Loading...
101-Appeal Staff Report.pdf COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY HALL 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3308 • FAX: (408) 777-3333 STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. ____ Meeting Date: November 1, 2010 Subject Appeal of an approval of a wireless service facility Recommendation Deny an appeal of a Planning Commission approval for a personal wireless service facility consisting of twelve panel antennas to be mounted on a 74 foot tall monopine and associated base equipment to be located at the existing Results Way office park Description Appeal of the following Planning Commission Approvals: Use Permit (U-2010-03) request to allow a personal wireless service facility, consisting of twelve panel antennas mounted on a 74-foot tall monopine and associated base equipment located at the Results Way office park. Height Exception (EXC-2010-04) request to allow antennas to be mounted on a monopine at a height of 67 feet or less where 55 feet is allowed. Tree Removal (TR-2010-31) request to allow the removal and replacement of four Coastal Redwood trees associated with the proposed personal wireless service facility. Property Location: Results Way (rear parking lot)/ APN 357-20-042 Applicant: Dave Yocke, Trillium Telecom (for AT&T Mobility) Appellant: Allen Wang, Grace Chen, Guo Jin Property Owner: ECI Two Results, LLC Background On September 14, 2010, the Planning Commission reviewed and approved (4-1 vote; Miller voting no) a proposal for a 74-foot tall AT&T wireless service monopine located in the northwest corner of the parking lot at the Results Way office park (Attachments B-resolution, C-hearing minutes, D- Commission staff report & L- approved plan set) The Commission noted that most of residents’ concerns related to perceived hazards of RF energy, and a radio frequency study determined that the cumulative radio frequency exposure (existing and proposed emissions) were well below federal safety standards. The commissioners noted that federal law prohibits cities from making wireless facility decisions based on the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions that met federal standards. Generally, the Commissioners felt that the monopine was well-designed and given its location and context, the facility would not be visually obtrusive. Commissioner Miller voted no on the project. He felt the monopine was too visible at the proposed location, being over twice the height of the existing trees. The Planning Commission hearing was well attended and comments were received from both supporters, as well as those who opposed the project. Please see Attachment I for the numerous emails and letters received. For a detailed Planning Commission hearing discussion, please refer to the September 14, 2010 Commission meeting minutes (Attachment C). The Planning Commission decision was appealed by three residents on September 28, 2010 (Attachment A). Discussion The basis of the appeal is described below followed by staff comments in italics. Where the applicant has provided the response, at the request of staff, the comments are so noted: 1. The application does not meet the minimum aesthetic requirement established in City of Cupertino’s Wireless Facilities Master Plan. Appeal Point 1(a): It violates the following policy: Policy 6-1: Personal wireless service facilities should be sited to avoid visually intrusive impacts as viewed from the public right-of-way and from residential neighborhoods. “The artificial tree will be highly visible especially from nearby residents and pedestrians, passersby and commuters who traverse Bubb Road and McClellan Road.” Staff Response: The Glossary of the City’s Wireless Master Plan (p. 38) describes a visually “intrusive” impact as a wireless facility “that visually contrasts with its surroundings to the point of conflicting with it, but not to the extent of visually dominating the surroundings.” The project does not visually contradict its surroundings as it has been camouflaged as a tree and it is sited in a large landscape strip with other trees of similar shape. The Facilities Master Plan Siting and Design Guidelines for Lattice Towers and Monopoles recommends that: “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 project is already sited in a wide landscape berm with other trees of similar form (Coastal Redwoods). The Planning Commission approval included the rehabilitation of the irrigation system and the planting of three 24” box Coastal Redwoods in the northwest corner of the property. Trees planted in this location would have the most beneficial effect in screening views of the project for nearby Astoria residents. 