered to prevent residential additions within that building/antenna separation. TICC also proposes to expand the review criteria to include consideration of the lack of cell phone coverage and the viability of alternative, non-residential locations in decisionmaking on cell sites. Public Comments Four residents testified on the WCFO on a wide range of issues as enumerated below. Numbers in parentheses indicate more than one comment about an issue: • Oppose cell anteiznas in public parks and open space areas. • Favor nicrocells (very low power cell sites) on utility poles in neighborhoods (2). • Concern about removing exception process for mast cross sections (30 ft. above grade) that are more than 12 inches wide. • Setback from cell antenna should be measured from residential property line, not habitable structure as structure location can change frequently. City should expect the highest and latest cellular technology available (i.e. stealth technology, broadband services, etc.) • Questioned TICC survey methodology: Citywide noticing? Asked the right questions to get meaningful answers? Sample size large enough for statistically valid results? (2) • City should survey surrounding cities to see what they do about antenna regulation. • Ordinance changes should encourage wireless companies to do the right thing. ~ 4 - 164 • Neighbors should be noticed when the Director administratively approves a cell anteiuza. • Residents should be notified when the City is contemplating a utility pole lease agreeizZent with a wireless company. Staff Comments Staff was in agreement with the ordinance changes proposed by the TICC except for extra language that limited the concentration of residential towers and larger masts on a lot. The ordinance already had the limitation that TICC wanted so the verbiage was uiuzecessary. Staff had proposed other ordinance changes that: • Excluded cell sites from residential planned developments (TICC did not address these zoning areas-) • Allow design and siting of cell sites as context-appropriate public art. • Changes to clarify ambiguous language or remove conflicting language. For example, the current ordinance allows an antenna on a City utility pole, but prohibits such antennas in residential areas where most utility poles are located. 14 - 165, EXHIBIT S BEGIN HERE cc ~I3~a~ /, / ~~. ~~ Rick Kitson From: Terrence.Calderone C~ sho.co.sant~~-clara.ca. us Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2009 12:55 PM To: Rick Kitson Cc: David Knapp Subject: Wireless Ordinance Rick, You had requested an opinion from the Sheriff's Office, Public Safety, regarding the Wireless Ordinance being presented to Council this evening. The Sheriff's Office would be in support of the ordinance due to the enhanced coverage in the city. Recently, County Communications implemented phase tf-ree of the wireless communications software program that allows residents to call our communications center using their cell phones. The program will now allow these calls to go to our dispatch center, depending on the cell tower nearest the caller, and allow us to located the call for assistance. The ordinance will enhance the ability for those residents in the city, and those traveling through the city, to call 9-1-1 from their cell phones and have the Sheriff's Office be able to respond to the location of the call. The location of the cell phone caller can be triangulated to within about 50 feet of where the ~~erson is calling from. Also, the Sheriff's Office utilizes computers in their vehicles to Ise able to access various data bases in the field. The computers in the vehicles rely upon wireless connection to be ~~ble to use the systems. There are a number of areas in the City of Cupertino that still do not have good wireless connectivity, and the systems in the vehicles shut down. The deputies have to reconnect to the system from time to time throughout their shift. The Wireless ordinance would help enhance the connectivity issues the deputies face with the sysi:ems in their vehicles. There would be fewer areas in the city that would cause the systems to lose connection while working patrol. The Sheriff's Office is in support of the proposed Wireless Ordinance before Council this evening. Thank you, Captain Terry Calderone `_- -~ , '._..'_-'::; Page 1 of 1 CC.~ ~ a Q0.; ~3C f .~ a ~ `~ ~ Colin Jung From: Gail Brownell [gailbrownell@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, January 30, 2009 5:28 PM To: Colin Jung Subject: Support for Wireless Communications I am writing to tell the Planning Commission that I support better cell coverage in Cupertino. Thus I am please to see that the ordinance is streamlining the permit process and allowing antennas on existing poles and towers. Thank you, Gail Gail Brownell gailbrownell cr,~mail.com Cupertino 408.973.9510 Vashon 206.463.2916 mobile 408.218.3913 work (Tues -Thursday ) 1167 Mission Street, San Francisco 415.294.5380 www. sustainablespaces.com gait.brownellnsustainablespaces. com Call for info on a home GreenUP 2/3/2009 Page 1 of 1 Colin Jung From: FlashPoint Interactive Shakespeare [prad@flashpointshakespeare.