Loading...
108-G. PC Staff Report dated 9/14/10.pdfATTACHMENT G CUPERIANNO OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CITY HALL 10300 TORRE AVENUE s CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 (408) 777-3308 - FAX (408) 777-3333 . planning@cupertino.org PLANN a M. STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. 21 Agenda Date: September 14, 2010 Application: U-2010-03, EXC-2010-04, TR-2010-31 Applicant: Dave Yocke, Trillium Telecom (for AT&T Mobility) Property Owner: ECI Two Results, LLC Property Location: Results Way Application Summary: 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. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Commission: 1. Approve the use permit (U-2010-03) with additional design conditions per the model resolution; 2. Approve the height exception (EXC-2010-04) per the model resolution; and 3. Approve the tree removal (TR-2010-31) per the model resolution (Attachment 1). PROJECT DATA Property Zoning: Planned Development - Light Industrial - P(ML) Allowed Height: 55 feet Height of Monopine: 74 feet (measured from grade to foliage top) Height of Antennas, 67 feet max. (measured from grade to top of panels) Required Setback: 75 feet (to residentially zoned property line) Proposed Setback: 334 feet to Imperial Ave. residence Dave Yocke (for AT&T Mobility) U-2010-03, EXC-2010-04 September 14, 2010 Page 2 246 feet to Olive Ave. residence 207 feet to Astoria townhouses Environmental Determination: Categorical Exemption BACKGROUND Proposed Project The applicant, Dave Yocke (representing AT&T Mobility) is proposing a personal wireless service monopine located in the westerly landscape strip of the rear parking lot of the Results Way Office Park (see aerial diagram below). The monopine consists of twelve panel antennas arranged in two racks of six antennas on a simulated pine tree pole. Associated base equipments are located within a fenced enclosure near the base of the pole. The monopine will be designed for collocation so that more antennas and base equipment may be added by other wireless carriers in the future. Any future addition to the monopine will require additional radio frequency energy analysis to confirm that the cumulative emission exposures are below Federal safety limits. The project site is surrounded by mainly office and industrial land uses. The nearest residential property is approximately 207 feet to the north. Dave Yocke (for AT&T Mobility) U-2010-03, EXC-2010-04 September 14, 2010 Page 3 Previous Application Approximately one year ago, the Planning Commission reviewed a similar application (U-2008-03, EXC-2009-05) for a six -antenna monopine with provisions for a future expansion or collocation. That proposal was withdrawn when AT&T changed its applicant/contractor. The new applicant has submitted a new monopine proposal consisting of six more antennas (a total of 12) compared with the original application. The new monopine is located approximately 170 feet north of the original location on the same property Coverage Demand In 2007, the City's Technology, Information and Communications Commission (TICC) conducted an on-line survey of residents and workers to identify cell phone usage and issues in the City. AT&T was found to be one of two wireless carriers to have the widest subscription bases in Cupertino, and the Bubb Road/McClellan Road area was identified as the # 1 problem area for lack of cell phone coverage by survey respondents. The existing and proposed AT&T phone coverages are depicted in Attachment 2. The Santa Clara County Sheriffs has also submitted a letter noting the importance of improving wireless communications coverage throughout the city in order to improve law enforcement communications and effectiveness (Attachment 3). DISCUSSION Site Location The AT&T monopine is proposed in the westerly landscape strip of the office park which has numerous tall and large trees to the south and smaller trees to the north. The proposed location is 2.75 times the required 75-foot setback from a residentially zoned property. Treepole and Enclosure Appearance The appearance of the monopine will be comparable to modern tree pole designs, such as the one located at 10121 Miller Avenue, Cupertino. The tree design includes: Faux bark cladding An artificial pine branch structure that will resemble a tree and obscure the antenna racks Pine needle covers that will obscure the panel antenna even further (See photosimulations, Attachment 4) Sample actual AT&T monopine proposed at Results Way, Cupertino Dave Yocke (for AT&T Mobility) U-2010-03, EXC-2010-04 September 14, 2010 Page 4 Even though there are many tall, mature trees in the office park's westerly landscape strip, the immediate project vicinity is occupied with smaller stature trees, which makes it more challenging to blend in the project. In order to achieve a more natural and realistic tree image and enhance the equipment screen wall (12-foot concrete block wall), staff is recommending the following conditions of approval: The needle camouflage shall be a more mottled green color, which is more natural looking than the deep forest green color found on the Miller Avenue tree The