2 The monopine is most visible in the vicinity of Imperial Avenue and Olive Avenue. It has limited visibility to McClellan Road as it is separated by over 1,400 feet of landscaping with tall, mature trees and over 650 feet of intervening landscaping and buildings to Bubb Road. Appeal Point 1(b): It violates the following policy: Policy 6-2: Personal wireless service facilities shall be appropriately scaled to fit harmoniously with the surrounding elements of the site and neighborhood. The proposed 74’ tall cellular phone tower will be significantly taller than its surrounding buildings. Existing surrounding structures do not exceed 30 feet; the proposed monopole will be more than 40 feet taller than existing structures. The proposed tower will be an eyesore, as it is significantly taller. Existing landscaping has a height similar to the surrounding buildings of approximately 30 feet. Staff Response: It is more appropriate to make height comparisons between the proposed monopine with the existing vegetation, rather than the buildings. The project lot is large and the topography varies. While the redwood trees (25-35 feet tall) immediately around the monopine (74 feet) are much shorter, the closest building is 265 feet away and is on a grade 10 feet higher than the proposed facility. Ideally to make the monopine blend better with the surrounding, it should be located near those existing trees of comparable height in the landscape strip; however, those taller trees directly abut residences and the 75-foot setback requirement between a wireless facility and a residential property line could not be met. The 74-foot height for the monopine is needed for two reasons: 1) The monopine must be tall enough to see over the buildings in order to provide cell coverage to residential neighborhoods and schools south of the project site; and 2) Provide an opportunity for another wireless carrier to collocation its antennas on the monopine. The City requires wireless carriers to consider collocation opportunities when they propose new monopoles in order to reduce the proliferation of new wireless facilities and if it will reduce the visual intrusiveness of having more new facilities in the area. Given the difficulty of finding suitable wireless facility sites in this area and the fact that two other wireless carriers are looking for a Monta Vista location, makes this monopine a strong candidate for collocation. AT&T has indicated to staff that the 74-foot height is the minimum height needed for the carrier to meet its coverage objectives for the area, regardless if whether the collocation of antennas is permitted in the future or not. Appeal Point 1(c ): It violates the following policy: 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. It does not blend in with the current landscape. Existing landscapes have height similar to the surrounding buildings, of approximately 30 feet….The proposed cell tower will be significantly taller, does not visually integrated, and does not enhance the natural appearance. Current 3 Cupertino City Ordinance – and specifically the Monta Vista neighborhood – does not allow structures or buildings exceeding 30 feet. Staff Response: The difference in height between the monopine and surrounding structures has been answered in the previous response. The Wireless Communications Facilities Ordinance (CMC Section 19.108, Attachment G) permits a maximum structure height of 55 feet. Taller structure heights may be allowed with a height exception approval. New wireless facilities with similar heights have been approved by the City in the past. The wireless facility has been designed to be compatible with its surroundings with faux bark, branching limbs and needle covers on the antennas to hide the antennas (Attachment F- photosimulations). Additional conditions were approved by the Planning Commission to give the monopine a more natural appearance. They include mottling the green color of the artificial needles and shaping and adding branching to give it a more natural appearance. Another condition requires the applicant to perform regular maintenance to maintain the appearance of the monopine. 2. The application does not meet the safety requirement established in the City of Cupertino’s Wireless Facilities Master Plan. It violates the following policies: Policy 7-1: The City reserves the right to require applicants to prepare radio frequency 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. Policy 7-2: The City shall require a radio frequency radiation assessment for all co-located antennas. (The concern is for cumulative emissions exceeding the FCC Guidelines). The radio frequency radiation study done by Hammett & Edison, Inc. Consulting Engineers, dated August 20, 2010 is outdated and was based on twelve antennas mounted at an effective height about 65 feet above ground. A new study should be done based on the bottom elevation (about 56’ above ground) of the lower tier of the antennas proposed and also the bottom elevation of future antennas proposed at lower elevations. A radio frequency radiation study should be done to calculate the combined emission by all carriers and sources at the proposed location and future towers planned by AT&T and other carriers. AT&T has not established the need for twelve antennas for this application. In last year’s application, AT&T had proposed six antennas. The City should not approve more antennas than actually needed to improve coverage. Staff Response: A last minute design change lowered the height of six of the twelve proposed antennas from 65 feet to 56 feet. An updated radio frequency study for the revised 12-antenna design (Attachment J) with the lowered tier of antennas demonstrates that the radio frequency energy exposure plus the contribution from the existing, next door, Sprint-Nextel personal wireless service facility is still well within the Federal safety standard. The maximum calculated cumulative level of radio frequency emissions at ground is 0.73% of the maximum permissible exposure (MPE). At the second floor elevation of any nearby residence, the exposure is 0.92% of the MPE. On the rooftop of any nearby non-residential building, the exposure is estimated to be 