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2009 11:24 AM To: Colin Jung Subject: Cupertino Wireless Broadband Coverage and Capacity Please bring this to the attention of the City Council In south-western Cupertino and the adjoining hillsides we have become second class citizens because of the lack of wireless broadband Internet. As Silicon Valley workers, students or professionals working from home offices, we are deprived of a utility essential to our livelihood, and seriously impaired in creating and providing high value services that contribute to our local and national economy. We urge Cupertino City Council to approve the Wireless Communications Facilities Ordinance and direct the staff to do whatever is in their power to bring wireless broadband Internet coverage to the hilly areas ASAP. (We have been waiting 5 years ever since the then Southwestern Bell, now AT&T, decided to decommit DSL deployment to our area). We also urge that the wireless carriers (Verizon and AT&T) are required to enhance the capacity on their broadband wireless networks in line with demand, so these services do not regularly degrade to narrowband speeds during business hours. The Federal Govt. stimulus bill identifies broadband Internet deployment to underserved areas as a funding priority. What could be more underserved than the residents of this Silicon Valley community being second class citizens, compared to the residents of Bangalore in India? PLEASE CAN WE SEE CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL TAKE THE INITIATIVE TO BRING WIRELESS BROADBAND INTERNET TO THE DEPRIVED SOUTH WEST AND HILLSIDE AREAS AND MAKE US FIRST WORLD CITIZENS AGAIN? Sincerely, Prad Kansara 2/3/2009 OPFICER9 Harty wwYO. ca-clul. sWmnvwayBrw LJ: Knlu, CaChak Santa cure caurlry Bard d Suparvlsora Rwnll Flaneook PnalGnt 6 CEO Jaldl VanWn: SNkon VNley Nalxork February 2, 2009 Members of the City Council City of Cupertino BOARD ~ gRECTORY ~B"'"a Subj_ect: Pror~osed Chances to Wireless Facilities Ordinance linpory lNrgw Com.rkA IlarYC Frerrk ttarr~t Dear Mayor Mahoney and City Council Members, CMy d Paq AMO Sbwn BOChnar WYwn Sansiri Goodrich a Ruatl Ed Cannluaro KPMG cawy cbe..x Clty of 3en Jou PN DandO san Jac. SNkon Valley plambar N Commsru. CIKIe Dwvw Luale Saber PaduN CMldran'a Hoepbel Jon FHetlenharp EI Camuw MoapxN Dan Fanlen San Jou CwrvanYon 6 VIUWR (luruo Rlck Fuap. Grr.l a Young Lu FlYwrw CNKamla Suu Satiate VIn4Ye Fowler San Jose lWdeaee Journal Roca Jawbs GMwn San Maud County Bard of Suparrison CMaler Haalull cdY.ieaY Pdyuw,+r<el caY.Ye Kevln Hgly PdcewalarhwseCoopan Gary Hooper Hooper a Aatooalw aawlardna VUOOblsda, Inc Mark Jansen DablUa 8 Tourhn Nartha Kantor FoomW-Da Arw Canmatlty College DisWU oeo w.amy San Jon suu lMlveNly W. KNtlr Wanady Con-way Aux KMMtl Sdutloru, Irw. Pwl LootNY Sane Cure Unlwnlty BamadNU Lotlua IWear Permananu JOh~MNrola coemy a san Mslao Jean McCown SlanfoN UnlveNly Pnveeh MNrn HNddrh a stl„YYI.a Carth Mo WYrlrf CWUr Padtsrkp Iola 8 Garr LLP Jwepk Parity Tfwmu Omul Parat Mark RadollRa qA Pper Rudnkk Gray Cary US LLP Pwl RacM McKloay Y Company, Inc CNU Saco Gaoaa, ew CMb Yeama craven sarraaonducwr Coryoratlon Jokn Bobnb,lk. SobrrlW Davdopmenl Cpripeniaa Owlam &IVaalava AMo Hw Skulhara lkdWUp a Conekunion Tradu Cwndl CNlem Wlloox Sanu pare County Office N Eduolion Llnda Wllllama Planned Parenawod Mar Munu I understand the Council will soon take final action on proposed ordinance changes for wireless communications facilities. Joint Venture: Silicon Valley NE~twork would like to go on record as strongly encouraging efforts to improve cell phone coverage in the City of Cupertino. In 2006 a joint committee of business and .city leaders identified cell phone coverage as a serious problem in Silicon Valley. They felt that our cell phone coverages is not up to world class standards. The committee determined 1:hat the availability and reliability of cell service is an issue of public safety and economic development. With the help of business and community leaders, and with inputs from city planners and cell phone service providers, Joint Venture analyzed the problem. We concluded that the primary reason for poor coverage in Silicon Valley is the rapid growth in the use of cell phones as they become cheaper and offer more features. In addition, the network is being burdened by laptop computers using the cellular network to connect to the Internet. The cell phone network was not designed for this load; it was designed to serve business users in downtowns, industrial parks and on major