top half of the monopine shall be designed with a more conical form and the the bottom half of the tree foliage should be more dense in order to simulate the shape of a real pine tree ® The upper six feet of the base equipment screen wall shall be clad with high quality metal panels with a color to match the metal work in the approved office project. Area around the enclosure shall be landscaped with shrubs to help the monopine blend in with the existing landscaping. Height Exception Request The applicant is proposing a maximum height of 67 feet for the antennas and 74 feet for the monopine, where 55 feet is allowed by the Wireless Ordinance. The extra height is needed because the rear grade of the office park is approximately 19 feet lower than the grade at McClellan Road. According to 19.108.100 of the City's Wireless Ordinance, an exception may be granted by the Commission for an antenna exceeding the maximum height limit where practical difficulties exist. According to the applicant's engineer, given the project's unique topography, the antennas need the extra height to "see" over the tops of the adjacent office buildings to provide phone coverage to the neighborhood to the south. The extra pole height is also needed to allow for a potential collocation by another wireless carrier on the same pole. Staff supports the proposed height exception given the reasons mentioned above and the fact that the City has previously approved similar height requests for similar reasons. Radio Frequengy Ene= Assessment AT&T Mobility commissioned the preparation of a radio frequency energy (RFE) assessment (Attachment 5) to determine the projected radio emission levels and compare them against the federal exposure safety standards (that is, PCS: 1.0 mW/cm2; Cellular: 0.58 mW/cm2). The report concluded that the project is within the federal safety standards for RFE exposure with estimated exposures as follows: Dave Yocke (for AT&T Mobility) U-2010-03, EXC-2010-04 September 14, 2010 Page 5 RF Energy Exposure Context % of Maximum Permissible Exposure Ground level (AT&T facility only) 0.62% Ground level (AT&T & existing Sprint-Nextel) 0.75 % Roof of Building to the west 3.2% 2nd Floor Elevation of nearest residence 0.93 % It should be noted that per Federal law, local agencies are prohibited from regulating such facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of RF emissions if the emissions meet federal safety standards, such as stated above. Alternative Site Analysis Since 2005, AT&T/Cingular has sought to provide better wireless communications coverage to the Monta Vista area with the following outcomes: Site # Site Location Outcome 1 Monta Vista H.S. gymnasium Building -mounted antennas approved by Planning Commission in 2005. Later FUHSD & AT&T declined to proceed with lease due to parent opposition. 2 Lands of Union Pacific Rail Cingular (purchased by AT&T) was interested Roads (UPRR) near Bubb Rd. in a monopine proposal. Appeal of Commission denial was withdrawn because conflict with SCVWD easement made project undevelo able. 3 Results Way frontage parking Initial 2008 AT&T proposal (file no. U-2008-03) lot near McClellan Road rejected by staff because of lack of abutting landscaping and visibility to McClellan Road. 4 Results Way office building Determined to be infeasible by AT&T for lack roof near McClellan Road of adequate building height & accessibility by service personnel. 5 Results Way east side of rear Determined to be infeasible by property parking lot near UPRR owner. Area planned for new underground railroad tracks. utilities (i.e. water, sewer & storm drainage) to serve approved, future development. 6 Results Way west side of rear Project was continued indefinitely by the parking lot near Imperial Planning Commission in 2009 because of Avenue (U-2008-03) disagreement between property owner and applicant. Project was later withdrawn when applicant changed. Site is located in a utility easement. 7 Results Way westerly rear Current proposal parking lot near Imperial Dave Yocke (for AT&T Mobility) U-2010-03, EXC-2010-04 September 14, 2010 Page 6 Avenue The above alternate sites were either reviewed at a public meeting or discussed with staff in the context of project review. They are depicted on a map - see Attachment 6. The applicant has also look at other sites in the area and those are outlined in Attachment 7. Comments from the TICC In accordance with the wireless communications facilities ordinance, the plans and supporting documentation were referred to designated members of the TICC. TICC provided the following comments (Attachment 8): The RF study was properly done and demonstrates that RF exposures are below federal safety standards. (Staff notes: antennas are not proposed at 35 feet. This is a possible collocation opportunity that still must undergo RF energy analysis when a proposal is submitted.) The monopine design provides adequate camouflage for the cell tower. Its location in an office/industrial park will make it even less noticeable and should not adversely impact the neighborhood. The facility will greatly benefit Cupertino residents as this area is known as a major gap in AT&T's