2.4% of the MPE. 4 According to the applicant, the number of antennas has changed from the initial six requested in the 2009 application to the 12 requested as part of this application because it would allow AT&T the flexibility to add additional antennas as new technology is deployed. The proposed 12 antennas have been included on all drawings, photo-simulations, project descriptions and in the City staff report. Furthermore the Hammett & Edison radio frequency energy report based its analyses and conclusions of the facility utilizing all 12 antennas operating at maximum power levels. Condition No.9 in the Planning Commission resolution (Attachment B) requires annual monitoring and testing for a period of three years from the date of final occupancy approval. Also, as stated in the Planning Commission staff report, staff will require a new radio frequency energy study when a future antenna collocation proposal is made. Staff normally requires a new radio frequency study whenever an antenna collocation occurs, but the City Council may add it as a requirement to its action on the appeal. 3. Planning commissioners, city staffs and residents have never seen a correct coverage map based on the proposed location. An updated coverage map with the proposed monopole correctly placed on the mentioned site should be studied and reviewed. The City should not approve a wireless facility application without even seeing a correct coverage map based on actual proposed location. Three different coverage maps have been available: • The first coverage map included with the Planning Commission staff report shows the proposed facility near the intersection of Imperial Avenue and McClellan Road. If the facility is incorrectly placed on the map, then the proposed coverage area is likely wrong too. • The second coverage map from AT&T’s website (www.wireless.att.com/coverageviewer/, with zip code 95014) shows good coverage for most of Monta Vista. • The third coverage map was presented by AT&T’s representative at the September 14, 2010 Planning Commission Hearing shows that at the proposed facility site that there is no/limited coverage. Staff Response: Please see Attachment K for the updated coverage maps (showing existing and proposed coverage) with the location of the facility accurately depicted. The applicant states that its website (www.wireless.att.com/coverageviewer) coverage maps were developed to allow existing and potential AT&T customers the ability to view the general level of coverage in a geographic area. AT&T included a statement on the website to ensure viewers understand the limitations of the website, noting that actual coverage area may differ substantially from map graphics, and coverage may be affected by such things as terrain, weather, foliage, buildings and other construction, signal strength, customer equipment and other factors. AT&T also noted that the maps shown on the AT&T web page are intended for use for the general public and are not as detailed as the radio frequency engineering maps submitted to the city and discussed at the planning commission public hearing. The radio frequency coverage maps are based on data taken in the field and sophisticated computer programs and models that provide a graphical representation of existing coverage as well as coverage if the proposed facility is built. Wireless 5 networks are dynamic and their performance is influenced by a number of factors including the geography of the surrounding area, heights of existing trees and buildings, locations of surrounding sites and the number of users accessing the network. The level of coverage in a geographic area served by a wireless facility is also impacted by these factors. 4. It was mentioned at the Planning Commission hearing that at times cell coverage was good in Monta Vista. It was also mentioned that there was a significant degradation in coverage especially during after-school hours and after-work hours when many parents are calling their children. More than 4,400 students plus teachers and administrators arrive at school and are dismissed within a 30-60 minutes interval. Given this, if this is the problem, then capacity issues may be misconstrued as “poor coverage.” This issue still needs to be explored and discussed. The need for the facility is not clear-cut, perhaps other alternatives can resolve this issue. Staff response: The applicant states that the level of coverage in a geographic area served by a wireless facility is impacted by numerous factors, including the geography of the surrounding area, heights of existing trees and buildings, locations of surrounding (wireless facility) sites and the number of users accessing that facility at any given time. For instance, sites located near freeways usually have peak times that correspond to the peak traffic hours on the freeway. As traffic increases on the freeway, more people in the same geographic area are attempting to make calls and once the wireless network reaches capacity, no more calls can be initiated and existing calls may be dropped. So, even though there may be “coverage” in an area, the level of service may be lower than expected due to an increase in network traffic. Staff notes that the 2007 Technology, Information and Communications Commission survey of cell phone users in Cupertino documented that the Monta Vista/Kennedy Schools/Bubb Road/McClellan Road area was the number one poor cell phone coverage area in Cupertino Staff also believes that the perception of “good” cell phone coverage has also evolved over the years. Historically, consumers used cell phones when they were mobile (i.e. outdoors). Nowadays, consumers expect their cell phones to operate at work and at home (i.e. in buildings). In general, low-power radio signals are inadequate to provide good in-building coverage and wireless networks must be built-up and expanded in order to provide better in-building cell phone coverage. 