thoroughfares. But more and more, people are trying to use their cell phones in their homes, in stores, and in rural areas, where coverage is poor. And more and more, people are depen~Jing on their cell phones in an emergency. More that one-third of ~~11 calls are being made from cell phones today. The solution to poor coverage is to increase the number of cell sites. As noted in the proposed changes to the City's ordinance, because service is now needed in residential areas, cell sites need to be compatible with community tastes. This sometimes means that the antennas need to be mounted at a lower height so the signal can not travel as far as with the older towers. The smaller radius means more cell sites are needed. Siting cell phone equipment in residential areas also means the designs need to be less visible and more compatible with the surroundings. [n our meetings with the carriers they have indicated a willingness t~~ work with communities to fill in coverage gaps with cell sites that are attractively designed. 84 West Santa Clara Street, Suite 44C (408) 271-7213 tel San Jose, California 95113-1820 (408) 271-7214 fax www.jointventure.org We now need the support of the counties and cities as they consider permit applications. Joint Venture is committed to supporting a collaborative process. We have developed a primer on cell phone coverage for cities, and a website that will highlight deadzones. We are also working with city planners to identify best practices for evaluating cell site applications. Cell phone use is only going to increase. Joint Venture: Silicon Valley Network respectfully requests that you bear in mind the importance of improving the quality of cell phone service within Silicon Valley as you consider the proposed changes to the wireless communications facilities ordinance. Sincerely yours, ,~°`s~ ~ Seth G. Fearey Vice President and Chief Operating Officer Attachment: How We can Improve Cell Phone Coverage in Slllcon Valley A Guide for Community Action ~, A primer for community leaders, !, residents and service providers Board of Directors August 2008 ~ ,}~, ~,:,:.~ ,~~ ::-• d 1v rv'`~x ~y~ ~'~z~ k' :r P ~' ';; YF ;'4a 't~ g,:4 .,~~ ~' ~_-~Y ~ 'R i6~ PG S ~^ ~."t. . r~~, ' .. ._ r6.+,c~, vnrs.aw~... ~~r-~..s~r~.aacs~xasur:.. ~. .,. 2~: "'~r~f:~•.. ... . ~ ~ _ ,...Si. Harry Kellogg Jr., Co-Chair, Silicon Valley Bank Hon. Liz Kniss, Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors Russell Hancock, President & CEO, Joint Denture: Silicon Valley Network ;.fin John Adams, Wells Fargo Bank Don Kassing, San Jose State University Larry Alder, Google Hon. Elaine Alquist, California State Senate Harjinder Bajwa, Solectron Gregory Belanger, Comerica Bank W. Keith Kennedy Jr., Con-way Alex Kennett, Intero Real Estate Linda J. LeZotte, Berliner Cohen Bernadette Loftus, Kaiser Permanente George Blumenthal, University of California at Santa Cruz James MacGregor, Silicon Dailey San Jose Business Journal Steven Bochner, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati John Maltbie, Santa .Clara County Ed Cannizzaro, KPMG LLP Tom McCalmont, REgrid Power Pat Dando, San Jose Silicon Dailey Chamber of Commerce Jean McCown, Stanford University Chris Dawes, Lucile Packard Children's Hospital Curtis Mo, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP Darren Deffner, Pacific Gas and Electric Chris DiGiorgio, Accenture Inc. Jon Friedenberg, EI Camino Hospital Paul Gustafson, TDA Group Timothy Haight, Menlo College Chet Haskell, Cogswell Polytechnical College Joe Head, Summerhill Homes Kevin Healy, PricewaterhouseCoopers Gary Hooper, Hooper & Associates Beatriz Infante, UoiceObjects, Inc. Mark Jensen, Deloitte & Touche LLP Joseph Parisi, Thenna Inc. Bobby Ram, SunPower Hon. Chuck Reed, City of San Jose Paul Roche, McKinsey & Company Clyde Rodriguez, AMD Chris Seams, Cypress Semiconductor Corporation John Sobrato, Sr., Sobrato Development Companies Neil Struthers, Santa Clara County Building & Construction Trades Council Linda Williams, Planned Parenthood Mar Monte Daniel Yost, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP Eric Benhamou, Benhamou Global Dentures ~ Now ld~€ Cm~ Imyro~~e Cell Phone Coverage in Silicon Yalle_y-A Guide for Conunuuity AcCio~l i ~ ~~ ~~~~~~ ~~~~~~T A primer for community leaders, residents and service providers 4 CELL PHONES ARE A PART OF OUR DAILY LIVES r CELL PHONE COVERAGE IN SILICON VALLEY IS NOT COMPETITIVE ~ WHAT ARE THE REASONS FOR POOR CELL PHONE COVERAGE? ~ ~ WHAT WE CAN DO TO IMPROVE CELL PHONE COVERAGE How 1TJe Cnn hnpinve Ccll Phone Co~~ernge in Silicon Valley-A Guide for Conmlwii~y Ac[ion ~ Cell phone service is no longer a matter of mere convenience for Silicon Valley companies, nor just a luxury for consumers. In today's world most people can't imagine getting through the day without it. A rapidly growing population has