wireless coverage of Cupertino. Public Hearing Noticing The project property has not changed, so the public hearing noticing has been mailed to the same property owners within 1,000-foot radius of the project property boundaries. An earlier courtesy notice was emailed on August 24, 2010 to interested parties who provided an email address on the former applications. Staff understands that AT&T has sent additional noticing to its customers in the area. Staff has received nearly forty email messages about this project. The majority of the writers support a new AT&T cell phone tower in the Monta Vista area to improve cell phone coverage (Attachment 9). Tree Removal Four (4) six inch diameter Coastal Redwoods in the westerly landscape strip are proposed for removal as part of the project. The removal of the four redwoods is necessary in order to facilitate the proposed monopole and associated base equipments/enclosure. Staff recommends that the four redwoods be replaced with three (3) new 24-inch box Coastal Redwoods planted in the northwest corner landscape strip. Staff is also recommending that the irrigation system be rehabilitated by the applicant to ensure that the new trees and the existing trees in this area thrive. Dave Yocke (for AT&T Mobility) U-2010-03, EXC-2010-04 September 14, 2010 Page 7 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Prepared by: Colin Jung AICP, Senior Planner Reviewed by City Planner ATTACHMENTS Approved by Aard Shrivastava Community Development Director Attachment 1: Model resolutions for U-2010-03, EXC-2010-04, TR-2010-31 Attachment 2: Existing & Proposed Coverage Maps Attachment 3: Santa Clara County Sheriff's letter dated June 23, 2010 Attachment 4: Photosimulations of treepole (3) Attachment 5: Statement of Hammett & Edison, Inc.: AT&T Mobility, Proposed Base Station (Site No. CN3242A), Results Way, Cupertino, California dated August 20, 2010 Attachment 6: AT&T Facility Alternate Sites Aerial Map Attachment 7: Alternate Site Analysis provided by applicant Attachment 8: Communications from TIC Commissioners Attachment 9: Emails from residents and workers in Cupertino Plan Set G:\ Planning\ PDREPORT\2010ureports\U-2010-03, EXC-2010-04, TR-2010-31.doc Attachment County of Santa Clara Office of the Sheriff 55 \-Vest Younger fvvenue San Jose. California 951 10-1721 (408) 808-4900 Uhiric Smith Sheriff June 23, 2010 Rick Kitson City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Ave. Cupertino, Ca. 95014 Dear Rick, Recently I had been requested to respond to any concerns or needs relating to Public Safety services, and needs that the Sheriff's Office may have for cell phone services in the City of Cupertino. The Sheriff's Office provides the Public Safety services to the city of Cupertino. One of the tools used by the Sheriff's Office is the Mobil Data Terminals in the vehicles, as well as cell phones. The MDTs in the vehicle rely upon cell service in order to have a connection, and keep a connection while on patrol in the city. The deputies also use their cell phones to communicate from time to time. We have noticed that there are several areas within the city limits of Cupertino that we do not have good cell service. When the cell service fails, it causes the MDT in the vehicle to shut down. This creates and service problem for the deputy working in that area, or passing through that area. He/She then has to wait until they are back in an area where there is good cell service before they can use the MDT in the vehicle, or their cell phone to communicate with dispatch. It becomes frustrating to the deputies to continue to lose cell service and continually have to restart their systems. Cupertino's coverage is relatively good, but there are several areas where cell service becomes a problem. The Sheriff's Office would strongly support any additional cell towers that could be placed in the city of Cupertino to improve those areas that lack coverage. This would help assure that deputies remain connected in order to provide service obligations to the city. The additional cell coverage will help to increase officer safety by not losing access to MDTs and cell phones. It would also assist when we have to set up an Incident Command Post to monitor and run an incident. When in an area with little to no cell service, communication for an incident becomes critical and no service puts residents and law enforcement personnel at risk. Sincerely, Captain Terry Calderone West Valley Division Commander 0 I ol w w 13 Ark I,, ul Lo III ip I Attachment AT&T Mobility e Proposed Base Station (Site No. CH3242A) Results Way - Cupertino, California Statement of Hammett & —Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers The firm of Hammett & Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers, has been retained on behalf of AT&T Mobility, a personal wireless telecommunications carrier, to evaluate the base station (Site No. CN3242A) proposed to be located at Results Way in Cupertino, California, for compliance with appropriate guidelines limiting human exposure to radio frequency ("RF") 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 environment. 