5. Alternative locations and structures should expand to larger areas. Since the proposed location will not improve coverage effectively, it is necessary to study alternative locations, at nearby parks, near freeways and existing office buildings. It is also clear that a smaller structure, such as roof-mounted antennas at the center of coverage gap may suffice in improving the coverage in this area, instead of the 74-foot tall treepole. Half of Monta Vista area has good coverage, namely from Sprint-Nextel & Verizon Wireless, and yet there is no Sprint or Verizon cell phone tower near the residential area. Why is a 74-foot tall monopole the only viable solution to improve AT&T coverage? Had AT&T really explored all alternatives? Can roof-mounted antennas serve as a potential solution? 6 Staff Response: Sprint-Nextel’s wireless facility is located on Imperial Avenue next door to the Astoria Townhomes; the closest Verizon Wireless site is on the De Anza College campus. Staff has summarized AT&T’s and city staff’s 5-year search and evaluation for a suitable Monta Vista wireless facility site in the Planning Commission staff report (Attachment D). As part of their due diligence, AT&T also approached other property owners in the general area including, the following: Potential Co-Location Opportunity: • 10420 Bubb Road, Cupertino – The property owner and AT&T were not interested in pursuing a lease due to lack of room for a facility. Other Alternative Locations Explored: • Monta Vista High School - The project was subsequently approved by the city however, due to concerns raised by parents and neighbors, the school board declined to enter into a lease agreement to permit the facility to be constructed. At that time, suggestions were made by opponents of the project and city staff to move the location of the facility out of the residentially- zoned areas and look at commercial properties to the northeast that had sufficient space to accommodate the proposed use. • 21495 McClellan Road, Cupertino –The property owner and AT&T were not interested in lease due to lack of room for a facility. • Industrial Areas to the East-These were reviewed and had no available space (without taking up parking spaces) or were too close to the freeway where AT&T currently has coverage from existing facilities to the northeast and southeast. • Utility Poles – these are used in extreme locations where a standard wireless facility cannot be built (steep hillsides, public right-of-way, etc.). If utility poles are used, height is compromised and it would take multiple facilities to obtain the same coverage that one standard facility (such as the one proposed) can obtain. • Sites on Results Way - The applicant submitted an application to the city in 2008 to place the proposed facility near the southwest corner of the office park. This initial site was rejected by staff, so the applicant sought an alternate location in the rear parking lot landscape strip near the building. This site was reviewed at a Planning Commission hearing but the application was ultimately withdrawn because of conflicts with a utility easement. A third location on the property was proposed by the applicant in June 2010 (current proposal). Due to future development plans on the subject property and proximity to existing utility easements and overhead power lines, the current location was ultimately selected as a compromise location that met the requirements of the city while allowing AT&T to meet most of the original coverage objectives. 7 8 Staff notes that the Results Way Office Park consists of three separate parcels. The entire focus of the current application has been on the rear parcel that is furthest away from McClellan Road. Most other alternative sites on the properties were not feasible because of the property owner’s approved redevelopment plans, utility easements and closer proximity to residential properties. Selection of an alternative site on the other two parcels would require a separate City review. Prepared by: Colin Jung, AICP, Senior Planner Reviewed by: Gary Chao, City Planner; Aarti Shrivastava, Community Development Director Approved for Submission by: David W. Knapp, City Manager Attachments A. Appeal of U-2010-03, EXC-2010-04 and TR-2010-31 dated 9/28/10 B. Letter to Applicant & Planning Commission Resolution No. 6604 C. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes from 9/14/10 D. Planning Commission Staff Report dated 9/14/10 E. Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Letter dated 6/23/10 F. Photosimulations of monopine (3) G. AT&T Facility Alternate Sites Aerial Map H. Communications from TIC Commissioners I. Public Correspondence: Emails and Letters J. AT&T Mobility Proposed Base Station (Site No. CN3242A)/Results Way, Cupertino, California/Statement of Hammett & Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers, dated 10/26/10 K. Existing and Proposed Coverage Maps (updated) L. Planning Commission-approved Plan Set