disconnected its landlines altogether. The cell phone-based E911 service is saving lives by automatically directing emergency workers to the scene of an accident, heart attack, or crime. Established businesses, entrepreneurial start-ups, and residential consumers are choosing locations by the quality of cell phone service. And yet many people in Silicon Valley find they cannot rely on the service. Calls are dropped, sound quality is poor, and sometimes there is simply no connection. It's hard to believe, but cell phone service in Silicon Valley is not up to world standards. This short primer explains why this is so, and offers solutions-solutions that will come about when Silicon Valley residents, our elected officials, and our local service providers are working as partners. Joint Venture is committed to building these partnerships, and vve eagerly invite your support. CELL PHONES ARE A PART OF OUR DAILY LIVES Cell phones have enormous personal benefits for mobility, convenience, and safety. There is no better indicator of the benefits of cell phones than their increasing popularity. The Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association (CTIA) found that 76% of the U.S. population-255 million people-had cell phone subscriptions at the end of 2007.' Dell phones are beco~~~ing cur primary communication medium In 2007, subscribers used a whopping 2.1 trillion minutes on their cell phones, translating to an average of approximately 700 minutes per user per month. Minutes used grew 17% from 2006 to 2007. 1. Source: CTL4 -The Wireless Association. Except as noted, all data citations and chaps in this report are from the CTL4. The CTL4 has granted permission to use their data in this repor[. 4' Hoty j~'e Con bnprove Cell Phone Coverage in Siltcon 1-'allcy-A Guide for Connmmi[y Action Year-Enc 2007 Estimated I'i/i~elass Subscribes Up ~4ore than 22 GAillinn from Deca,rn~ er 2000 Sou,ca: CTi,4 -Lie IMireless Association Es~t~a~ec~ SuE~scr~~ers ,~ aoo.ooo.ooo zsaooo.ooo ~_ - zoo.ooc.ooo - f J C '-_ - .S is ,_, N tsa,ooo.ooo _ - ' '1 `%i 3S ~ - ~ L ioa.ooo,ooo = ~ : v - - : i k v '~ si .~ yi 5r y' a a c ~: ~ - - ~. i, ~ ~ cn ~ O - O O C O O O C C R n n n o n ~ n n n n o ~ cn a ~ a u ~ -~ v ,,. a u, 7 - 7 ~ ~ a ~ r_ O O n n co o O G n n o .. N O ~ w O ~ A n n n c°n G N N o a ~ The cel!-only! population is arov~/ing CTIA -The Wireless Association estimates that 46,000 Americans become wireless subscribers every day.z In early 2003, 3.2% of households were "cell-only," meaning they did not have a fixed phone line.3 By December of 2007 this number had grown to 16 percent. Half of these cell-only users are below the age of 30, as compared wit1T 21% of the U.S. population. A study by the National Center for Health Statistics found that 26% of parents of minors use only a cell phone and do not have a landline. Size ~~ ~~~ ~eE~~~a~r~f~~ €~e~~p~r~E~a~~a~~ Source: Consumar Expenditure Information S)-srar,-s 2,0~ ,s~o tooo Soo ~ C -. F. L Q4 &` '- -C 2 _ e Q 2J00 2001 200:'. 2UUS a C ~ F 2J04 20J5 2. Source: National Emergency Number.4ssociation. hup://e~w.nena.org/pages/ContentList.asp?CTID=23 3. Source: CIIA -The Wireless Association. Except as noted, all data citatiorvs and chaps in this report are from the CTLA. The CTIA has granted permission to use their data in this repon. How 1't/e Can hnprore Cell Phone Coti~erage in Jilicma bailey-9 Guide for Cnnvttwlity 9ctionS ~~e ~epencE on our cell phones in eE~~erpencies More than 291,000 calls are [Wade to 911 from cell phones every day in the United States. 74% of subscribers say they have used their cell phone in an emergency and - __ - - gained valuable help:4 ~.rznu;aE ~~~r~[ess ~~~-1 Ga[fs 9o.ooa.ooo ------.-...._ ____...__._.._. --- - .._....._. __ ------------ Source: CTIA - T'~a I,Nireiess assodatror, EE.ooo.ooo - -- - - 6a.ooo.ooo E _ so.ooo.ooo - - _ _ ', 40.000.800 _ _. - .~ - - __, .:. i 30.000.000 - - _ - _ _ _. - - - .' _ ~i 20A00.000 .. __ __ .. .. _. .. .. _._ _... 70.000.000. _ _... ... __ .: ~~ 0 - 66 E6 E7 EB E9 90 91 ..~ 93 94 96 96 97 9E 95 00 01 02 03 04 Ceil phones have taken on a multiplicity of functions Cell phones have become deeply integrated into the lives of their users, pro~~iding not only voice calls but also a host of other data services such as Short Message Service (SMS), Multimedia Messaging Service (MMS), traffic [napping, e-mail, photo sharing, and even video sharing. In 2005, while total wireless revenues increased by 11%, revenues from data services (services other than voice calls) increased 86.4% over 2004. The tnost popular among the data services is SMS, a feature that is growing rapidly in popularity in the United States. In 2007, cell phone users sent 363 billion text messages, more than double the 158 billion sent in 2006. 