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 FCC limit for exposures of unlimited duration to radio frequency energy for several personal wireless services are as follows: Wireless Service Frequency Band Occupational Limit Public Limit Microwave (Point -to -Point) 5-80,000 MHz 5.00 mW/cm2 1.00 mW/cm2 BRS (Broadband Radio) 2,600 5.00 1.00 AWS (Advanced Wireless) 2,100 5.00 1.00 PCS (Personal Communication) 1,950 5.00 1.00 Cellular 870 2.90 0.58 SMR (Specialized Mobile Radio) 855 2.85 0.57 700 MHz 700 2.35 0.47 [most restrictive frequency range] 30-300 1.00 0.20 General w acility Requirements Base stations typically consist of two distinct parts: the electronic transceivers (also called "radios" or "channels") that are connected to the traditional wired telephone lines, and the passive antennas that send the wireless signals created by the radios out to be received by individual subscriber units. The transceivers are often located at ground level and are connected to the antennas by coaxial cables. A small antenna for reception of GPS signals is also required, mounted with a clear view of the sky. Because of the short wavelength of the frequencies assigned by the FCC for wireless services, the antennas require line -of -sight paths for their signals to propagate well and so are installed at some height above ground. The antennas 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 maximum permissible exposure limits without being physically very near the antennas. HAMMETT & EDISON, INC. CONISULl'INc FNGJNrr.W4 AT3242596 $AN FRANCISCO Page 1 of 3 AT&T Mobility - Proposed Rase Station (Site No. CN3242A) Results Way * Cupertino, California Computer Modeling Method The FCC provides direction for determining compliance in its Office of Engineering and Technology Bulletin No. 65, "Evaluating Compliance with FCC -Specified Guidelines for Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Radiation," dated August 1997. Figure 2 attached describes the calculation methodologies, reflecting the facts that a directional antenna's radiation pattern is not fully formed at locations very close by (the "near -field" effect) and that at greater distances the power level from an energy source decreases with the square of the distance from it (the "inverse square law"). The conservative nature of this method for evaluating exposure conditions has been verified by numerous field tests. Site and Facility Description Based upon information provided by AT&T, including zoning drawings by Jeffrey Rome & Associates, Inc., dated June 10, 2010, it is proposed to install twelve Kathrein Model 742-264 directional panel antennas on a new 67-foot steel pole, configured to resemble a pine tree, to be sited near the western edge of the parking lot located at Results Way in Cupertino. The antennas would be mounted with up to 4° downtilt at an effective height of about 65 feet above ground and oriented in groups of four toward 200T, 140°T, and 260°T, to provide service in all directions. The maximum effective radiated power in any direction would be 2,580 watts, representing simultaneous operation at 1,485 watts for PCs and 1,095 watts for cellular. Also located on the roof of a building 130 ft to the northwest are similar antennas for use by Sprint Nextel. For the limited purpose of this study, the transmitting facilities of those carriers are assumed to be as follows: Operator Service Maximum ERP Antenna Model Beamtilt Height Sprint Nextel PCs 1,500 watts Andrew RR9017 00 34'/2 ft Study Results For a person anywhere at ground, the maximum ambient RF exposure level due to the proposed AT&T operation by itself is calculated to be 0.0042 mW/cm2, which is 0.62% of the applicable public exposure limit. The maximum calculated cumulative level at ground, for the simultaneous operation of both carriers, is 0.75% of the public exposure limit. The maximum calculated cumulative level on the roof of any nearby building* is 3.2% of the public limit. The maximum calculated cumulative level at the second -floor elevation of any nearby residences is 0.93% of the public exposure limit. It * Located immediately to the west, based the drawings. Located at least 245 feet away, based on aerial photographs from Google Maps. HAMMETT & EDISON, INC. CONsULT1NG ENC 1NE►IRS AT3242596 SAN FRANC ISC.0 Page 2 of 3 AT1 T Mobility - Proposed Base Station (Site No. CN3242A) Results Way - Cupertino, California should be noted that these results include several "worst -case" assumptions and therefore are expected to overstate actual power density levels. No Recommended Mitigation Measures Due to their mounting locations, the AT&T antennas would not be accessible to the general public, and so no mitigation measures are necessary to comply with the FCC public exposure guidelines. It is presumed that AT&T will, as an FCC licensee, take adequate steps to ensure that its employees or contractors comply with FCC occupational exposure guidelines whenever work is required near the antennas themselves. Mitigation measures for the Sprint Nextel facility have not been determined as part of this study. Conclusion Based on the information and analysis above, it is the undersigned's professional opinion that operation