52% of cell phone users sent text messages on a regular basis in 2006-up considerably from 44% in 2005.5 Other popular data services identified by the Pew Internet & American Life Project, Associated Press, and AOL cell phone survey include sending photographs, playing games, surfing the Web, and e-mail. 4. Source: The Pew intemet 6z American Life Project memo on cell phone use; April 2006 5. Source: Jupiter Research Corporation. ~ Hnta 1~~e Can Lnpral~e Ccll Phone Co7~erage in Silicon 1~a.lley-A Guide far Convnttnity Action E~e~r~erl~ df Cef6 leers Engaging in ~Farious data ~~e~~°~i~es When n~~y ceil phone _ _ __ _ ~} ~- _ 30 .... _. .... __...__.._.__._......___ _........_ ................................................_. __. __._._. ._...__ -[acn Gec6t. A P..A ~ Fin marl 25 ~ _._ _. _. _..... ___. __...____.._... 20 15 10 c. ;.i r~` 0 _.~..._. .._. . Sentlireceive Tee.=, s,ii ~ Play ,;.~ io• 4cce:.s Eendireceive °lay music Reoorc' video Ge' maps SMS pir:ures Internet a-mail clips We have come to depend on our cell phones. We expect them to work. We need them to work. Cell Phone Coverage in Silicon Valley is Not Competitive Everyone has their favorite dead zone-Page Mill Road in Palo Alto, Sand Hill Road in Menlo Park, spots on Highways 280 and 880, Stanford Hospital, a neighborhood, a school campus. When visitors come to the Valley from Europe and Asia they are surprised by the difficulties of finding a signal, the frequency with which calls are dropped, and the lower quality of the sound. Hove aid this happen? "_ "~". ~ why, in the ~~rorEd's center ~ _ `~ ~-- of inno~~ation, is it so hard `~ ~ ,. ~ . ~•'•--M -! ' t0 CGIlI~eCt? '" ~•' ~~ :~-.. Map of reported dead cell zones by 1 ~ '` ~ .y ~~• - ,! `. carrier on vnvw.deadcellzones.com ~ ''''~ `j~R ~*~ ~^ ~, .'x in June 2008. ~ ~- `' ~:,a '"""' S ~a• ~ ~ ~ . • How 16°e Can Imyro,~e Ccll Phone Coreragc in Silicon Valley-A Guide for Community Action °a What are the reasons for poor cell phone coverage? Poar ce$ phone coverage is not unique to the San Francisco Bay Area. Marry com= munities in the United States are suffering and the primary reasons are often the same. I.The origiraE nct~e~ark-,~°as r,ot designed to pro~~ide ubiquitous co~~eage. When the cell phone network was first deployed, the priority was on covering business districts and travel corridors. Tall, industrial-size towers were built along highways and antennas were installed on the roofs of office buildings in the down- town areas. As prices fell and more consumers purchased cell phones, the carriers began building cell sites along major arteries and tried to cover residential communities. But the signal could not reach everywhere; carriers needed to build inside the neighborhoods to fill in the gaps. ?.The gro~i th in the ruriher of users and the volume of usage is ever]oading the net~,~ork. The cell phone network was designed to handle voice communications. Originally an analog system, the carriers began converting their networks to digital signals in the late 1990s in order to increase capacity. No«; with the explosion of new data services, the network is struggling again. E-mail, ~~'eb search, mapping, photo exchange, and TV ~2ewing are overloading the system. The carriers are just beginning to deploy WiMax, a new technology that is better designed for data-intensive communications. 3. Frustrated users do not reali_e thev can help soli e the probleTn. VVtten service is bad, cell phone users tend to blame the carriers. In many cases, however, they should also be contacting their local elected officials to voice their needs and encourage solutions. Letters and phone calls make a difference. Users can also report coverage gaps on public VUeb sites like wwwdeadcellzones.com, and wwwcellreception.com. .Carriers arc appl~-ing fcnr permits to e>:pznd coverage, but the process can be s]o~-, znd cumbersome. The major carriers in the San Francisco Bay Area are Sprint/Nextel, AT~T/Cingular, T-Mobile, and Uerizon Wireless. These carriers have been trying to increase their coverage by building more cell sites. They recognize that good coverage is neces- sary to attract and retain customers. Some, like T-Mobile and Sprint, now provide detailed coverage maps on their Web sites to help customers choose the carrier that pro~~ides coverage where the customer needs it. How We Cmi hnpi~i~e Cell Phone Corernge in Silicon 1-'niley-A Guide for Cmnnn.n~ity Actian Many cities have developed guidelines to review and approve applications for new installations, and for co-location on existing facilities. Still, the typical application takes between 13 months and two years to get approved. Some cities require the car~ie~ to conduct-anexx€nsiv~-analysis of-all~z-z-iatives_hefore an application can. be submitted. Dd'k2/ COID~ ill~IC8i2S StrOn OED coverage June 2008. iJ c' ? .~i ; ~.; • - ~~' ~' l ar'. .... _..~ r .~ ''_ ~pri~u p ~'~.; . '. _ ~ ~ 'J`'1~~s1 R4t:nk 3. ~--- T-ATr~bile ~~ Hoiv 1~'e Can Improve Ccll Phone Coverage in Silicon 1-alle~~-A Guide (or Comniwiity Action ~ Even when an application meets all of the requirements in the guidelines and is supported by city staff and the planning commission, an application can be held up by the elected officials at the request of residents. There are two major rea§oiis why some applications ge[ reviewed at the counci or board of supen~isors level: 1. Residents express concern about the health effects of radio frequency I use T-I~~obile and I don't radiation from cell site equipment. They are especially concerned that get a s!gnal at ~~ny friend's signal transmission carries long-term health effects, particularly for children. house in Fren cont. ~Nhere I Residents and elected officials should understand, however, that these concerns go every week. ~~~hen I'm have long been laid to rest. Radio equipment is regulated to ensure public safety ' and equipment is tested and certified. Countless scientific studies have been m just not available. there I conducted worldwide; there is widespread agreement in the scientific com- no maiter why you need i0 munity that so long as equipment conforms to the standards there is no health reach C1le. riskb In fact, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has ruled that local governments may not deny a permit on the basis of health concerns so -An,it hnmar, rcadera ~: ~:~~,)~~~ long as the equipment meets federal standards. The FCC's ruling notwithstanding, anumber of Silicon Valley municipalities have hired consultants to review equipment specifications and testify before councils. This causes delays and is almost always unwarranted because the carriers' equipment meets or exceeds the FCC's safety standards. 2. Residents believe the cell site will be unattractive, spoil their view, or reduce property values. This may have been true in an earlier time, but today the carriers design sites that are much smaller in size and disguised to fit in with the surroundings. Cell sites can be hidden in chimneys and church steeples, mounted on park lighting, or even disguised as trees. 6. For more information see, "Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Fields: Guidelines for Cellular and PCS Sites" ai http://N~w.fccgov/cgb/consumerfacts/rfexposure.html. Also see the World Health Organization fact sheet on "Electromag- netic fields and public health: the International EMF Project at, http7/wH1+~.who.int/mediacentrelfactsheets/fs161/en/ 4 fP Hnw Ike Cnn hn~ro~`e Cell Phone Cot'era~ge iii Silicon t/nllcy-A Guide for Connnunity Action So,^~e d~souised cell sites on the Peninsula. ~.k. _. .._.. i _ ¢~ t ~ ls~~ ~L~- w:.1~~x.., uS.:s..., : ~,+. Noi+~ \~'e Cw~ Impru~~c C.cll Phonc Corcrage in Silicon A'aRE~~-.A Guic~r for Crnwnwiity action '6 ~ ~r~r~^ What we can do to improve cell phone coverage Silicon Valley's coverage issues can be fused. _ In fact, we are already making significant progress: residents are coming to a better understanding about the facts, local governments are improving their processes, and the carriers are working hard to address local concerns. Joint Denture is committed to working with all parties until our region's service levels are where they need to be. Vl'e are doing this by: 1. Sensing as an honest broker between the carriers, the public, and our public sector decision makers. 2. Collecting survey information, mapping the dead zones throughout the Sili- con Valley region, bringing these to the attention of the relevant officials, and keeping the public informed of progress. 3. Educating elected officials and other public decision-makers about the facts and myths regarding cell phone towers. 4. Providing comment at public hearings, filing letters, and encouraging local residents to do the same. 5. Articulating the compelling regional interest in having a fully functioning network, and the implications for our competitive standing if we don't. Ultimately, however, our progress will depend on everybody doing their part. Specifically. we call on CITI~ ANB COUNTY LEADERS to: f Make certain your jurisdiction has a clear and sensible set of guidelines for permitting cell sites. Have permit applications reviewed by staff and planning commissions as a matter of routine, and save council and board re~~iew for those rare instances when the siting im~okes deeper policy questions. Fast-track applications that meet all of the guidelines. Maintain a map of cell phone coverage gaps in your community and work with carriers to fill them in. 92 How lh,e Cmi ImPrm~e Cell Phone Coverage in Silicon Unlic~~-A Guide for Connnunity.~ction ~h'e ca1.l on C.