of the base station proposed by AT&T Mobility at Results Way in Cupertino, California, will comply with the prevailing standards for limiting public exposure to radio frequency energy and, therefore, will not for this reason cause a significant impact on the environment. The highest calculated level in publicly accessible areas is much. less than the prevailing standards allow for exposures of unlimited duration. This finding is consistent with measurements of actual exposure conditions taken at other operating base stations. Authorship The undersigned author of this statement is a qualified Professional Engineer, holding California Registration No. E-18063, which expires on June 30, 2011. This work has been carried out 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. August 20, 2010 HAMMETT & EDISON, INC. LOiNSUL1"ING ENGINEERS SAN FRANC RX) QRp�ESSbN,� MATyG� w jj No. E-18063 rr a Exp.6-30 2011 ..�._ CTR1SP �"� \ OF 0A1-�4��.% yat Mathur, P.E. 707/996-5200 AT3242596 Page 3 of 3 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 1986 by the Congressionally chartered National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements ("NCRP"). Separate limits apply for occupational and public exposure conditions, with the latter limits generally five times more restrictive. The more recent standard, developed by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers and approved as American National Standard ANSI/IEEE C95.1-2006, "Safety Levels with Respect to Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, 3 kHz to 300 GHz," includes similar limits. 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 Applicable Range (MHz) 0.3 — 1.34 1.34 — 3.0 3.0 — 30 30 — 300 300— 1,500 1,500 — 100,000 i1E 100 10 0.1 Electromagnetic Fields (f is freauencv of emission in MHz Electric Magnetic Equivalent Far -Field Field Strength Field Strength Power Density (V/m) (A/m) (mW/cm2) 614 614 1.63 1.63 100 100 614 823.8/f 1.63 2.19/f 100 180/1 1842/ f 823.8/f 4.89/ f 2.19/f 900/ e 1801/ 61.4 27.5 0.163 0.0729 1.0 0.2 3.541Ff 1.59ff �f/106 'ff/238 f/300 f/1500 137 61.4 0.364 0.163 5.0 1.0 Occupational Exposure PCs FM Cell Public Exposure 0.1 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 & 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. A G`' r, -�/, CONSULTING TT &rE DI80N, INC. FCC Guidelines 4f` %ti SANFRANCISCO Figure 1 RFR.CAL.CTM Calculation Methodology Assessment by Calculation of Compliance with FCC exposure Guidelines 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 maximum permissible exposure limits adopted by the FCC (see Figure 1) 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. 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. Dear Field. Prediction in have been developed for the near field zone of panel (directional) and whip (omnidirectional) antennas, typical at wireless telecommunications base stations, as well as dish (aperture) antennas, typically used for microwave links. The antenna patterns are not fully formed in the near field at these antennas, and the FCC Office of Engineering and Technology Bulletin No. 65 (August 1997) gives suitable formulas for calculating power density within such zones. For a panel or whip antenna, power density S = 180 x 0.1 x Pnet B at x D x h' in mW/cm2, aw and for an aperture antenna, maximum power density Smax = x h2 O.1x16xr�xPnet in mW/cm2, where 0BW = half -power beamwidth of the antenna, in degrees, and Pnet = net power input to the antenna, in watts, D = distance from antenna, in meters, h = aperture height of the antenna, in meters, and il = aperture efficiency (unitless, typically 0.5-0.8). The factor of 0.1 in the numerators converts to the desired units of power density. Far Field. OET-65 gives this formula for calculating power density in the far field of an individual RF source: 2.56 x 1.64 x 100 x RFF2 x ERP power density S = in mW/cm2 4x�txD2 ' where ERP = total ERP (all polarizations), in kilowatts, RFF = relative field factor at the direction to the actual point of calculation, and D = distance from the center of radiation to the point of calculation, in meters. The factor of 2.56 accounts for the increase in power density due to ground reflection, assuming a reflection coefficient of 1.6 (1.6 x 1.6 = 2.56). The factor of 1.64 is the gain of a half -wave dipole relative to an isotropic radiator. The factor of 100 in the numerator converts to the desired units of power density. This formula has been built into a proprietary program that calculates, at each location on an arbitrary rectangular grid, the total expected power density from any number of individual radiation sources. The program also allows for the description of uneven terrain in the vicinity, to obtain more accurate projections. HAMMETT & EDISON, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS Methodology SAN r24NCIsco Figure 2 T&T Faeilit-%7 Alternate Sites Aerial Map BTIMTMTM Alternative Site Analysis Results Way, Cupertino The locating or siting of a wireless telecommunications facility (WTF) is driven by technological concerns and requirements, which include the service area, geographical elevation and the topography of the area, alignment