~RRI_R~ to: • Pro~~ide consumers with an easy way to report coverage problems. ',%is~tors from Asia al~n~ays seem suri~rised that cell shone service in Silicon Valley 's •/vcrse than it is back hcme. Provide jurisdictions with accurate coverage maps to identify where there are gaps in ser~~ice. ~'~~ork with city and county staff members to design cell sites that are appro- priate for the community, while achieving technical objectives. Submit only those applications that conform to the permitting guidelines of the community. -De•an ~T~'arstiau~skv. CEC,. Contact local subscribers to let them know that an application has been filed. Teh~k ~~-s,<<n, and ~~-~;3;•, ~, Encourage them to call or write letters to council members and staff expressing Tour„ of ]_o:.~ltos NiIL their views on cell phone coverage. ~~'e sail ~n RESIDENTS AND LL~Cr1L BL~S1:~'ESSES to: Notify the carrier about your coverage problems by e-mail or letter. • ~~'rite a letter or send an e-mail to your city council or board of supervisors to let them know that }'ou want coverage improved. Provide the address or intersection where you are experiencing problems and the name of the carrier. • Report your dead zones on the Joint Venture ~'eb site (w~anvjointventure.org) or on vnvwdeadcellzones.com and www.cellreception.com. Additional inforiTlatior~ • The Pew Research Center - http://people-press.orgJ • CTIA -The Wireless Association - www.ctia.org • The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) - www.fcc.gov How 1~'e Can hnpro~~e Cc11 Phone Coi°erage iii Silirnn talle~~-A Giiidc (or Cornminiity .~ttirnt ~~ Joint Venture: Silicon Valley Network 2008 Investors ,.. .. _,..a~~ Accenture .:.~,,,. Hewlett-Packard San Jose State University Research Foundation Accretive Solutions Hoge Fenton, LLP - SanDisk Adobe Systems Hood & Strong, LLP Santa Clara Building & Construction AeA JETRO Trades Council AMD Johnson Controls Santa Clara Valley Water District AT&T Kaiser Permanente Silicon Valley Community Founda- Bank of America KPMG tion Silicon Valley Power Bay Area Council Foundation Koret Foundation Bay Area SMACNA Lucile Packard Children's Hospital at Skoll Foundation Stanford Smith, Boyd & Jill Benhamou Global Ventures McKinsey & Company Sobrato Development Companies Berliner Cohen, LLP Menlo College Solectron Bingham McCutchen, LLP Morgan Family Foundation SolutionSet Cadence Design Systems Microsoft Stanford University Cisco Systems Mitsubishi International Corporation SummerHill Homes Cogswell Polytechnical College O'Connor Hospital SunPower Corporation Colliers International Oakland Athletics SVB Financial Group Comerica Bank Pacific Gas & Electric Company Synopsys CommerceNet Packard Foundation TDA Group Cooley Godward, LLP Pipe Trades Training Center of Santa Therma Cypress Semiconductor Corporation Clara County Trident Capital Deloitte & Touche REgrid Power University of California, Santa Cruz DLA Piper, LLP Robert Half International Valley Medical Center Foundation eBa Foundation y SamTrans/CalTrain Varian Medical Systems EI Camino Hospital Foundation San Francisco 49ers VoiceObjects, Inc. Ernst & Young San Jose Convention and Visitor's Bureau Volterra Foothill-De Anza Community College District Foundation San Jose Sharks Weils Fargo Bank Google San Jose/Silicon Valley Business Wilmer Hale, LLP Journal Greenberg Traurig, LLP Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, San Jose/Silicon Valley Chamber of LLP Half Moon Bay Brewing Company Commerce Zanker Road Resource Management, Heaith Trust Ltd t~ Hoim «'e Can hnprore Cell Phone Cu~~crage in Silicon ~=alley-A Guide for Connnunih' Action City of Campbell City of Palo Atto City of East Palo Alto City of Redwood City City of Foster City City of San Carlos City of Fremont City of San Jose City of Gilroy City of San Mateo City of Los Altos City of Santa Clara City of Menlo Park City of Santa Cruz City of Milpitas City of Sunnyvale City of Monte Sereno City of Union City City of Morgan Hill County of San Mateo City of Mountain View County of Santa Clara City of Newark Town of Los Altos Hilis City of Pacifica Town of Los Gatos The investors listed here are sponsors of Joint Venture: Silicon Valley Network and its many various projects and initiatives. They are not responsible for the material contained in this report, which reflects the views of Joint Venture and not necessarily those of its individual sponsors. Hoi+~ lAe Cali Imp rorc Ccll Phunc C~~~eragc iii Silinn Wall y-A Grid ° f ~r Cnnrnirnity Asti iii 1 a~ h0 SOUTH nti~RKET STREET • SUITE 1000 • SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95113 • PHONE: (408) 278-2294 • ~~~~~~.jointventure.org i i I o~ ~ ~ ~ ., r~ a '~~ y (i _ -~}-` ~ J_ ..- ~ _ _ ~-~mrmpprnrn , t~YY11 ~ ' Ir ¢ ~~ ~ fi ~~ ~ ~, v ~L~C~IG_~ - - r, _ ~ ~ ,~, ~ <, r '~ ~- E~ ~-N~ eo ~i ~ BD ~~ ~ r~ti R~ ~ ~ ~-1 .,,~ - v ) ~ ~ 3 A PrlA° \ L X15 ~ ~~ ~ I +,V. I r ~ P3 I , - .., 1, l ^~;~,;' '~~~-X11-_~~~~ ~ ~- -_ R3 I _^ ~ 'I I A~ ~ PIMP) _r i r I \ ~ PR ~ ~'#r;'~ ^"~C/"~` !f/}~.\\ -~. ' ~ I ncc~L w. ai°I q-pnSrn url ~4~, '~ f-0 - ~.1~~~ \ ~ i ~I~.,~ v ~ I V/ //JJn ~1l r I ~~i-i ,y~q~\~.I~~~yi~T f IpJ,~.'1, 1'l~y ia/l ~ ~ ~'.~~. ' 1 rl_- II lJ :.-.. ~ ~ H,~~V'. w4.y d, ~~ ~~j;~ - Illl~l~'i, ~~ 1 I ~~Ir~~)~"~1'~Cr ^.l'~I~i~~~3~~~ ~ R~15 ~~,.Ir F. III ~J, ~_._- N~ r~^{,d - . y ~ ~~ .._ r ~ ,, y I I r- ~?~.,-, ~. a ,rG i 6 ' -mrr,ri ~ - ~ ~+ ~. ~~. ,' Y/' I .1;14 ~~_. ` ~ 1H ~~i1.i6 T ~ _ A '~ R~~p-~ ,. ~ ~ ~ I ~~ CG ~ -~ ~ _ ~o<u ~ ash ~A ~ I ~~ j ~ ._ ~~ -.. ~~ ~ ~,- - %ou of ~ _ ,~~ A - afl i P(MP) ° Az ,I ~ _a A ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ Fbia ., -~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - -R~ t [} , 1g d ,~ ~ ~y ~ - ~ ~ .~~~~JJJ ~ ' __~ %CCI '..v~~_JJ1 v F y" ~ ,f` F ~ `_ Gteaens Cre~lc Blyd %CY ° "4 "°'°' p°~ ~~ n~ YI~ ~ I,r ' I "t1 ~~ 1~w:..w I P _ ~ ~ `~ I :- ~~%C4 .~II -I _ I '~ '~ I 4a~1 Q _ _ _ (rJ 1 ~ r _ P _ ~ ~ ~ I - x~ o ~ ~ i ~1 $ L '1f~ lm,r F ~ ,., ~ ~A ~~ BA-1 I a' ~` ~ ,. m~ =,k ~y~ i ~ - ~ r ,i~K ®A - ~ ~ ' ~ I \\~ ~ ~ ~•- P(Pea~ ~.~f ~~' ~ nT ~I . , ~~ I _ -i O '^ ~ ? ~ w ~ cam an.4~u1 ... `t ~ ~ 'y " ~ r~ ~.,' BA II _ 10 ~.~. ~~ I `~ `ll!IJ \ --n - ih.r f At.]6 - - n.mm ~NS+ae^~ ~ ~ r ~ RS 101. ;~ ~ Ra~7.6 ~ ~'~ ~ ~' I ~ ~ ., r'? ~ ©~ ~ I ~ ~ ~~ I - 1 .. o I Al I PA I I J AI iS -... ..- .: r~N1 1 ~4~~RI iS ir.. 'I ,~I~- ~ ~ ~~. - I ~li~ ~ -` ~ •~ I ~ •- C~ i ----- '~::-- ~ I U I >; _ I 1fU_ ~ _ I(hMli ~ 1I ~CCIe)~dn°~ ~ ~ ~ ~ RHS BN631 \ rr ~`~-~, ~ ~ ; I ?TMrl '' RI 6 f~ ..~ [F ,~ ~ FP-o`- ~ ~' I • RIL AID `r" It '~ _ I .. ~~ ° 7 -- ~ ~ rR7.6 I %n ? 1 ~-t-z ..~;; P..tAHS ._. `~ ~, 81 PR ~ •- ~ ~ -~r~. ~I a.lll 7 r „m~ R1-61 c - ~wLnP .a I ~ I I I.. .I ~-F ~/) ~ i ~ - -~ ~F ~~i_ ~,~ - _` RHS ' ~~6 ~ - J~ PR - RHS ~ ~ ~ ~-1 ~ ~ TTYggq r r ~ flNS.10 ~~~ 41tl - .A `, ~ 1 J ~" - %~ NNL»A ew.m ~ A ~ r flXLiAA ~ ~ -~~ ~ OS~~.,. ~ " ~ F _ . \ ~ Aw `Alice ~ ~wo ~ ~ Rl-6 / ~ ~ ,~~~ ~ ~ P(Res) I ? ~ ~~~~f~ ~ ' , ~ fl«~~ »,R ~: PIS°m~~~~ ~i(' ~' •~ , ~, ~`, s ,,~,' N ~ ~ ~ Li,m - \ < ti ~ I ~r+rS - _. ~ ~ q ~~-,, ~ 1. LAIL, k~lp PR ~ ~~ e/~7'~ ,~ y~ ~ . ~~ J 7 ~,~ ~~ ~~ !,//'~l ~~ ~ PR ~ ~ _ ~ `~~ 0 ~~~, ~ ~ ~, ~'~~~ ~ I E~ ~~• •~~ -~I ~ ~ ~~ I -~~ ------ -- ~ ~v ~L~~I r~ I ~ ~ I ~ ~~~ ~ A•215 ~-• -- _ - k~~ `? ' ,; E , ~m a °~ ~*,~l an oA _ v' ~ Wireless Communications Facilities ,~ ` ~ Existing Facilities, Areas allowed by current Ordinance _~ t' CUPEATINO ~ ; ~,) & Areas recommended by Planning Commission ~ j I _~ „~ ~ _ Legend -~ ~, I ~ 0 Building mounted ~ k ° ~, i - ~ Monopole/Tower ~- NY ~~ -, ^ PG&E Pole Mount _ ~ s v~ ~ PG&E Tower Mount '~ ~~~'~'' ~ RoofMounted I ~ Sports Pield Light Mount 0 Vallco Sign Mount Tree Pole 0 Proposed Locations Currently, potentially allo~~~ed sites t,ioo so a t,ioo 2,200 Feet O Prepared by Piu Ghosh, Planning Department Last Updated February 2, 2009 C~ 2~310~ +~ ~~~ .~ GU.P~RTINO Municipal Code Amendment to Chapter 19.108: Wireless Comrrlunications Facilities, • The expansion of potential site locations • Adding to design anal siting criteria • Miscellaneous technical changes ., O -wire 2003 - Wireless Facilities Mister Plan adopted. 2007 - TICC conducts an electronic survey on issues and resident concerns regarding cell phone coverage & antennae in City. 2007 - City Council directed. TICC to work with staff on City regulations to address cell phone coverage issues in areas with little to no cellular communications and emergency communications (ie, lack of cellular communications during the 2007 Cupertino 1 CtJPERTINO • TICC studies wireles:~ planning in Cupertino for last two years; prepares draft ordinance in consultation with City staff. • Planning Commissio» meetings (with citywide noticing) conducted over two dates: Nov. 25~ and January 27~. • Sent to City Council on February 3rd with a unanimous approval vote of the Commission (5-0). =. 0 1. New, Potential Site Locations • Allow in RHS, OS and. PR (public park) zoning districts with City review. • Allow in common-interest areas of residential and mixed use planned developments with use permit and HOA approval. • Allow on non-City utility poles and towers, regardless of zoning district. (Already allowed on City-owned utility poles.) 2 ~, Ct7PERTINO 3. Require neighborhood noticing of Director's minor modification approvals of cell sites. 4. Require screening of highly visible roof-mounted antennas. 5. Expand aerial abandonment clause to include cost of land restoration to former condition. 6. Post-construction RF emission testing not needed. 7. Allow aesthetically-desi;~ned cell sites as one of the City's new review criteria. 8. Delete exception requirement that limits width to 12" for mast and tower cross sections 30 ft. high 9. Request Council direct Z'ICC to evaluate DAS tech CUPERTLNO • Approval of a Negative Declaration for the project (file no. EA-2008-09); • Approval of the ordin~ince amendments per the attached resolution and exhibit A (file no. MCA-2008-04). 4