with other sites in the network, and customer demand components. Placement within the urban geography is dependent on these requirements. Moreover, selection of sites for wireless telecommunications facilities is locationally dependent', meaning that the siting of a WTF is driven by the location of existing sites in the network chain. Wireless telecommunications facilities operate at low -power. Due to the low - power signals of wireless facilities, the distance over which the facilities extend is limited to a geographically small area or `cell'. An overlapping patchwork of such cells is needed to provide seamless coverage over a larger geographical area. As the caller moves through cells, one cell relays its signal to the next. Where there is a `gap' in this coverage, a call is either `dropped' (disconnected) or `blocked' (never connected), resulting in a failure of the network. Consequently, the lack of one site can lead to significant gaps in service. There are additional requirements for locating a site. The first is the size of the property and its available space. The size of the available space on the property must be able to accommodate the facility. This includes both the antenna support structure and the associated electronic equipment. The second is having a property owner who is willing to lease space. The Radio Frequency (RF) Engineer for AT&T has specific requirements, which include improving in -building coverage on Highway 85 from Stevens Creek Boulevard to South Stelling Road, in -building coverage on McClellan Road from Byrne Avenue to South Stelling Road and the surrounding schools and colleges. AT&T and Trillium Consulting, Inc. explored the possibility of locating at other sites within and near the search ring. The results of exploring these other sites are described below: 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: Monte Vista High School — School Board rejected proposal due to neighborhood concerns (similar concerns to the proposed location). 21495 McClellan Road, Cupertino —The property owner and AT&T were not interested in lease due to lacy 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. 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. This search ring that has been designated by AT&T consists of a large amount of residential properties, which are tough areas to locate wireless facilities. This being the case, Monte Vista High School was looked at as a potential candidate to locate a facility. The School Board decided that they were not interested in a lease so we had to move on to other alternative locations. Once the residential properties and the high school were ruled out, the next alternative that was looked at was the Results Way property. It is an industrial parcel that could accommodate a wireless facility and would accommodate AT&T's coverage and capacity objectives. After multiple recommendations and comments from both the Planning Commission and the property owner as far as location on the parcel, the proposed location that has been submitted is most ideal for the placement of the proposed facility. Any further to the east would conflict with future development plans by the property. Moving the facility closer to the freeway would also not be feasible for AT&T due to existing coverage in the area (good coverage). CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 (408) 777-3262 To: Planning Commission Colin Jung, Senior Planner From: Avinash Gadre, Commissioner Technology, Information & Communications Commission Date: August 25, 2010 Subject: Comments on Referral of Revised Monta Vista Cell Site Proposal, U-2010-03, EXC- 2010-04 Here are my comments: 1. Radiation exposure: RF study is based on 65 feet height of the antenna from ground however, lowest level of antennas (set of 4) is about 35 feet. Exposure may still remain within FCC limits but I guess numbers need to be re -worked based on lowest level antennas 2. Esthetics: Esthetically treepoie wont be noticeable as cell tower to general public. 3. Benefits to Cupertino Residents: This cell tower will definitely benefit Cupertino residents since currently AT&T has poor coverage at and around this location. CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 (408) 777-3262 To: Planning Commission Colin Jung, Senior Planner From: Peter Friedland, Vice -Chair Technology, Information & Communications Commission Date: August 24, 2010 Subject: Comments on Referral of Revised Monta Vista Cell Site Proposal, U-2010-03, EXC- 2010-04 My comments: 1. Radiation exposure: the RF study seems properly done and shows that maximum possible exposure at both ground and nearby roof level is far less than the federal maximums. 2. Esthetics: while it will be a large treepole, I believe the location within a commercial area provides adequate camouflage and should not adversely impact the neighborhood. 3. Other: Given the importance of AT&T coverage to the city of Cupertino and the major gap in the area centered on Bubb Road and McClellan, I strongly support the 12- antenna concept. It would be useful to see their projected coverage which was included with the prior application but I could not find in this one.